451
Introduction
In Thailand, the use of effective English by the tourism personnel could enhance the success
of the tourism industry. Indeed, many Thai tour guides have different levels of English proficiency, from
the lowest to the highest level. The majority of them fairly use broken English while a minority has
English proficiency ranging from “moderate” to “good”. Though they have a variety of linguistic
competence in English, they share some characteristics of Thai identity such as speaking in Thai
accents and mixing Thai words. Meanwhile, a few may convey their near native English proficiency. The
group with the moderate proficiency level interests this study. Similar to other Thai users of English,
tour guides possess good, average, and poor English competence. The last two groups of Thai guides
can be easily found around the country. However, the poor English users show provide an in-depth
Thai influence or the so-called ‘Tinglish’ compared to the ones with moderate competence in English.
Such a notion requires deeper linguistic analysis. This study thus points toward Thai guides whose oral
English is quite correct but is modestly influenced by Thai linguistic and cultural elements.
The term ‘Thai English’ has been misunderstood as a broken English form used by Thais.
When speaking or writing, Thais often use Standard British/American English as norms and models.
Further, Thailand is not a commonwealth country and its English development during the colonization
is missing, so any Thai speaking incorrect English with Thai identity is deemed unacceptable, resulting in
the marginalization of the term ‘Thai English’ as only ‘Tinglish’ (Bennui & Hashim, 2014a). Indeed, such
a form is another level of English and not the overall representation of English in the country. Hence,
there should be Thai people who use good English. This supports Rattanapreuk (1984) and
Prasithrathsint (1999)’ views on Standard Thai English by acceptable users. If so, the notion of Thai
English should fall into three levels of lectal varieties of New Englishes – acrolect (the highest level),
mesolect (the middle level), and basilect (the lowest level) – in relation to the
1PTU $SFPMFǰ$POUJOVVN
proposed by Platt et al (1984). This assumption goes beyond what many Thais expect as English in
Thailand is not considered as a second language as it is in her neighboring countries – Malaysia,
Singapore, and the Philippines in which local varieties of English are acceptably divided into the three
levels in relation to the sociolinguistic backgrounds of the users. Although ‘Thai English’ has not been
recognized, it is challenging for this study to prove this emerging variety among a number of Thai
speakers, specifically tour guides, whose English competence fits into the mesolectal variety.
There has been no existing studies on the Thai English of Thai tour guide. Some studies
focused more on functional language communication and language proficiency of Thai guides,
especially in Bangkok and in the North (Phonsrisai; 2007; Banjoungmanee, 2011; Yamo, 2011). No
studies on local guides in Southern Thailand are found. Interestingly, there are two relevant studies on
Thai-English code-switching by Seeha-Umpai (1987) and Pidgin English by Nacpud (2000). All these are
gaps that indicate a need to study the use of Thai English of tour guides in three provinces in Andaman
Sea, namely Phuket, Krabi, and Pang-nga.
This study aims to analyse and describe the linguistic features of the mesolectal variety of
Thai English used by tour guides along the Andaman Sea as well as to present their views toward this
variety. This analysis lies in an integrated framework based on Kachru’s (1983) World Englishes
paradigms –
$POUFYUVBMJ[BUJPO ǰ -FYJDBMǰ *OOPWBUJPOǰ BOEǰ $PEF .JYJOH
in terms of the phonological,
lexical, grammatical, and stylistic features of Englishes in the Expanding Circle country - and Kachru’s
(1985; 2005)
$PODFOUSJDǰ $JSDMFTǰ PGǰ &OHMJTI
on the implication for a non-native variety of English, and
Platt et al.’s (1984)
-FDUBMǰ 7BSJFUJFTǰ PGǰ /FXǰ &OHMJTIFT
, regarding the linguistic characteristics of the
