Unveiling Criticism: Analyzing Criticism Strategies in Thai Election Campaign Speeches
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the use of criticism strategies by Thai politicians, the Move Forward Party (MFP) and the Phalang Pracharat Party (PPRP), in their campaign speeches. It also aims to find out whether these strategies are used differently by the two parties and how these differences reflect their political agendas. A qualitative and quantitative approach were adopted to analyze eleven videos of political campaign speeches for the 2023 Thailand general election. The results revealed that both parties employed more direct criticisms than indirect ones. Indirect speech is generally associated with politeness (Huang, 2007); however, the need for politeness toward political opponents seems unnecessary in the political context. Identification of Problem, Negative Evaluation, and Disapproval are the dominant direct criticism strategies. Among all indirect criticism strategies, they preferred Sarcasm and Asking. Moreover, the two parties employed five types of criticism differently, including Negative Evaluation, Consequences, Disapproval, Identification of Problem, and Sarcasm. The statistical analysis also revealed a significant association between the two parties and these strategies. PPRP members used Disapproval strategy more often to show the explicit contrasts in their cultural norms and beliefs with the MFPs. MFP members employed the remaining strategies more frequently to highlight issues within governmental institutions, aim at reforming institutions, and identify and evaluate their political opponents’ administrative incompetence.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Al Kayed, M., & Al-Ghoweri, H. (2019). A socio-pragmatic study of speech act of criticism in Jordanian Arabic. European Journal of Scientific Research, 135(1), 105–117.
Alshakhanbeh, S., & Alghazo, S. (2022). A pragmatic analysis of criticism strategies against government policies on social media in Jordan: A gender-based investigation. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature, 14(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.14.2.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.14.2.3
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. https://silverbronzo.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/austin-how-to-do-things-with-words-1962.pdf
Baby, S., Afzal, U., & Basharat, Z. (2020). Pragmatic analysis of Joe Biden’s victory speech 2020. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(8), 1148–1158.
Breuer, I., & Napthine, M. (2008). Persuasive language in media texts. Insight Publications.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511813085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 23(2), 155–185. https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2010-2-page-155?lang=en
Chalupnik, M. (2011). Realisation of requests and criticisms in Polish and British English. Working with English: Medieval and Modern Language, Literature and Drama, 7, 33–45.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Ercanbrack, J., & Wichitwechkarn, J. (1993). Criticism in English and Thai: A pragmatic analysis [Occasional Paper No. 1993-22]. University of Hawaii at Manoa. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0ea592a1-68b9-43a1-8dc1-9eadef70c5aa/content
Gadavanij, S. (2002). Discursive strategies for political survival: A critical discourse analysis of Thai no-confidence debates [Doctoral thesis, University of Leeds]. White Rose eTheses Online. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/803/
Galston, W. (2022, September 12). What is national conservatism? Persuasion. https://www.persuasion.community/p/what-is-national-conservatism
Hernandez-Farias, D. I., Patti,V., & Rosso, P. (2016). Irony and sarcasm detection in Twitter: The role of affective content. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 16(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930663 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2930663
House, J. (2018). Authentic vs elicited data and qualitative vs quantitative research methods in pragmatics: Overcoming two non-fruitful dichotomies. System, 75, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Igaab, Z. K., & Wehail, M. J. (2023). The study of sarcasm in political discourse. Kufa Journal of Arts, 1(57), 580–614.
https://doi.org/10.36317/kaj/2023/v1.i57.11935 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36317/kaj/2023/v1.i57.11935
Kapoor, K. (2023, March 15). Preliminary results of Thailand’s election. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/preliminary-results-thailands-election-2023-05-14/
Khalid, B. G., & Amin, N. M. (2019). A speech act analysis of political speeches on Yazidi massacre. ZANCO Journal of Humanity Sciences, 23(4), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.21271/zjhs.23.4.18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21271/zjhs.23.4.18
Mufiah, N. S., & Rahman, M. Y. N. (2019). Speech acts analysis of Donald Trump’s speech. Professional Journal of English Education, 1(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i2.p125-132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i2.p125-132
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticism in a foreign language: A study of Vietnamese learners of English [Doctoral thesis, University of Auckland]. ResearchSpace@Auckland. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/36
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip.2008.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.003
Nukulwatanavichai, L. (2017). การตลาดทางการเมือง:ศึกษาเปรียบเทียบกลยุทธ์การรณรงค์หาเสียงเลือกตั้งของพรรคประชาธิปัตย์และพรรคเพื่อไทยในการเลือกตั้งผู้ว่าราชการกรุุงเทพมหานคร พ.ศ. 2556 [Political marketing: A comparative study of the Democrat and the Pheu Thai Party’s campaign strategies in the 2013 Bangkok Governor Election]. Kasetsart University Political Science Review Journal (KUPSRJ), 4(2), 122–144.
Nusartlert, A. (2017). Political language in Thai and English: Findings and implications for society. Journal of Mekong Societies, 13(3), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.14456/jms.2017.25
Panpothong, N., & Phakdeephasook, S. (2022). “I am well-loved by the voters”: Self-praise in Thai political discourse and two emic concepts of Thai (im)politeness. In C. Xie & Y. Tong (Eds.), Self-praise across culture and contexts (pp. 351¬–378). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99217-0_15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99217-0_15
Phanthaphoommee, N., & Munday, J. (2024). Pronoun shifts in political discourse: The English translations of the Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s statements on the international stage. Babel, 70(6), 825–851. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00388.pha DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00388.pha
Pearson, E. (1984). Agreement and disagreement in conversational discourse and ESL/EFL materials [Occasional Paper No. 1984-03]. University of Hawaii at Manoa. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/38615/1/Pearson%20%281984%29_WP3%281%29.pdf
Rahmadani, N., & Agustina. (2020). The criticizing strategies by the National Campaign Team (TKN) and the National Winning Agency (BPN) in the 2019 presidential election debate. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Languages and Arts (ICLA-2019), 8, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200819.056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200819.056
Saldana, J. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 581–605). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001
Sameer, I. H. (2017). The analysis of speech acts patterns in two Egyptian inaugural speeches. Studies in English Language and Education, 4(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v4i2.7271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v4i2.7271
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Septiana, A., & Haristiani, N. (2021). The use of politeness strategy in criticizing speech acts in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2021), 5, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211119.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211119.013
Somlok, A., & Jeawkok, J. (2020). กลยุทธ์การจูงใจและวาทกรรมของป้ายโฆษณาหาเสียงเลือกตั้งปีี 2562 ในจังหวัดปัตตานี [Motivation strategies and discourse in 2019 election campaign billboards in Pattani province]. Journal of Communication Arts Review, 24(2), 166–180.
Tang, C. (2016). Managing criticisms in US-based and Taiwan-based reality talent contests: A cross-linguistic comparison. Pragmatics, 26(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.1.06tan DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.1.06tan
Thabthan, S. (2022). ปรากฏการณ์การสื่อสารทางการเมือง: แง่มุุมการศึกษา การตลาด และภาษา [Political Communication phenomenon: Aspects of political education, political marketing and language]. Journal of Industrial Education, 21(2), 1–13.
Tracy, K., Van Dusen, D., & Robinson, S. (1987). “Good” and “bad” criticism: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Communication, 37(2), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00982.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00982.x
Yusiska, T., & Agustina, A. (2023). The strategy of criticism in the presidential candidate debate and vice president of election 2019 (Speaking action study). AIP Conference Proceedings, 2805(1), Article 040022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0167293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0167293
