Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 7:2 (2020) ► pp.215–240

Different cultural conceptualizations underlying intercultural business communication problems between Thais and Koreans

| Rangsit University
When people from different cultural backgrounds interact, their divergent conceptualizations may result in communication problems. While the significance of intercultural business interactions between Thais and South Koreans has increased with the development of trade relations between their countries, few attempts have been made to research interactional problems in this context. This study investigates the respective Thai and Korean cultural conceptualizations that underlie communication problems between them in the context of Korean multinational companies operating in Thailand. By analyzing data derived from in-depth interviews, this article elucidates the linguistic features of Thai and Korean speakers in relation to four different culture-specific conceptualizations: for Thais, the cultural schema of kreng jai and the cultural category of phinong; and for Koreans, the cultural schemas of ppalli ppalli and gunsinyuei. The findings show that these cultural conceptualizations govern Thais’ and Koreans’ different ways of interacting, and the paper discusses how these differences lead to and shape misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts between these cultural counterparts during intercultural business communications.
Keywords: cultural conceptualizations, cultural linguistics, intercultural communication, business discourse, Thai as a second language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Approaches to intercultural communication
    • 2.2Cultural linguistics and intercultural communication
    • 2.3Analytical framework of cultural linguistics
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Thai cultural schema of kreng jai
    • 4.2Thai cultural category of phinong
    • 4.3The Korean cultural schema of ppalli ppalli
    • 4.4The Korean cultural schema of gunsinyuei
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.18016.hyu
References (54)
References
Ahn, H. (2017). Seoul uncle: Cultural conceptualisations behind the use of address terms in Korean. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 411–432). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. and Phongpaichit, P. (2005). A history of Thailand. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, L. (2001). Sociolinguistic aspects of Thai politeness (Ph.D. Thesis). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Brew, F. P. and Cairns, D. R. (2004). Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflict? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 331–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean request: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics 36(36), 1673–1704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaidaroon, S. S. (2003). When shyness is Not incompetence: A case of Thai communication competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 294–307.Google Scholar
Chakorn, O-O. (2006). Persuasive and politeness strategies in cross-cultural letters of request in the Thai business context. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(1), 103–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, G-M. and Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucian on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooker, J. (2012). Cultural differences in business communication. In Christina Bratt Paulston, Scott F. Kiesling, and Elizabeth S. Rangel (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication (pp.389–407). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, S. (1991). Terms of address in Korean and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 1(2), 117–136.Google Scholar
Hyun, K. J. (2001). Sociocultural change and traditional values: Confucian values among Koreans and Korean Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 203–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyun, Y. W. (2017). Preserving harmony first, then conveying information: Asian ways of interpreting as maintaining rapport at a Korean trans-national corporation in Thailand. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 20(3), 61–84: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Intachakra, S. (2012). Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 619–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, Y. (2009). Korea. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.), Handbook of business discourse (pp. 356–386). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Y. and Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2012). Korean employees are direct: (Im)politeness and rapport in international professional encounters. Dispute Resolution Studies Review, 10(2), 179–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, J. W. (2011). Political uses of Confucianism in North Korea. The Journal of Korean Studies, 16(1), 63–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katejulasriroj, P. (2011). “Face” conflict and conflict resolution in Thai-Japanese MNCs in Thailand (Ph.D. Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Khanittanan, W. (1988). Some observation on expressing politeness in Thai. Language Science, 10(2), 353–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, A. H-O. (2011). Politeness in Korea. In Kádár, Dániel Z., and Mills, S. (Eds.), Politeness in East Asia (pp. 176–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. and Hong, S. (1997). Accounting for rapid economic growth in Korea, 1963–1995. Seoul: Korea Development Institute.Google Scholar
Kim, M-Y. (2014). Why self-deprecating? Achieving ‘oneness’ in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 691, 82–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, W. (2016). Between autonomy and productivity: The everyday lives of Korean women workers during the Park Jung-hee era. In Ludtke, A. (Ed.) Everyday life in mass dictatorship: Collusion and evasion (pp. 202–217). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koh, Y. (2003). Neo-Confucianism as the dominant ideology in Joseon. Korea Journal, 43(3), 59–86.Google Scholar
Komin, S. (1990). Culture and work-related values in Thai organizations. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3–6), 681–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency. (2016). Nation’s information. Thailand, Retrieved on 20 September 2018 from [URL]
Lee, S., Brett, J. and Park, H. (2012). East Asians’ social heterogeneity: Differences in norms among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean negotiators. Negotiation Journal, 28(4), 429–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Korean. (2014). The romanization of Korean, Retrieved on 1 July 2019 from [URL]
Office of the Royal Society. (1999). The principle of romanization of Thai. Retrieved on 1 July 2019 from [URL]
Punturaumporn, B. (2001). The Thai style of negotiation: Kreng jai, Bhunkhun, and other socio-cultural keys to business negotiation in Thailand. (Ph.D. Thesis). University of Ohio.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. (2015). South Korea’s geo-economic engagement in the Middle East: Obstacles and opportunities. East Asia, 32(3), 309–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2010). Cultural conceptualisations in intercultural communication: A study of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 3367–3376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Cultural Linguistics and linguistic relativity. Language Science, 591, 83–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Cultural Linguistics: The state of art. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 1–28). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017c). Cultural Linguistics: Cognitive linguistics studies in cultural contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017d). Cultural Linguistics. Ethnolinguistic, 281, 33–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of shamandegi ‘being ashamed’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H-M. (1986). Linguistic expeditions. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 529–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N. and Jablin, F. M. (1999). An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organization. The Journal of Business Communication, 36(4), 382–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sriussadaporn, R. (2006). Managing international business communication problems at work: A pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 330–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sriwattananont, S. (2004). Kanseusan rawang watthanatham nai kan thamngan kong phanakngan chaothai lae chaotawantok (Intercultural communication between Thai employee and Western employee at workplace (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Stowell, J. A. (2003). The influence of Confucian values on interpersonal communication in South Korea, as compared to China and Japan. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 105–114.Google Scholar
Ukosakul, M. (2003). Conceptual metaphors motivating the use of Thai ‘face’. In Casad, E. H. and Palmer, G. B. (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics and Non-Indo-European languages (pp. 275–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vongvipanon, P. (1994). Linguistic Perspective of Thai Culture. Paper presented at the Workshop of Teachers of Social Science, University of New Orleans.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H. (2015). Language and culture in intercultural communication. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 445–459). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wongwarangkul, C. (2000). Analysis of the nature of interlanguage pragmatics in choice making for requesting strategies by Thai EFL (Ph.D. Thesis). Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Wongwittayakamjon, N. (2011). The organizational communication and job satisfaction of Thai employees in Korean transnational companies in Bangkok (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Woo, J-H. (2007). Samgaongoryuni hyeondaejeok jomyeong (Contemporary aspects of Samgangoryun). Daejeon: Ehwa.Google Scholar
Yaoharee, O. (2013). Power and politeness in intercultural workplace communication: Some implications for teaching English as a second language in Thailand (Ph.D. Thesis). University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Yang, Key P. and Henderson, G. (1958). An outline history of Korean Confucianism: Part I: The early period and Yi factionalism. The Journal of Asian Studies, 18(1), 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, K-A. (2004). Explicitness for requests is a politer strategy than implicitness in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 11(1), 137–163.Google Scholar
(2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 385–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yum, J-O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 551, 374–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar