Cover not available
Article published In:
Moving towards Peace, Compassion and Empathy through Semiotic Enquiry: Special issue of the Journal Language, Context and Text 6:1 (2024)
Edited by Elizabeth A. Thomson, Awni Etaywe, Ingrid Wijeyewardene and Penny Wheeler
[Language, Context and Text 6:1] 2024
► pp. 27–59
peace

Constructing resistance in the quest for social justice

A study of a fracturing in Thai hegemony

ORCID logo | University of New England, Australia
This study adopts the concept of “positive peace” and draws on critical discourse studies to investigate the texts of two Thai activists responding to the 2006 coup d’état and subsequent events in Thailand. The study analyses the texts from a systemic functional linguistic (SFL) perspective to show how the first text challenges the legitimacy of the coup, and how the second text reflects a widening of the cracks then appearing in Thai royalist hegemony. In particular, the study compares the construal of one social actor in the first text published in 2007 with that in the speech of the second activist three years later, highlighting how the meaning of a key word evolved from one of oppression to one of pride.
Keywords: peace activism, resistance, Thai coup, systemic functional linguistics, positive discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Context and data
    • 3.1Thai socio-political context, 2006–2010
  • 4.Pitch
    • 4.1 Phrai – subject, commoner, peasant
    • 4.2The challenge
    • 4.3 engagement
    • 4.4 agency
  • 5.Natthawut
    • 5.1 Phrai-Ammart – commoner-aristocrat
    • 5.2Phasing
    • 5.3 engagement
    • 5.4 agency
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00064.wij
References (46)
References
Bartlett, Tom. 2012. Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Positive discourse analysis. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson, The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 133–147. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James. 2013. Translating Thailand’s protests: An analysis of Red Shirt rhetoric. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies 6(1). 60–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connors, James. 2016. Peace studies glossary. Global Campaign for Peace Education. [URL] (1 September, 2022.)
Connors, Michael K. & Kevin Hewison. 2008. Introduction: Thailand and the “good coup”. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1). 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahroong Srikhao. 2554[2011]. สุภาพบุรุษไพร่ ณัฐวุฒิ ใสเกื้อ [Gentleman Phrai Natthawut Saikua]. Bangkok: Matichon.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico. 2020. Understanding Thailand’s domestic political conflict: Democracy, social identity, and the “struggle for recognition”. In Pavin Chachavalpongpun (ed.), Coup, king, crisis: A critical interregnum in Thailand (Monograph 68), 31–55. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Patricia. 2007. English for peace: Toward a framework of Peace Sociolinguistics. World Englishes 26(1). 72–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galtung, Johan. 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3). 167–191. [URL]. DOI logo
Glassman, Jim. 2011. Cracking hegemony in Thailand: Gramsci, Bourdieu and the dialectics of rebellion. Journal of Contemporary Asia 41(1). 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michael & Karen Malcolm. 1981. Generic situation and discourse phase. [Mimeo]. Applied Linguistics Research Working Group, Glendon College of York University. Toronto.Google Scholar
Haberkorn, Tyrell. 2010. Thailand’s political transformation. CETRI. [URL] (27 July, 2023)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Systemic background. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, vol. 11, 1–15. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. Linguistics, language, and verbal art. Burwood, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Hewison, Kevin. 2013. Weber, Marx and contemporary Thailand. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia 11. 177–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Entrenching authoritarianism in Thailand. East Asia Forum. [URL] (30 July, 2023.)
Hewison, Kevin & Kengkij Kitirianglarp. 2010. “Thai-style democracy”: The royalist struggle for Thailand’s politics. In Søren Ivarsson & Lotte Isager (eds.), Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand, 179–202. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Hughes, Jessica M. F. 2018. Progressing positive discourse analysis and/in critical discourse studies: Reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis. Review of Communication 181. 193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keyes, Charles. 2014. Finding their voice: Northeastern villagers and the Thai state. Chiangmai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Khorapin Phuaphansawat. 2017. “My eyes are open but my lips are whispering”: Linguistic and symbolic forms of resistance in Thailand during 2006–2016. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
. 2018. Anti-royalism in Thailand since 2006: Ideological shifts and resistance. Journal of Contemporary Asia 48(3). 363–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The anti-royalist possibility: Thailand’s 2020 student movement. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. [URL] (19 January, 2023)
Kress, Gunther. 2000. Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, 153–161. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Joseph. 2021. Pragmatic nonviolence and positive peace. In Katrina Standish, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace, 3–24. Singapore: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, Karen. 2005. What communication linguistics has to offer genre and register research. Folia Linguistica XXXIX/1–21. 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2004. Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 491. 179–202.Google Scholar
2007. Comment. World Englishes 26(1). 84–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012[2000]. Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In J. R. Martin, CDA/PDA, volume 6 in the collected works of J.R. Martin, 158–184. Edited by Wang Zhenhua. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2012. Systemic functional linguistics and appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches. DELTA. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 28(Especial). 435–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasuk Phongpaichit & Chris Baker. 2008. Thaksin’s populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1). 62–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patpong, Pattama. 2006. A systemic functional interpretation of Thai grammar: An exploration of Thai narrative discourse. PhD dissertation. Macquarie University, Australia.
Phrai. 2554[2011]. พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน [ Royal Institute Dictionary ]. [URL] (26 July, 2023)
Pitch Pongsawat. 2550[2007]. การรัฐประหาร 19 กันยา 2549 คือการทำให้พลเมืองกลายเป็นไพร่ [The coup of 19 September 2549 turned citizens into subjects]. ฟ้าเดียวกัน [Same Sky], Special Edition. 58–88.Google Scholar
Standish, Katrina, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty. 2021. Defining the platform of positive peace. In Katrina Standish, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace, 3–24. Singapore: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streckfuss, David. 2011. Truth on trial in Thailand: Defamation, treason, and lèse majesté. Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thongchai Winichakul. 2008. Toppling democracy. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1). 11–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Andrew. 2008. The rural constitution and the everyday politics of elections in Northern Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1). 84–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijeyewardene, Ingrid. 2017. Rhetorical and represented agency in Thai political science texts on the 2006 coup d’état. PhD dissertation. University of New England, Australia.
. 2019. Examining agency in Thai argumentative political science texts. In Kumaran Rajandran & Shakila Abdul Manan (eds.), Discourses of Southeast Asia: A social semiotic perspective, 45–67. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer. 2009. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd edition), 1–33. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar