Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 and the cultural category of ; and for Koreans, the cultural schemas of and . 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_19 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, C. and Phongpaichit, P.
    (2005) A history of Thailand. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, L.
    (2001) Sociolinguistic aspects of Thai politeness (Ph.D. Thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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:  10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Byon, A. S.
    (2004) Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean request: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics36(36), 1673–1704. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaidaroon, S. S.
    (2003) When shyness is Not incompetence: A case of Thai communication competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 294–307.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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:  10.1075/japc.16.1.06cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.16.1.06cha [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, G-M. and Chung, J.
    (1994) The impact of Confucian on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93–105. doi: 10.1080/0146337940939919
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0146337940939919 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. 10.1002/9781118247273.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118247273.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hwang, S.
    (1991) Terms of address in Korean and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 1(2), 117–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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:  10.1016/S0147‑1767(01)00009‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00009-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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:  10.1163/26659077‑02003004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-02003004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Intachakra, S.
    (2012) Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 619–635. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jung, Y.
    (2009) Korea. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.), Handbook of business discourse (pp.356–386). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 10.16958/drsr.2012.10.2.179
    https://doi.org/10.16958/drsr.2012.10.2.179 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kang, J. W.
    (2011) Political uses of Confucianism in North Korea. The Journal of Korean Studies, 16(1), 63–87. doi:  10.1353/jks.2011.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/jks.2011.0000 [Google Scholar]
  17. Katejulasriroj, P.
    (2011) “Face” conflict and conflict resolution in Thai-Japanese MNCs in Thailand (Ph.D. Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Khanittanan, W.
    (1988) Some observation on expressing politeness in Thai. Language Science, 10(2), 353–362. doi:  10.1016/0388‑0001(88)90021‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(88)90021-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.1017/CBO9780511977886.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977886.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, K. and Hong, S.
    (1997) Accounting for rapid economic growth in Korea, 1963–1995. Seoul: Korea Development Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim, M-Y.
    (2014) Why self-deprecating? Achieving ‘oneness’ in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 82–98. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Koh, Y.
    (2003) Neo-Confucianism as the dominant ideology in Joseon. Korea Journal, 43(3), 59–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Komin, S.
    (1990) Culture and work-related values in Thai organizations. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3–6), 681–704. doi:  10.1080/00207599008247921
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599008247921 [Google Scholar]
  25. Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency
    Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (2016) Nation’s information. Thailand, Retrieved on20 September 2018 from https://news.kotra.or.kr/user/nationInfo/kotranews/14/userNationBasicView.do?nationIdx=62
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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:  10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2012.00350.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00350.x [Google Scholar]
  27. National Institute of Korean
    National Institute of Korean (2014) The romanization of Korean, Retrieved on1 July 2019 from https://www.korean.go.kr/front/etcData/etcDataView.do?mn_id=208&etc_seq=582
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Office of the Royal Society
    Office of the Royal Society (1999) The principle of romanization of Thai. Retrieved on1 July 2019fromwww.royin.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/416_2157.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Sharma, S.
    (2015) South Korea’s geo-economic engagement in the Middle East: Obstacles and opportunities. East Asia, 32(3), 309–322. doi:  10.1007/s12140‑015‑9239‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-015-9239-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sharifian, F.
    (2010) Cultural conceptualisations in intercultural communication: A study of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3367–3376. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017a) Cultural Linguistics and linguistic relativity. Language Science, 59, 83–92. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2016.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2017b) Cultural Linguistics: The state of art. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp.1–28). Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017c) Cultural Linguistics: Cognitive linguistics studies in cultural contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2017d) Cultural Linguistics. Ethnolinguistic, 28, 33–61. doi:  10.17951/et.2016.28.31
    https://doi.org/10.17951/et.2016.28.31 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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:  10.1515/iprg.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sohn, H-M.
    (1986) Linguistic expeditions. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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, 34, 529–545. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  39. 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:  10.1177/002194369903600404
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369903600404 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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:  10.1108/13527600610713422
    https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600610713422 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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. 10.1515/9783110197150.7.275
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197150.7.275 [Google Scholar]
  44. Vongvipanon, P.
    (1994) Linguistic Perspective of Thai Culture. Paper presented at theWorkshop of Teachers of Social Science, University of New Orleans.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1991) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. Woo, J-H.
    (2007) Samgaongoryuni hyeondaejeok jomyeong (Contemporary aspects of Samgangoryun). Daejeon: Ehwa.
  50. 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]
  51. 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:  10.2307/2941288
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2941288 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yu, K-A.
    (2004) Explicitness for requests is a politer strategy than implicitness in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 11(1), 137–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2011) Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 385–409. doi:  10.1515/iprg.2011.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.018 [Google Scholar]
  54. Yum, J-O.
    (1988) The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388. doi:  10.1080/03637758809376178
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376178 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error