Constructing resistance in the quest for social justice

References

1. Bartlett, Tom
   2012 Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203109373
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109373 [Google Scholar]
2. Bartlett, Tom
   2018 Positive discourse analysis. InJohn Flowerdew & John E. Richardson, The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 133–147. London & New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Buchanan, James
   2013 Translating Thailand’s protests: An analysis of Red Shirt rhetoric. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies6(1). 60–80. 10.4232/10.ASEAS‑6.1‑4
   https://doi.org/10.4232/10.ASEAS-6.1-4 [Google Scholar]
4. Connors, James
   2016 Peace studies glossary. Global Campaign for Peace Education. https://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/peace-studies-glossary/ (1 September, 2022.)
   [Google Scholar]
5. Connors, Michael K. & Kevin Hewison
   2008 Introduction: Thailand and the “good coup”. Journal of Contemporary Asia38(1). 1–10. 10.1080/00472330701651929
   https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651929 [Google Scholar]
6. Fahroong Srikhao
   2554[2011] สุภาพบุรุษไพร่ ณัฐวุฒิ ใสเกื้อ [Gentleman Phrai Natthawut Saikua]. Bangkok: Matichon.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Ferrara, Federico
   2020 Understanding Thailand’s domestic political conflict: Democracy, social identity, and the “struggle for recognition”. InPavin Chachavalpongpun (ed.), Coup, king, crisis: A critical interregnum in Thailand (Monograph 68), 31–55. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Friedrich, Patricia
   2007 English for peace: Toward a framework of Peace Sociolinguistics. World Englishes26(1). 72–83. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00489.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00489.x [Google Scholar]
9. Galtung, Johan
   1969 Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research6(3). 167–191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/422690. 10.1177/002234336900600301
   https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301 [Google Scholar]
10. Glassman, Jim
    2011 Cracking hegemony in Thailand: Gramsci, Bourdieu and the dialectics of rebellion. Journal of Contemporary Asia41(1). 25–46. 10.1080/00472336.2011.530035
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2011.530035 [Google Scholar]
11. Gregory, Michael & Karen Malcolm
    1981 Generic situation and discourse phase. [Mimeo]. Applied Linguistics Research Working Group, Glendon College of York University. Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Haberkorn, Tyrell
    2010 Thailand’s political transformation. CETRI. www.cetri.be/Thailand-s-political?lang=fr (27 July, 2023)
    [Google Scholar]
13. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1985 Systemic background. InJames D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, vol.11, 1–15. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014 Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
15. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1985 Linguistics, language, and verbal art. Burwood, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hewison, Kevin
    2013 Weber, Marx and contemporary Thailand. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and National Studies of Southeast Asia11. 177–198. 10.1017/trn.2013.2
    https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2013.2 [Google Scholar]
17. Hewison, Kevin
    2021 Entrenching authoritarianism in Thailand. East Asia Forum. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/12/24/entrenching-authoritarianism-in-thailand/ (30 July, 2023.)
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hewison, Kevin & Kengkij Kitirianglarp
    2010 “Thai-style democracy”: The royalist struggle for Thailand’s politics. InSøren Ivarsson & Lotte Isager (eds.), Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand, 179–202. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hughes, Jessica M. F.
    2018 Progressing positive discourse analysis and/in critical discourse studies: Reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis. Review of Communication181. 193–211. 10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880 [Google Scholar]
20. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom
    2005 A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Keyes, Charles
    2014 Finding their voice: Northeastern villagers and the Thai state. Chiangmai: Silkworm Books.
    [Google Scholar]
22. 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.
23. Khorapin Phuaphansawat
    2018 Anti-royalism in Thailand since 2006: Ideological shifts and resistance. Journal of Contemporary Asia48(3). 363–394. 10.1080/00472336.2018.1427021
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2018.1427021 [Google Scholar]
24. Khorapin Phuaphansawat
    2020 The anti-royalist possibility: Thailand’s 2020 student movement. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/media/commentaries/the-anti-royalist-possibility-thailands-2020-student-movement/ (19 January, 2023)
    [Google Scholar]
25. Kress, Gunther
    2000 Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. InBill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, 153–161. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Llewellyn, Joseph
    2021 Pragmatic nonviolence and positive peace. InKatrina Standish, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace, 3–24. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑3877‑3_12‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3877-3_12-1 [Google Scholar]
27. Malcolm, Karen
    2005 What communication linguistics has to offer genre and register research. Folia LinguisticaXXXIX/1–21. 57–74. 10.1515/flin.2005.39.1‑2.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.57 [Google Scholar]
28. Martin, J. R.
    2004 Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses491. 179–202.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Martin, J. R.
    2007 Comment. World Englishes26(1). 84–86. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00491.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00491.x [Google Scholar]
30. Martin, J. R.
    2012[2000] Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. InJ. R. Martin, CDA/PDA, volume 6 in the collected works of J.R. Martin, 158–184. Edited byWang Zhenhua. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Martin, J. R. & David Rose
    2007 Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Martin, J. R. & David Rose
    2008 Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Martin, J. R. & Peter White
    2005 The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
34. 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 Aplicada28(Especial). 435–471. 10.1590/S0102‑44502012000300002
    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502012000300002 [Google Scholar]
35. Pasuk Phongpaichit & Chris Baker
    2008 Thaksin’s populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia38(1). 62–83. 10.1080/00472330701651960
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651960 [Google Scholar]
36. Patpong, Pattama
    2006 A systemic functional interpretation of Thai grammar: An exploration of Thai narrative discourse. PhD dissertation. Macquarie University, Australia.
37. Phrai
    Phrai 2554[2011] พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน [Royal Institute Dictionary]. https://dict.longdo.com/search/ไพร่ (26 July, 2023)
38. Pitch Pongsawat
    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]
39. Standish, Katrina, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty
    2021 Defining the platform of positive peace. InKatrina Standish, Heather Devere, Adan E. Suazo & Rachel Rafferty (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace, 3–24. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑3877‑3_1‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3877-3_1-1 [Google Scholar]
40. Streckfuss, David
    2011 Truth on trial in Thailand: Defamation, treason, and lèse majesté. Abington: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Thongchai Winichakul
    2008 Toppling democracy. Journal of Contemporary Asia38(1). 11–37. 10.1080/00472330701651937
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651937 [Google Scholar]
42. van Leeuwen, Theo
    2008 Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
43. Walker, Andrew
    2008 The rural constitution and the everyday politics of elections in Northern Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia38(1). 84–105. 10.1080/00472330701651978
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651978 [Google Scholar]
44. 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.
45. Wijeyewardene, Ingrid
    2019 Examining agency in Thai argumentative political science texts. InKumaran Rajandran & Shakila Abdul Manan (eds.), Discourses of Southeast Asia: A social semiotic perspective, 45–67. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑13‑9883‑4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9883-4_3 [Google Scholar]
46. Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer
    2009 Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. InRuth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd edition), 1–33. Los Angeles: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]