Criticism in the Workplace: A Sociopragmatic Analysis

Main Article Content

Sirawat Thaithae

Abstract

Criticism is regarded as a face-threatening act and may potentially lead to conflict. This makes it rather difficult to express criticism toward others, especially in the context of Thai culture, which is collectivist. Thai people tend to place a high value on conflict avoidance; therefore, it is intriguing to explore how Thais behave when they must express criticism. Previous studies have largely focused on criticism in Western socio-cultural contexts while research in Eastern contexts remains relatively limited. This study aims (1) to investigate the choice of criticism strategies in workplace settings, (2) to examine the relationship between the choice of criticism strategies and the mode of communication—face-to-face versus behind-the-back, and (3) to explore the relationship between the choice of criticism strategies and the relational status between criticizers and those being criticized. The data were collected by a final-turn construction questionnaire containing four scenarios, from 60 participants who were employees from either governmental agencies or private companies. The data were analyzed by using speech act theory, criticism strategies, and politeness theory. The findings revealed that Thai respondents employed three major types of strategy: opting out, direct criticism, and indirect criticism. In face-to-face situations, participants tended to avoid criticism or use indirect strategies more often than in behind-the-back situations. Regarding relational status, critics were more likely to employ direct criticism toward those of lower status, such as juniors. In contrast, with superiors, seniors, and peers, they tended to avoid criticism or use indirect strategies. Moreover, factors such as formal conversational settings, consideration of future benefits, and the presence of high-ranking superiors further influenced speakers to avoid direct criticism or to mitigate the severity of their critical intent. The results of this study can be applied to enhance communication training aimed at reducing conflict within organizations and in society.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Thaithae, S. (2026). Criticism in the Workplace: A Sociopragmatic Analysis . Journal of Liberal Arts Thammasat University, 26(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.64731/jla.v26i1.291779
Section
Research Articles

References

สุพัตรา สุภาพ. (2536). สังคมและวัฒนธรรมไทย: ค่านิยม ครอบครัว ศาสนา ประเพณี (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 8). โรงพิมพ์ไทยวัฒนาพานิช.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). MIT Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Ambreen, F., Zaheer, M., & Gusarova, Y. (2019). A pragmatic analysis of the speech act of criticizing in university teacher-student talk: The case of English as a lingua franca. Pragmatics, 29(4), 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18028.eld

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28(4), 485-508.

Komin, S. (1990). Culture and work-related values in Thai organizations. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3-6), 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599008247902

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your P’s and Q’s. In Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). University of Chicago Press.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.

Nguyen, T. T. M. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticism in a foreign language: A study of Vietnamese learners of English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Auckland.

Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). An exploratory study of criticism realization strategies used by NS and NNS of New Zealand English. Multilingua: Journal of Cross--Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 32(1), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0005

Palakornkul, A. (1972). A socio-linguistic study of pronominal usage in Bangkok Thai [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas at Austin.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts1. Language in society, 5(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

Ting, H., Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., & Cheah, J.-H. (2025). Snowball sampling: A review and guidelines for survey research. Asian Journal of Business Research, 15(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.250186

Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Giving criticism: A multiple‐goal case study. Communication Monographs, 57(3), 219–239.