Advertisement

Examining Agency in Thai Argumentative Political Science Texts

  • Ingrid WijeyewardeneEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series book series (TMAKHLFLS)

Abstract

This chapter explores the representation of agency in two Thai argumentative political science texts on the 2006 military coup d’état. It draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to ascertain how writers of two texts written shortly after the coup (Khien in Thai World, 2006; Pitch in Faa Diaw Kan—Same Sky, 2007) construe agency or the lack of agency in the exercise and contestation of power. Specifically, this chapter explores the system of TRANSITIVITY and the complementary systems of AGENCY and PROCESS TYPE. The degree of agency or dynamism is compared across texts by plotting the realisations of participant roles on a “cline of dynamism” (Hasan, 1985). Identifying patterns of processes and participant roles in terms of whether the process extends from one participant to another participant (transitivity) or whether the process is actualised through a Medium which may or may not be impacted by an external causer (ergativity) provides insights into the construal of agency in the texts and the manner in which some actors, events or ideas are valorised over others. The chapter argues that the two writers attribute agency to social actors to convey their position on the legitimacy of staging the coup and associated events. Their choices offer insights into the existence of unequal relations of power in a highly contested political context .

Keywords

Argumentative texts Transitivity Agency Politics Power Thailand 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ajarn Chintana Sandilands, Mrs Rachada Koh and Ms Nansiri Iamsuk for their assistance with the translation of the Thai texts.

References

  1. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Butt, D. G., Lukin, A., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). Grammar—The first covert operation of war. Discourse & Society, 15(2–3), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connors, M. K., & Hewison, K. (2008). Introduction: Thailand and the ‘good coup’. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeRycker, A., & Mohd Don, Z. (2013). Discourse in crisis, crisis in discourse. In A. DeRycker & Z. Mohd Don (Eds.), Discourse and crisis: Critical perspectives (pp. 3–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Systemic background. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse: Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (Vol. 1, pp. 1–15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). Language and the order of nature. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant, & C. MacCabe (Eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature (pp. 135–154). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, language, and verbal art. Burwood: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hewison, K. (2010). Thaksin Shinawatra and the reshaping of Thai politics. Contemporary Politics, 16(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iwasaki, S., & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jayasuriya, K. (2018). Authoritarian statism and the new right in Asia’s conservative democracies. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(4), 584–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khien Theeravit. (2006, October 13). Open image in new window [The right to stage the coup]. Thai World. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.thaiworld.org/th/thailand_monitor/answer.php?_id=578.
  14. Knox, J. S. & Patpong, P. (2008). Reporting bloodshed in Thai newspapers: A comparative case study of English and Thai. In E. Thomson & P. R. R. White, Communicating conflict: Multilingual case studies of the news media (pp. 173–202). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Knox, J. S. Patpong, P. & Piriyasilpa, P. (2010). ข่าวหน้าหนึ่ง (Khao naa nung): A multimodal analysis of Thai-language newspaper front pages. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds.), New discourse on language (pp. 80–110). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). A telling symbiosis in the discourse of hatred: Multimodal news texts about the ‘children overboard’ affair. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2012). Systemic functional linguistics as appliable linguistics: Social accountability and critical approaches. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 28(SPE), 435–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Patpong, P. (2006). A systemic functional interpretation of Thai grammar: An exploration of Thai narrative discourse (PhD thesis). Macquarie University, Sydney.Google Scholar
  20. Patpong, P. (n.d.). Complex structure: Clause complexes and verbal group complexes. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  21. Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2008). Thaksin’s populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 62–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2009). Thaksin (2nd ed.). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  23. Pitch Pongsawat. (2007). Open image in new window [The coup of 19 September 2549 turned citizens into subjects]. Open image in new window [Faa Diaw Kan - Same Sky] Special Edition, 58–88.Google Scholar
  24. Rodan, G., Hewison, K., & Robison, R. (2006). Theorising markets in South-East Asia: Power and contestation. In G. Rodan, K. Hewison, & R. Robison (Eds.), The political economy of South-East Asia: Markets, power and contestation (3rd ed., pp. 1–38). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Saki, M. (2016). Transitivity and agency in Nicolas Sarkozy’s Dakar speech. In D. Banks & J. Ormrod (Eds.), Nouvelles études sur la transitivité en Français: Une perspective systémique fonctionnelle (pp. 81–90). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  26. Streckfuss, D. (2011). Truth on trial in Thailand: Defamation, treason and lèse majesté. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Sriyaranya, S. (2000). Leading Thai intellectuals: Role and influence in the public sphere of Bangkok. Retrieved December 30, 2015, from http://uni-bielefeld.de/%28en%29/tdrc/ag_sozanth/publications/working_papers/wp329.pdf.
  28. Thompson, G. (2008). From process to pattern: Methodological considerations in analysing transitivity in text. In C. Jones & E. Ventola (Eds.), From language to multimodality: New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp. 17–33). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  29. Winichakul, T. (2008). Toppling democracy. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations