AN ETHNO-SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF ADDRESS TERMS UTILIZED BY ETHNIC GROUPS IN BURIRAM PROVINCE
คำสำคัญ:
Address Terms, Ethnic Groups, Ethno-Sociolinguistics, Language Use, Buriram Provinceบทคัดย่อ
This study aimed to 1) comparatively examine the ethnolinguistic characteristics of language use among ethnic groups in Buriram Province as the contextual background for address term utilization; 2) comparatively analyze the types of address terms, reasons for choosing them, and social factors influencing their use; and 3) explore the cultural values reflected in address terms among the four ethnic groups in Buriram Province. An explanatory sequential QUAN → QUAL mixed methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected from 200 respondents, with 50 participants from each group, using a 25-item seven-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected from 40 key informants through semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed that all five analytical dimensions were rated at a ‘Strongly Agree’ level, confirming the sociocultural significance of address terms. Ethnic languages predominated in family, community, and informal domains, whereas Standard Thai served formal, educational, official, and interethnic communication. Address term selection was influenced by respect, politeness, familiarity, solidarity, age, seniority, social status, kinship, situation, and occasion. Welch’s one-way ANOVA found no significant differences for most items. Only Q6, concerning respectful or honorific address terms for elders, differed significantly across groups, F(3, 109) = 3.093, p = .030, ηp² = .078. The Games–Howell post hoc test indicated that Thai-Khmer respondents scored significantly higher than Thai-Kui respondents on this item. Qualitative findings clarified that respect for elders was a shared cultural value, although each ethnic group expressed it through different local address systems. The concept of “Shared Respect with Ethnic-Specific Relational Mapping” explains how common sociocultural values are realized through distinct ethnic linguistic resources, contributing to ethno-sociolinguistic theory, language maintenance, intercultural communication, and community-based documentation of ethnic linguistic heritage.
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Almashour, M. (2024). Bridging worlds with words: Translanguaging and its impact on identity formation among Jordanian graduate students in Ontario. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1-15.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Demir, A. N., Ekizoğlu, M, & Güngör, M. (2025). Exploring identity construction and language use among English language learners in online communities: An integrative review (2004–2024). Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 18(4), 755–776.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Gayton, A. M., Evans, M., Fisher, L., Forbes, K, & Rutgers, D. (2025). Participative multilingual identity construction in higher education: Challenging monolingual ideologies and practices. Education Sciences, 15(4), 1-17.
Genemo, T. B. (2021). Multilingualism and language choice in domains. In X. Jiang (Ed.), Multilingualism: Interdisciplinary topics. (pp. 1–16). London: IntechOpen.
Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2005). Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, K. D. (2007). When languages die: The extinction of the world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge. New York, Ny: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pimrat, L. (2022). The analysis of Khmer kinship terms in Buri Ram Province. Mahachula Academic Journal, 9(1), 382-394.
Premsrirat, S., Dipadung, S., Suwannaket, E., Buasuang, A., Chusri, I., Srichampa, S., Thavornpat, M., Thawisak, A, & Damsa-art, P. (2004). Ethnolinguistic maps of Thailand. Bangkok: Office of the National Culture Commission.
Premsrirat, S. & Pisitpanporn, N. (1996). Language and ethnicity on the Korat Plateau. Kyoto University Research Information Repository, 30, 79-98.
Sansamak, N. (2002). A sociolinguistic study of address system in the Northeastern Thai dialect spoken in Muang District, Ubon Ratchathani Province (Master’s thesis in linguistics, Faculty of Graduate Studies). Nakhon Pathom: Mahidol University.
Sodsongkrit, S. (1998). Addressing terms in Northern Khmer: A sociolinguistic analysis—A case study at Tambol Krasang, Ampoe Krasang, Burirum Province (Master’s thesis in linguistics). Nakhon Pathom: Mahidol University.
Srithawong, S., Srikummool, M., Pittayaporn, P., Ghirotto, S., Chantawannakul, P., Sun, J., Eisenberg, A., Chakraborty, R, & Kutanan, W. (2015). Genetic and linguistic correlation of the Kra-Dai-speaking groups in Thailand. Journal of Human Genetics, 60, 371–380.
Tingsapat, M. R. & Prasithrathsint, A. (1989). The use of address terms in Thai during the Bangkok period. PASAA, 19(2), 136–145.
Vail, P. (2007). Thailand’s Khmer as “invisible minority”: Language, ethnicity and cultural politics in north-eastern Thailand. Asian Ethnicity, 8(2), 111–130.
Wardhaugh, R. & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
