在許多媒體節目中「偽親密/裝熟關係」（O'Keeffe 2006）可透過使用代詞、稱謂以及名字等語言元素構建。本研究以泰國電台叩應節目《Put Talk Put Toh》為例，探討（一）泰語電台主持人與來電者的互動中，如何利用泰語中的「非禮貌稱謂」（例如：代詞使用和/或貶義頭銜）來作為建立「偽親密/裝熟關係」的策略。（二）在來電者是未知的情況下，偽親密/裝熟關係關係是如何形成的。二）在來電者是未知的情況下，偽親密/裝熟關係關係是如何形成的。本研究所採語料共計75段叩應對話，總長3562 分鐘，內容以提供生活諮詢為主，平均每名來電者時長15分鐘。研究結果發現，泰語非禮貌稱呼用語的主要功能是減低主持人與來電者之間的不對稱關係，且他們更傾向於將自己視為來電者的朋友，而非以電台工作者的專業給出建議或警告。在觀眾來電尋求諮詢時，非禮貌代詞及稱呼語的使用，使主持人得以積極的與來電者溝通交流，達到規勸、嘲弄、立場表明及警告等目的，並迅速建立了「偽親密/裝熟」的關係。

The establishment of pseudo-intimacy (O’Keeffe, 2006) frequently emerging in various media programs has been noticed through several linguistic cues, including pronouns, titles, and first names. In a case study of a Thai radio phone-in program, I investigate how Thai impolite addressing terms (e.g., pronominal expressions and/ or derogatory titles) are used as a strategic tool to build pseudo-intimacy during host-caller interactions and in what specific situations where such relationship is created in the radio call-in program where callers are from an unknown persona. The primary data is drawn from 50 episodes of the Put Talk Put Toh radio program. Each episode contains five call-in sessions, each lasting around 10-15 minutes, amounting to a total of 3562 minutes of call-in conversations. The results show that the Thai impolite addressing terms have the primary function of discarding the asymmetrical relationship between the hosts and callers and allowing the hosts to position themselves as a friend of the caller rather than a radio host or professional advisor working in a professional sphere. Furthermore, this kind of relationship is established in the advising, teasing, asserting, and warning. It is obvious that the hosts tend to use the impolite addressing terms while providing advice to a caller, teasing a caller, attempting to give warnings, and asserting some beliefs. Ultimately, pseudo-intimacy occurs to bring a positive exchange of communication during the host-caller interaction.

Annabel Greenhill. (2000). [Review of Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse, by S. Blum-Kulka]. Language in Society, 29(3), 420–423. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4169029
Aslan, T. (2021). ‘The sequential organisation of gossip talk.’ Discourse Studies,
23(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211001604
Bi, X., & Marsden, E. (2020). Managing interpersonal relationships: teasing as a method of professional identity construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 18-30.
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber D. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 8(1):9–37
Biq, Y. (1991). The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 307-321.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cashmore, E. (2014). Celebrity Culture: Second Edition (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097137
Charoenporn, T., & Sornlertlamvanich, V. (2023). Using of kinship terms in pronoun substituteand address terms in the Thai language. 2023 International Electronics Symposium (IES). https://doi.org/10.1109/ies59143.2023.10242421
Chang, W. (2008). Australian and Chinese Perceptions of (im)politeness in an intercultural apology. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1 (2), 59-74.
Culpeper, J., O’Driscoll, J., & Hardaker, C. (2019). Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America. In E. Ogiermann & P. Blitvich (Eds.), From Speech Acts to Lay
Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives
(pp. 175-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duangwises, N., & Jackson, P. A. (2021). Effeminacy and Masculinity in Thai Gay Culture: Language, Contextuality and the Enactment of Gender Plurality. Asia Social Issues, 14(5), Article 248926 (23 pages). Retrieved from
https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/asi/article/view/248926
Dynel, M. (2008). No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(2), 241-261.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0001-7.
Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23, 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00388.x
Gorman, G. (2012). “Are you kidding me” : the effect of relationship closeness on perceptions of teasing [Dissertation]. Library and Archives Canada = Bibliothèque et Archives Canada.
Goulart, L., Gray, B., Staples, S., Black, A., Shelton, A., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Wizner, S. (2020). Linguistic Perspectives on Register. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 435-455. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644
Haugh, M. (2016). “Just kidding”: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004
Haugh, M., (2017). Jocular language play, social action and (dis)affiliation in conversational interaction. In: Bell, Nancy (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 143e168.
Haugh, M., & Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy in initial interactions. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 246-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734936
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of Linguistics Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90006-8
Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 220-229.
Intachakra, S. (2012), “Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 619-635.
Jamieson, L. (1999). INTIMACY TRANSFORMED? A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE “PURE
RELATIONSHIP.” Sociology, 33(3), 477–494. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42857958
Kádár, D., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139382717
Koppen, K., Ernestus, M. & van Mulken, M. (2019). The influence of social distance on speechbehavior: Formality variation in casual speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 139-165. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0056
Laksminy, Luh Putu et al. (2019). Creating Pseudo-intimacy Through Vocatives in IndonesianTv Show. IJLLT. Vol 2 (3). www.ijllt.org
Lamb, William. (2008). Scottish Gaelic speech and writing: Register variation in an endangered language (Belfast Studies in Language, Culture and Politics 16).
Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.
Lin, T. (2013). The Concepts of “Politeness”: A Comparative Study in Chinese and Japanese Verbal Communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, XXII (2), 151-165.
Matwick K, Matwick K. (2018). Politeness and pseudo-intimacy in a food radio call in program. Discourse Context Media 21:46–53
McCarthy, Michael J., O’Keeffe, Anne, 2003. ‘What’s in a name?’: Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls. In: Leistyna, P., Meyer, C.F. (Eds.),
Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Rodopi, Amsterdam,
pp. 153–185.
Noss, R. B., & Foreign Service Institute (U.S.). (1964). Thai reference grammar. Washington: Foreign Service Institute, Dept. of State.
O'Keeffe, Anne (2006) Investigating Media Discourse. London: Routledge.
Prachansit C. & Yenbutra P. (2021). Using Thai and Chinese Personal Pronouns of Chinese Students (Master Thesis). Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Permkesorn, N. (2013). The Teaching of Thai as a Foreign Language: How to Teach
Fundamental Thai. Vannavidas Journal, 13(1), 213-235,
https://doi.org/10.14456/vannavidas.2013.10
Tanaka, L. (2015). Advice in Japanese radio phone-in counselling. Pragmatics 25(2): 251–285.
THORNBORROW, J. (2001). Questions, Control and the Organization of Talk in Calls to a Radio Phone-In. Discourse Studies, 3(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001006
Rubino, A. (2016). Constructing pseudo-intimacy in an Italo-Australian phone-in
radio program. J. Pragmat. 103, 33–48.
Searle J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society,
5(1), 1–23.
Senawong, P. (2011). Ku and mung: Thai teenagers and independence from prescriptive language usage. Article - English Language. 10(2), 34-36. http://202.28.75.7/xmlui/handle/123456789/468
Setthapun, W. (1992). CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THAI LANGUAGE,
PRONUNCIATION GUIDE AND THE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF GRAMMAR. London: Europhone Language Centre PTE LTD.
Siburian, A. (2016). An Analysis of Politeness Strategy In Soimah Talkshow In TRANS TV. English Department Language and Art Faculty-UHN, 2(3), 1–13.
Simpson, R. C. (1997). Metapragmatic Discourse and the Ideology of Impolite Pronouns in Thai,7(1),43-44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43103939
Solomon, D. H., Jones, S., Brinberg, M., Bodie, G. D., & Ram, N. (2022). Using Sequence Analysis to Identify Conversational Motifs in Supportive Interactions.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(10), 3155-3179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211066618
Stommel, W. (2013). Salutations, closings, and pronouns: Some aspects of recipient design in online counselling. Communication and Medicine, 9(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v9i2.145
Thornborrow, J. (2001). Questions, Control and the Organization of Talk in Calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies 3(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001006
Uckaradejdumrong, P. (2016). A Systemic Functional Approach to Analyzing Thai Pronouns, Sage Open, 6(1), 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244016663801
Vongvipanond, P. (1994). Linguistic perspectives of Thai culture. Paper presented University of New Orleans (Summer). Retrieved 30 October 2023, from http://jseals.org/seals23/piriyawiboon2013personh.pdf
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q. and Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, vol 117, pp. 106-118.