Typologizing intentional silence in argumentation between Thai state authorities: structural, engagement, and communicative perspectives

Abstract

This study examines the use of intentional silence in argumentation, focusing on how it contributes to the prior talk and subsequent course of action. Using an integrated framework that combines communication science and language typology, this research establishes a set of parameters encompassing structural, engagement, and communicative dimensions of silence as a meaningful linguistic resource. The framework is applied to an analysis of a face-to-face argumentation between two Thai state authorities—a policeman and a member of parliament—highlighting a culturally sensitive exchange in a high-context society of Thailand. The findings reveal that silence functions as a meaningful absence of speech for managing epistemic authority, negotiating knowledge asymmetries, and enacting speech acts associated with face management. Intentional silence can shift the epistemic (a)symmetry between communicators by either abdicating or asserting authority, depending on the interactional context and speaker intention. The study further demonstrates that silence does not inherently signal negativity or disengagement; rather, it is a strategic, context-dependent act that supports politeness and conflict mitigation in socially complex and hierarchical discourse. By triangulating the structural, engagement, and communicative aspects of interaction, this study proposes a refined typology of intentional silence, thereby advancing methodological tools for the analysis of its pragmatic functions.