A Discourse Analysis of Thai Creative Writing: A Comparative Case Study of Chatgpt-Generated Texts and Grade 6 Elementary Students' Compositions
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the linguistic constraints of ChatGPT in Thai creative writing discourse by comparing 80 texts produced by ChatGPT with those written by Grade 6 students. The data analysis encompassed three main aspects: discourse structure according to writing genre, content cohesion and unity of discourse, and linguistic features. The findings revealed five primary linguistic limitations of ChatGPT: (1) stereotypical discourse structure following fixed patterns with limited variation; (2) generic content lacking Thai cultural specificity; (3) grammatically correct linguistic cohesion but lacking creative innovation; (4) formal written language devoid of natural emotional expression; and (5) absence of figurative language and lexical items reflecting Thai linguistic identity. In contrast, student writing exhibited diverse discourse structures demonstrating creativity, reflection of sociocultural contexts, and distinctive language use with contextual understanding, despite displaying spelling errors. These findings therefore play a significant role in educational management and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, emphasizing both the potential and limitations of the technology to enable learners to utilize such tools effectively and appropriately. Teachers should use artificial intelligence (AI) as a supplementary learning tool to enhance instruction and to foster students’ critical and analytical thinking skills through comparative evaluation of AI-generated writing and high-quality written works.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The articles published are copyrighted by the Graduate School, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University.
The opinions expressed in each article of this academic journal are solely those of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of Chiang Mai Rajabhat University or its faculty members. The responsibility for the content of each article rests entirely with the respective authors. In the event of any errors, the authors alone are responsible for their own articles.
References
Amity Solutions. (2023). What is ChatGPT? How is it beneficial for organizations?. https://www.amitysolutions.com/th/blogs/what-is-chat-gpt [In Thai]
Angkanawin, M. (2004). Discourse of travelogues in Or.Sor.Thor. magazine [Master's thesis, Chulalongkorn University]. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.THE.2004.1867 [In Thai]
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5185-5198). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463
Jaratjarungkiat, T. (2000). Cohesive devices in Thai discourse from Sukhothai period to present [Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University]. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.THE.2000.1508 [In Thai]
Cheewaphan, A. (2018). Creative writing activities in elementary school. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. [In Thai]
Dale, R. (2021). GPT-3: What's it good for? Natural Language Engineering, 27(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000601
Dankongrak, C. (2022). Development of creative thinking skills instruction. Chulalongkorn University Press. [In Thai]
de Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1970)
Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Ideas about language. Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 11, 21–33. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/ART/article/view/5494
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. The Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kluabphanitchakul, K. (1999). Thai language usage. Odeon Store Publishing. [In Thai]
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford University Press.
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The grammar of discourse. Plenum Press.
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024). Dissociating language and thought in large language models: A cognitive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(6), 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011
Mill, S. (2004). Discourse. Routledge.
Panpothong, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis in linguistics: Concepts and application to Thai discourse studies. Academic Publication Project, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University. [In Thai]
Phianchop, S., & Inthramphan, S. (1995). Teaching methods for Thai language at secondary level. Thai Wattana Panich. [In Thai]
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. University of Chicago Press.
Toiyeebi, S. (2011). Development of creative writing skill exercises in Thai language for grade 7 students at St. Theresa Nong Chok School, Bangkok [Master's thesis, Srinakharinwirot University]. http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Sec_Ed/Somporn_To.pdf [In Thai]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yodsirijiinda, K. (2002). Cohesive devices in Thai speaking and writing styles [Master's thesis, Chulalongkorn University]. http://doi.org/10.14457/CU.the.2002.172 [In Thai]
