Based on the objectives of the present study and the intention to answer both RQs, it employed a purposive sampling method using the snowball strategy (Miglietta et al., 2024) to recruit migrant participants who had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for more than 12 months in this research. In total, 25 migrant participants were recruited for this study; their general information is presented in Table 1.

All the participants’ names in Table 1 are pseudonyms. As this research used PDA for qualitative analysis, the number of the participants was sufficient for analysis following previous research (Linaker, 2023; Pan, 2025). The participants were divided into five groups based on their duration of living in Bangkok, Thailand, to ensure that the experiences of individual participants within one group would not demonstrate a large discrepancy in relation to the length of stay in Bangkok, Thailand. The first group consisted of five participants who had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for 2–3 years. The second and third groups each consisted of five participants who had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for 4–5 years, while the fourth group consisted of five participants who had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for 6–8 years. The fifth group consisted of five participants who had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for more than 10 years. The participants had diverse occupations, such as staff at international corporations, educators at schools and universities, university students studying for master’s degrees, and employees at private companies. All the participants used ELF in their daily lives and workplaces. Only seven of them (28%) could speak some basic Thai, while two of them (8%) could read some written Thai. None of them could write the Thai language. Finally, there were 14 male participants (56%) and 11 female participants (44%) in this research, although sex was not a research variable.

This research used online focus group discussions to collect the verbal communication in ELF, although a few instances of code-switching occurred during the discussions. Since the participants had classes and jobs, the participants in each group agreed to meet online. The data collection began following approval from the ethics department of the author’s affiliated institution. Each participant consented to participate in this research. Although the focus group discussions mainly elicited the experimental data, the researcher did not provide specific questions but gave each group brief instructions to encourage each group to discuss their experiences as much detail as possible instead. The researcher briefly introduced the background to the study to ensure that the participants understood what should be discussed. The researcher subsequently requested each participant to discuss their experiences in relation to the intercultural communication, language use or language barriers, and self-identifications. To ensure that each participant felt comfortable during the discussion, the researcher gave the participants total freedom to share anything they wished, although the researcher would invite others to share their stories if a participant did not want to continue speaking. Each participant opened their camera apps because they intended to show their faces, while the researcher used a personal laptop to record the audio data. The entire data collection lasted for 2 months. Finally, the researcher collected five groups of audio recordings with an average duration of 53.8 min from each group. Jefferson’s (2004) conversation analysis conventions were used for the transcriptions.

A qualitative analysis using PDA was applied in this research. In addition, the number of participants who mentioned the same coping strategies regarding language use and the methods of constructing their social identities was quantified for the discrete analysis. This is to ensure a robust analysis. Similar to the coding scheme in CDA, the textual analysis, namely the lexical and grammatical uses in discourse, was first located to determine participants’ basic understanding (Baxter, 2002; Fairclough, 2014). In addition, a discourse analysis was conducted based on the situational contexts that the participants discussed. This step aimed to ensure that the use of PDA was accurate, as the relationships among power, identity, and language were changing in accordance with concrete situations (Baxter, 2002; Pan, 2025). Finally, a PDA should also consider the socio-cultural environment and the emerging common ground in each interaction (Beyribey and Harunoğlu, 2024; Kecskés, 2022). Hence, each situation involving language use and the different constructions of social identities was analyzed in relation to the Thai context and each participant’s fund of knowledge. To ensure the reliability of the coding process, the researcher and another coder, a researcher in discourse analysis, conducted it together. The inter-coder reliability was 0.849, indicating high agreement between the two coders, as the inter-coder reliability should be above 0.8. Both coders discussed differences in coding until they reached agreement.

In total, 16 participants (64%) revealed that ELF was mainly used in their daily lives in different situational interactions, ranging from communication with their classmates or colleagues at their workplaces to interactions with the local Thai people, as examples (1) and (2) below demonstrate.

(1)

Lan: Oh boy (h) I just (2.6) I think I use English all the time (h) I mean .hhh I do not know much about Thai and (2.3) uh (2.5) actually I .hhh my friends <the one I know> all can speak English.

Lou: Then wha:t if some Thai cannot speak English to you? How you ↑deal with it?

Lan: Oh I (4.7) I ↑think I <usually speak> with Thai who can speak English .hhh I live at the city center <an:d I think many people there> can speak English becau:se there are so many tourists and shopping malls (2.1) so I think I only speak to someone who can speak English (h).

(Group 1)

(2)

Jean: Well↑ I usually speak English to everyone .hhh at my workplace (.) not everyone speaks English (2.4) but >they have already known about it< (.) an:d someti:mes they like bring their friends who can speak English to talk to me (.) together (.) one of them speaks Thai and the other one helps to translate .hhh I mean it’s quite funny at the moment but we have got used to this situation.

Ned: What about if you go shopping like the local market?

Jean: I point to the stuff that I want to buy (h) there will be no word at all (h).

Ned: (h) Oh that’s classic (h) you think about learning↑ Thai here?

Jean: Yeah of course (.) bu:t you guys know it’s too hard for me as all my friends agreed (.) an:d you know it’s quite strange toward >Thai people who see a girl like me speak Thai< (.) they were like (.) staring at me when I speak Thai cause I think my Thai is so poor that they do not understand and my look is like how come I can speak Thai toward them (h).

(Group 2)

Based on the participants’ utterances in both examples above, they chose to speak ELF with local Thai citizens who could also speak ELF, or the local Thai citizens adapted the situations to accommodate the participants; for example, a Thai person at Jean’s workplace included someone who could speak both Thai and English in their conversations. This group of participants mainly used ELF in the monolingual Thai society since they could not speak the Thai language and the Thai citizens with whom they were in contact could speak English. In addition, they had only been living in Bangkok, Thailand, for approximately 3 years; thus, their Thai language skills were not as developed as the skills of those who had been living in Thailand for much longer, as will be discussed in later sections. Moreover, as Jean stated in (2), local Thai citizens may find it strange that a girl who looks completely different from them (Jean was from the UK and had blond hair and light gray eyes) used the Thai language. These aforementioned factors prevented the participants from developing their Thai language skills and they only used ELF in their daily lives (Doungphummes and Zarchi, 2022).

Many migrants with the same nationality who live in the same host country have a connection. Accordingly, their daily interactions are characterized by the interplay of L1s and ELF in different situational interactions, as example (3) below demonstrates.

(3)

Liu: Becau:se I do business here (.) >so I know many people here< (.) I fin:d many people like from Singapore and Malaysia can speak Chinese actually .hhh an:d I also have to speak Chinese with my family >everyday online< (h) yeah so: I find me change from >Chinese to English and English to Chinese< all the time (h).

Feng: (h) It’s like my situation cause I’m a Singaporean and I actually can speak both English and Chinese .hhh I speak both languages toward different people here .hhh (2.2) well mostly English bu:t I al:so have many clients who come from China so I also speak Chinese (.) often.

Ross: You guys don’t use Thai↑?

Liu: Um (2.4) I use very little cause my Thai (h) OK seriously I try to learn Thai but can’t speak very good (.) But I’m still trying to learn more.

Feng: Me too. My workplace actually trained my Thai before (.) but my Thai still isn’t >as good as my English and Chinese< (h) I only use Thai a little when someone really can’t speak any English an:d I also can use the translation apps for help (h).

(Group 3)

In total, 12 participants (48%) had the same experience as illustrated in (3). The discourses that Liu and Feng uttered in (3) revealed that they lived in a multilingual and multicultural situational environment in Bangkok, Thailand, due to their jobs and connections with different people. Liu spoke Chinese with family members and with people who could speak Chinese, whereas Feng spoke Chinese with clients who were from China. In addition, both Liu and Feng mainly used English in their daily lives. Hence, in the monolingual Thai society, some migrants had the lived experiences of using many languages other than the Thai language based on their actual lived contexts (Burford et al., 2021; Nasution et al., 2023). Moreover, similar to Jean’s description of the Thai language situation, both Liu and Feng stated that the Thai language was difficult to learn. In fact, both participants had attempted to study the Thai language, and both had lived in Bangkok, Thailand, for 4 years. However, they claimed that they only spoke a little of the Thai language. Hence, based on the three examples above, many migrants may not find it necessary to use the Thai language due to two factors. The internal factor was that the migrants’ Thai language proficiency was low, prevented them from communicating with the local Thai citizens (Linn et al., 2024; Lwin et al., 2024). The external factor was that their social contacts in daily life were able to speak languages other than the Thai language; thus, the contextual language environments of many migrants lead them to avoid the Thai language and to mainly use English and other languages. In (3), Feng stated that translation apps were used in situations in which Feng did not speak the Thai language and the Thai interactants did not speak English. The strategy of using the translation apps on smartphones was mentioned by 10 (40%) participants, suggesting that it was a coping strategy that the migrants were attempting to use.

In total, seven participants (28%) said that they attempted to use both the English and the Thai languages when communicating with the local Thai citizens, as examples (4) and (5) below demonstrate.

(4)

Red: I learned Thai myself for many years (h) very unprofessional pronunciation and I KNOW it (h) every time I speak to Thai I try to use English and Thai together (.) Actually I think Thai I know of can speak English .hhh bu.:t <I have this feeling tha:t they always> try to speak Thai ONLY THAI to me >even though my Thai is not good< and they know it (h) so I try to speak English an:d Thai and let them know I can speak Thai but not so good.

Judy: But you can speak Thai (.) that’s better than speak no Thai (.) before I can’t speak any Thai .hhh and these years I can speak better an:d I really notice Thai people like me speak Thai rather English.

(Group 4)

(5)

Lau: The first couple of years >when I couldn’t speak Thai< (.) I had some bad experiences (.) and I learned so:me Thai language >I mean now I can’t speak very well< but I fee:l I can handle things with Thai people much better than before cause they indeed like hearing Thai rather English >or other languages I’m telling you guys<.

Xi: (h) We:ll I do:n’t feel they don’t like speaking English (.) but I understand the situation cause we always talk about it between our friends (.) I mean it’s Thailand using Thai after all (.) I’m sure we all understand.

Kim: I agree (.) I have to say it’s a Thai community after all (.) But someti:mes I also have the same situation as Lau said (2.1) I feel Bangkok >I mean< many foreigners here (.) they should develop English more right?

Wen: Before that↑ I just use English and Thai again and again (h) I also notice Thai is important to make us survive↑ here.

Kim: Yeah that’s true.

(Group 5)

The seven participants who used the translanguaging strategy to interact with the local Thai citizens were from groups 4 and 5, and had been living in Bangkok, Thailand, for more than 6 years. Unlike the participants in the first three groups, many of the participants in groups 4 and 5 chose to speak the English and the Thai languages at the same time in interactions. As Red in (4) and Lau in (5) stated, their limited proficiency in the Thai language hindered their ability to communicate solely in the Thai language. However, they had noticed that the local Thai citizens seemed to enjoy communicating in the Thai language. Some participants, such as Red in (4), and Lau and Kim in (5), explained that the Thai citizens attempted to interact with them in the Thai language despite knowing that the migrants’ Thai language proficiency was poor. These contextual environments that the participants experienced led them to opt for translanguaging when interacting with Thai citizens. As both examples above demonstrate, the monolingual Thai LPP in Thailand had an impact on the migrants for many years (Savski, 2024). Thai citizens were mainly influenced by the macro-level LPP of Thailand in that they used the Thai language with the migrants more often although they knew that the migrants’ Thai language proficiency was low, reflecting the strong impact of the Thai government’s LPP (Lertvorapreecha and Swindell, 2024; Nasution et al., 2023). The LPP in Thailand also led many migrants for many years to make a conscious effort to learn and speak the Thai language instead of only using English or other languages; thus, many migrants chose to use translanguaging due to their low proficiency in the Thai language (Savski, 2024).

Thailand is a non-immigration country, as non-Thai people cannot become Thai citizens or have Thai identification cards. Accordingly, many non-Thais have various types of non-immigrant visas, such as education, business, and retirement visas, to stay in Thailand for an extended period. This situation has caused many migrants to regard themselves as foreigners in terms of their social identities, as example (6) below demonstrates.

(6)

Liu: I often↑ notice the cultural difference between Thai and Chinese (.) li:ke their thought on so:me behavior is different from mine .hhh as a foreigner I try to be careful when I >talk and do things with them<.

He: In my situation (.) I believe they know my German background is absolutely different from their Thai culture .hhh I someti:mes just be myself >cause I’m still a German< not a Thai (.) but I also respect↑ their culture and try to not do something too much (h).

Team: I guess we have always been treated as foreigners right↑? That’s the case I’m afraid (.) Our looks, languages, personalities won’t be and will never be Thai >that’s for sure<.

(Group 3)

In total, 14 participants (56%) articulated their foreign identities in the group discussions. In the discourses in (6), a Chinese participant, Liu, uttered “as a foreigner” when discussing the cultural differences between China and Thailand; He, who was from Germany, stated “I’m still a German,” indicating that He regarded himself as a foreigner in Thailand. Team, who were from the UK, revealed a stance on foreign identity, based on their personal experience and perspective, regarding how Thai citizens regard non-Thai “foreigners.” The three participants’ discourses, both direct and indirect, revealed their self-identification as having foreign identities.

Despite their foreign identities, six participants (24%) discussed their different social identities in diverse situational and social environments, as example (7) below demonstrates.

(7)

Dee: I’m still lear:ning many things here (3.4) like >different ways of calling each other’s names< (h) it’s quite interesting .hhh I fee:l I’m now different from >what I am before< (.) I have many jobs to do (.) like I’m a labor working here (.) I’m still a child in terms of my parents (2.3) I’m also an explorer to learn more cultures and new things I like it.

S: Sounds interesting.

Tod: I’m also a nurse to MY BOSS cause he always chat to me about different mental problem (h).

Jean: (h) We have different responsibilities in society indeed.

(Group 2)

Although the participants in (7) had been living in Thailand, for four to five years, their discourses revealed that they based their identities on what they did rather than simply considering themselves to be foreigners. For example, Dee revealed different identities in the discourses: as an employee, since Dee worked in Thailand; as a child in Dee’s family; and as an explorer, as Dee was learning about new cultural factors. As each participant in (7) clearly identified their different identities in different situations, such as being a nurse at Tod’s workplace and Jean’s utterance about “different responsibilities in society,” these participants were aware of their fluid identities depending on different social situations (Beyribey and Harunoğlu, 2024; Linaker, 2023), suggesting that they paid more attention to their personal lives in different contexts (Pan, 2025).

Although many participants, such as Dee in (7) in the previous section, stated that they had attempted to learn from the Thai culture, some participants said that they regarded themselves as somewhere between their own cultures and the Thai culture, as example (8) below demonstrates.

(8)

Yin: I notice↑ my changes within these years living↑ here (.) Before I was a typical Singaporean >you know< (.) I was raised in Singapore .hhh an:d I know clearly I’m a foreigner here >when I talk to the local people< I can feel for sure (.) but I also sense tha:t I have become >mo:re↑ like Thai like doing things< like Thai sometimes think like Thai (2.7) an:d influenced by Thai culture and Buddhism a lot.

Red: You mean you start to do things slowly↑ (h)?

Yin: OH that’s ONE thing for sure (h) an:d like I (.) when I see some tourists do something not as Thai people do (h) >I notice I also think that’s not polite from the perspective of a Thai person<.

Pen: You did↑? You are Thai now (h).

Yin: Nah: I mean I have chan:ged but (.) I still have the Singaporean culture >but also have been influenced< by the Thai culture (2.5) you know (.) like both now.

Judy: I thin:k I’m like your case too (.) not sure if I can call myself as a typical Korean then >and now< but I definitely think I am between Thai and Korean now (h) like I really start to be patient about everything here (.) > you know how we do not like to wait in Korea< (h).

(Group 4)

In total, eight participants (32%) had similar self-identifications. In (8), Yin and Judy shared their experiences, using concrete examples to explain changes in their self-identification and identities. Yin stated that their behavior had been changing regarding how Thai people do things; Judy also explained that her behavior had changed due to Thai culture. These discourses revealed the participants’ conscious awareness that they had experienced personal change due to the merger of both the Thai culture and their own cultures (Biwa, 2022; Tian and McCafferty, 2021); this reflected the multicultural identities that the participants noticed during their interactions with the other participants in the group discussions. It should be noted that Yin said, “I know clearly, I’m a foreigner here when I talk to the local people. I can feel for sure,” suggesting that they were aware that they had multiple identities in different situations. While Yin considered their multicultural identity, they also identified as a foreigner when speaking with some local Thai citizens. This precarious self-identification that Yin articulated, as revealed in their discourses, was evidence of their different social identities (Pan, 2025). The discourses that Yin articulated in (8) highlighted the shift of their social identities with the different situations, indicating the fluidity of migrants’ social identities.

Apart from the situations of self-identification analyzed above, five participants (20%) articulated global mindsets that extended beyond being a foreigner or having a multicultural identity, as exemplified in (9) below.

(9)

Xi: I’ve been happily living here >I mean especially these years< (.) We cannot just think ourselves only live in Thailand I’m sure I do not think so now.

Wen: What do you mean?

Xi: Um (2.6) I think it’s my life you know (.) I travel (.) I have to travel a lot becau:se of my job (.) I live in Bangkok for so long and will stay here in the future .hhh I fee:l I don’t see just Thai or >German or China or Japan whatever< I see we are just <one special part of the world> I mean every one of us represents a part of the world.

Lau: Yeah.

Xi: And when I go to a new place >even in Bangkok or Phuket< another place in Thailand (.) we meet different people from different places (.) speak different languages and we are just a part of this world (.) so we connect as a world.

Kim: As in globalization.

Xi: As global thoughts I think (h) >I don’t know<.

Lau: Well that’s great to hear (.) from someone else cause <I myself like this communication> with different people from different countries >I mean you know it’s sometimes< we don’t speak the same language (2.3) like Thai people (.) can’t totally understand me <so I’m sure they won’t> fully accept me as a Thai here (.) but I’m like I’m OK now .hhh cause I look at myself as more international not just in Thailand or the US.

(Group 5)

In contrast to the discourses presented in the previous sections, expressions about global mindsets were articulated in (9), such as “one special part of the world,” “a part of this world,” and “global thoughts” uttered by Xi, and “more international” uttered by Lau. The global mindsets of the participants were due to their personal experiences, such as the discourses articulated by Xi, who stated, “I have to travel a lot because of my job.” The participants’ funds of knowledge and lived experiences enabled them to develop global mindsets without simply identifying as foreigners or as having multicultural identities (Lertvorapreecha and Swindell, 2024; Ortega and Oxford, 2023). Accordingly, these participants had developed a sense of global citizenship, feeling consciously connected to the world while living in another country (Ortega and Oxford, 2023). Their identities as global citizens enabled them to cross the borders of any country, physically and metaphorically, and to create their own identities as global citizens by viewing people from different countries as diverse components of the world rather than focusing on concepts such as nationalities or countries (Savski, 2024).