Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
An effective language user excels in both linguistics and pragmatics, as highlighted by Yule (1996), who notes that while linguistic forms may be correct, misjudging pragmatics can lead to offense To communicate appropriately in a target language, it is essential for users to demonstrate pragmatic competence through a range of speech acts, including complimenting.
Compliments serve as expressions of genuine admiration and can effectively replace greetings, thanks, or apologies, while also mitigating face-threatening acts such as criticism and requests In American culture, complimenting is a vital social strategy that fosters friendship and solidarity, acting as a conversation starter that paves the way for meaningful interactions The frequency of compliments in American society means that failing to offer them may be perceived as disapproval, and misusing compliments can lead to embarrassment and offense.
Cultural differences significantly influence speech act behavior, as highlighted by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), who noted that "culturally colored interactional styles create culturally determined expectations and interpretative strategies, leading to communication breakdowns" (p 30) This indicates that interactions between individuals from diverse cultures can falter due to varying speech act strategies that embody unique cultural interaction styles Complimenting serves as an insightful speech act to explore, revealing the values upheld within a culture Therefore, it is crucial for Vietnamese learners of English to master the art of delivering appropriate compliments and responses in English.
Complimenting is significantly influenced by social factors, particularly gender, as noted by Tannen (1990), who suggests that gender differences mirror cross-cultural variations Consequently, examining the dynamics of compliments and responses among different gender pairings—men with women, men with men, and women with women—becomes essential for understanding these interactions.
This study explores gender-based differences in compliments and responses within English conversations, using the American comedy series "Ugly Betty" as a framework Although the characters are fictional, the actors reflect real-life dynamics, suggesting that the dialogue may mirror authentic language use The research aims to contribute valuable insights to the field and address existing gaps in previous studies.
Aims of the study
This study aims to explore gender-based differences in compliment behavior, focusing on the frequency, topics, and functions of compliments Additionally, it examines how males and females differ in their response strategies to compliments The findings are expected to provide valuable insights for pedagogical practices and enhance intercultural communication.
Research questions
The research seeks the answers to the following research questions:
Research question 1: What are the differences in compliment behavior between males and females?
Research question 2: What are the differences in compliment responses between males and females?
Scope of the study
This TV series consists of four seasons and a total of 85 episodes, with the first season comprising the initial ten episodes selected for analysis Each episode has a runtime of approximately 40 minutes, resulting in a total analysis of around 400 minutes of content Due to the scope and limitations of this preliminary research, the focus will be on the dialogues from these ten episodes to explore the story's development.
The study focuses on compliments exchanged among 18 characters, evenly divided with 9 females and 9 males It specifically excludes certain types of compliments, such as those directed at places or objects not owned by the interactants, self-compliments, group compliments to individuals, and compliments from a group to a particular item or person.
Furthermore, a compliment may be sincere or insincere Mills (2003) stated:
The listener may perceive the speaker's compliment as insincere, suspecting that it is motivated by a hidden agenda or a desire for something in return Alternatively, the compliment could be interpreted as a kind gesture, implying that the speaker believes the person does not look good at all.
Compliments can sometimes carry an ironic connotation, especially in interactions between adversaries (Holmes, 1995, p 119) In the context of an M.A thesis, the focus is solely on the analysis of sincere compliments.
Methodology
This paper employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, prioritizing the quantitative approach Conclusions are drawn from empirical studies and statistical analysis conducted using Stata 10, a widely used software in social sciences Additionally, the research utilizes descriptive, analytic, comparative, and contrastive methods to examine the database and identify gender-based differences in the frequency, topics, functions, and types of compliment response strategies.
Significance of the study
This study investigates the impact of gender on compliment behavior and response strategies in English, contributing valuable insights to the fields of compliments and second language acquisition Researchers with similar interests can utilize this paper as a resource for their future studies.
This study aims to enhance Vietnamese learners' awareness of the sociolinguistic aspects of English, ultimately improving their pragmatic competence Additionally, the findings offer significant pedagogical insights for English teachers, influencing their approach to teaching English as a foreign language.
Organization of the study
After the Introduction, the rest of the paper includes the following parts:
LITERATURE REVIEW
SPEECH ACT THEORY
In his groundbreaking work, "How to Do Things with Words" (1962), linguist J.L Austin was among the first modern scholars to assert that words function as actions He emphasized that when a speaker articulates something, they are not merely conveying information but actively performing an action.
Austin identified three interconnected acts involved in uttering speech: the locutionary act, the illocutionary act, and the perlocutionary act The locutionary act refers to the basic act of producing a meaningful expression The illocutionary act conveys the speaker's intent through various communicative functions, such as complimenting, commanding, or promising Lastly, the perlocutionary act pertains to the actual effects of the utterance, as determined by the listener's response.
Let us consider the following example:
In communication, the locutionary act refers to the actual sounds made by speaker A when delivering an utterance, while the illocutionary act involves A requesting cash from B This request may not align with B's desires but is a direct result of A's spoken words The perlocutionary effects of A's utterance can vary, leading to outcomes such as B agreeing to provide the money, refusing the request, or feeling offended.
The illocutionary force is a key aspect of speech acts, often interpreted narrowly as the meaning behind an utterance Austin differentiates between locutionary and illocutionary acts, where locutionary acts focus on meaning and illocutionary acts emphasize force He proposed a classification of explicit performative verbs into five categories based on illocutionary force: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, and expositives Compliments fall under the behabitives category, reflecting an individual's attitude towards a subject.
Searle (1975) argued that Austin's classification of speech acts required significant revision due to its inherent weaknesses, particularly the issue that the same utterance can convey different illocutionary forces, complicating the speaker's ability to ensure the hearer's understanding In response, Searle (1976) sought to clarify the concept of illocutionary acts by establishing necessary and sufficient conditions for specific types of these acts He introduced a reclassification into direct and indirect speech acts, where a declarative used to make a statement is considered a direct speech act, while the same form used to make a request is classified as an indirect speech act (Yule, 1996) Searle's taxonomy encompasses five distinct types of speech acts.
1) Declarations (“bringing about changes through utterances”): These kinds of speech acts change the world via their utterance E.g.: declaring, christening
2) Representatives (“telling people how things are”): These speech acts, which represent a state of affairs, have a word-to-world fit In other words, the speaker‟s intention is to make words fit the world E.g.: asserting, disagreeing
3) Expressives (“expressing our feeling and attitudes”): These kinds of speech acts state what the speaker feels They express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow Based on this classification, compliment belongs to “Expressives”
4) Directives (“trying to get people to do things”): The speakers use these kinds of speech acts to get someone else to do something They express what the speaker wants E.g.: commands, orders, requests
5) Commissives (“committing ourselves to doing things”): The speakers use these kinds of speech acts to commit themselves to some future action They express what the speaker intends E.g.: promises, refusals
Following Searle, Yule (1996, p 55) summarized the five general functions of speech acts as follows:
Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule, 1996, p 55)
Speech act type Direction of fit S = speaker
Commissives words change the world make words fit the world make words fit the world make the world fit words make the world fit words
Mey (2001, p 87) highlights that Searle’s approach is more grounded in reality compared to Austin’s, as it begins with the understanding that speech acts occur whenever language is used, regardless of context.
„performative‟ criterion,” yet noted that both sets of speech acts definitely share similarities
The theory of speech acts has significantly impacted philosophy, linguistics, foreign language education, and cross-cultural studies While Austin and Searle's theories may not fully address the cultural nuances of speech acts, they remain valuable for categorizing language when cultural variations are acknowledged Researchers have investigated the forms and functions of speech acts across various languages in cross-cultural contexts, revealing that the politeness principle influences these acts to varying degrees across cultures Therefore, it is crucial to discuss the concepts of politeness and face in the following section.
POLITENESS AND FACE THEORY
1.2.1 Notion of politeness and face
Politeness can be viewed as a fixed concept, often associated with social behavior and etiquette within a culture Different cultures have specific principles that guide polite interactions, and participants in these interactions are typically aware of these societal norms To better understand politeness, the concept of "face" must be examined According to Yule (1996), "face" refers to an individual's public self-image, encompassing the emotional and social sense of self that everyone possesses and expects others to acknowledge.
Politeness in interactions is defined as the methods used to acknowledge another person's face, demonstrating awareness of their social presence In contexts of social distance, this awareness manifests as respect or deference, while in closer relationships, it is expressed through friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.
1.2.2 Conversational-maxim view on politeness
In his 1968 lectures "Logic and Conversation," Grice introduced a formalist approach to human language, emphasizing key concepts that have become essential in linguistics Central to his theory is the notion of conversational implicatures, which are implied meanings in dialogue that reflect a shared purpose among participants This leads to the cooperative principle, suggesting that effective communication hinges on collaboration between speakers Grice further elaborated that a crucial aspect of this principle is to ensure that each conversational contribution aligns with the accepted goals of the discussion.
Grice identified four essential maxims—Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner—that contribute to effective communication These maxims are typically followed by participants to ensure cooperative dialogue However, communication can falter when one or more of these maxims are violated, which may occur through simple breaches like dishonesty.
“opt out” (e.g., refusing to answer a question), a “clash” (failure to fulfill one maxim without violating another), or “flouting,” which Grice defined as to “blatantly fail to fulfill” a maxim (p 310)
Grice's theory of conversational implicatures is widely regarded as a universal framework for human communication across languages However, there is significant debate regarding the cross-cultural applicability of Grice's maxims, with many scholars arguing that he overlooked important cultural factors This oversight can complicate or even render impossible the application of his principles to certain non-Western languages and cultures.
Leech, a prominent linguist, explores the role of politeness as a crucial connection between Grice's Cooperative Principle and the challenge of linking meaning to intention.
Leech argues that the Conceptualization of Politeness (CP) alone cannot clarify why individuals often communicate indirectly or the connection between sense and force He highlights the normative aspect of politeness through his formulation of the Politeness Principle (PP) and its associated maxims, which encompass the Tact Maxim, Generosity Maxim, Approbation Maxim, Modesty Maxim, Agreement Maxim, and Sympathy Maxim.
Leech's Politeness Principle (PP) can be broadly defined by two key aspects: minimizing the expression of impolite beliefs while maximizing the expression of polite beliefs His maxims of politeness are typically presented in pairs, highlighting the interplay between these two dimensions of communication.
1) Tact Maxim (in impositives and commissives) a Minimize the cost to other b Maximize the benefit to other
2) Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissives) a Minimize benefit to self b Maximize cost to self
3) Approbation Maxim (in expressives and assertives) a Minimize dispraise of other b Maximize praise of other
4) Modesty Maxim (in expressives and assertives) a Minimize praise of self b Maximize dispraise of self
5) Agreement Maxim (in assertives) a Minimize disagreement between self and other b Maximize agreement between self and other
6) Sympathy Maxim (in assertives) a Minimize antipathy between self and other b Maximize sympathy between self and other
Leech (1983) proposed that politeness principles prioritize the needs of others over oneself, with sub-maxim (b) being less significant than sub-maxim (a) Among the six maxims, the tact maxim is the most crucial, particularly in contexts requiring politeness, such as impossitive and commissive speech acts Additionally, the approbation and modesty maxims are valuable for analyzing compliments and responses in this study.
Like Grice, Leech faces various challenges and criticisms regarding his maxims Notably, Gu (1990) proposed revisions to Leech's Tact and Generosity maxims Additionally, Leech categorized illocutionary acts into four groups: competitive, convivial, collaborative, and conflictive From Leech's perspective, compliments, which benefit the listener, are classified under the convivial category.
1.2.3 Face-management view on politeness
Brown and Levinson (1978) introduced a comprehensive model of politeness that transcends cultural boundaries, emphasizing the importance of "face." They argue that individuals act rationally to fulfill specific desires, with politeness directly linked to the preservation of face.
According to Brown and Levinson, there are two kinds of faces: “negative face” and
Negative face refers to an individual's desire for independence and freedom from external constraints, emphasizing the importance of not having one's actions impeded by others In contrast, positive face highlights the wish for acceptance and belonging within a group, fostering connections and shared desires among individuals Essentially, while negative face prioritizes autonomy, positive face underscores the significance of social bonds and mutual understanding.
Pridham (2001) describes two ways to challenge someone's face: by giving orders, which suggests authority, or by expressing disagreement with their values (p 52) Such challenges are known as face-threatening acts (FTAs) In contrast, a face-saving act (FSA) is an attempt to mitigate the potential threat posed by an FTA For example, in a scenario where a young neighbor plays loud music late at night, one individual may initiate an FTA, prompting another to propose an FSA to ease the situation.
[1] Him: I’m going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon because it’s getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep
Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed that most speech acts are face-threatening acts (FTAs) that can jeopardize the interlocutors' social identities during communication For instance, compliments can endanger the addresser's negative face, while responses to compliments may threaten the speaker's positive face (Holmes, 1988b) In interactions, individuals strategically work to maintain both their own and others' positive and negative faces They identified two types of politeness: positive politeness, which fosters solidarity through gestures like compliments, and negative politeness, which demonstrates respect by acknowledging the other person's time and concerns, often accompanied by apologies for any potential imposition (Yule, 1996) Negative politeness typically results in more indirect and formal language use.
According to Brown and Levinson, compliments serve as a positive politeness strategy that acknowledges the hearer's positive face, demonstrating the complimenter's awareness of the complimentee's interests and needs In Western cultures, receiving compliments typically elicits a cheerful response, such as "thank you," which helps maintain the complimenter's positive face For instance, when a male colleague compliments a female colleague by saying, "I like your dress," he recognizes her effort to enhance her appearance and aligns with her values regarding beauty This acknowledgment can boost her self-esteem, as appearance significantly impacts women's self-image globally However, there are instances where the complimentee may feel their positive face is threatened, leading them to respond indifferently or avoid direct acknowledgment to preserve their self-image.
A: How efficient of you to get this done on time
COMPLIMENTS
According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2004, p 98), compliments can be categorized into three distinct meanings: they serve as expressions of admiration for someone or something, convey trust and a positive opinion about another person, and represent expressions of praise or good wishes.
According to Holmes (1988b), “a compliment is a speech act which explicitly or implicitly attributes credit to someone other than the speaker, usually the person addressed, for some
„good‟ (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is positively valued by the speaker and the hearer” (p 446)
A compliment is a polite speech act that can be either direct or indirect It may convey an explicit meaning that is easily recognized, or it may have a more subtle structure that still attributes credit to someone based on its implicit meaning Importantly, compliments are directed towards others rather than the speakers themselves.
Compliments often revolve around a limited range of topics, primarily categorized into two main types: appearance and possessions, and ability and accomplishments Research by Manes and Wolfson (1981) and Wolfson (1983) highlights that Americans frequently compliment each other on personal aspects such as weight loss, clothing, hairstyles, and jewelry, as well as on the attractiveness of children, pets, and partners, along with possessions like cars and houses The second category of compliments focuses on an individual's skills and achievements, including praise for a job well done, a skillfully played game, or a delicious meal.
Research by Wolfson (1983) and others indicates that in American English, compliments regarding appearance and possessions are predominantly exchanged among acquaintances, colleagues, and casual friends, particularly among females Compliment topics can be categorized into three main areas: appearance and possessions, performance and skills, and personality traits.
Wolfson, 1981; Knapp, Hopper & Bell, 1984; Wolfson, 1989; Herbert, 1998)
Complimenting behavior primarily serves to foster solidarity by expressing appreciation or approval (Manes & Wolfson, 1981) Research categorizes its functions into distinct groups, highlighting the social significance of compliments in enhancing interpersonal relationships.
(1) To express admiration or approval of someone‟s work/appearance/taste (Herbert,
(2) To establish friendship that creates ties of solidarity (Wolfson, 1989)
(3) To replace greetings, gratitude, congratulations, thanks, or apologies (Wolfson,
(4) To soften the tight atmosphere and minimize FTAs such as criticism, scolding, or requests (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1988b, and Wolfson, 1983, 1989)
(5) To open or sustain conversations as a politeness strategy allowing meaningful social interactions to follow (Manes, 1983)
(6) To show the envy of other‟s possessions or performances (Manes, 1983)
(7) To fawn others especially from the subordinate to the dominant (Manes, 1983).
COMPLIMENT RESPONSES
Compliments often follow a predictable pattern, similar to greetings, where a compliment is expected to elicit a response This interaction can be understood as an "adjacency pair," where the initial compliment anticipates a conventional reply However, the recipient typically responds with a different type of second pair-part, which can be categorized into two main responses: agreement and non-agreement Herbert's framework, based on American ethnographic data, effectively categorizes these compliment responses, providing valuable insights into social interactions.
A verbal or nonverbal acceptance of the compliment, acceptance not being tied to the specific semantics of the stimulus
(1) Thanks/ Thank you/ [nod/ smile]
Addressee accepts the complimentary force and offers a relevant comment on the appreciated topic
F2: Me too I’m never getting it cut short again
(3) Praise Upgrade Addressee accepts the compliment and asserts that the complement force is insufficient
(3) F: I like that shirt you‟re wearing
M: You’re not the first and you’re not the last
The addressee provides a series of personal comments on the complimented object, which contrasts with impersonal remarks that detach the compliment's impact from the addressee.
F2: I got it for the trip to Arizona
(5) Reassignment Addressee agrees with the compliment assertion, but the complimentary force is transferred to some third person or the object itself
M: My brother gave it to me
(6) Return As with (5) except that the praise is shifted (or returned) to the first speaker
(7) Scale Down Addressee disagrees with the complimentary force, pointing to some flaw in the object or claiming that the praise is overstated
M: It’s all scratched up I’m getting a new one
(8) Disagreement Addressee asserts that the object complimented is not worthy of praise: the first speaker‟s assertion is in error
(9) Qualification Weaker than (8): addressee merely qualifies the original assertion, usually with though, but, well, etc
(9) F1: Your portfolio turned out great
I want to retake some pictures
Addressee questions the sincerity or the appropriateness of the compliment
Addressee gives no indication of having heard the compliment: The addressee either (a) responds with an irrelevant comment (i.e., Topic shift) or (b) gives no response
M2: Did you finish the assignment for today?
Addressee, consciously or not, interprets the compliments as a request rather than a simple compliment Such responses are not compliment responses per se as the addressee does not perceive the previous
M: You want to borrow this one too? speech act as a compliment
While the existing framework for categorizing compliment responses is robust, it may not encompass all relevant data in every study, including this one Thus, it is sometimes essential to adapt the framework to better align with the specific requirements of the research.
GENDER AND LANGUAGE
The distinction between sex and gender emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, primarily through the work of British and American psychiatrists treating intersex and transsexual patients This differentiation highlights sex as a biological concept, while gender is understood as a social and cultural construct.
Gender is not something we are born with, and not something we have, but something we do (West and Zimmerman, 1987) – something we perform (Butler, 1990) As Eckert and
According to McConnell-Ginet (2003), sex is defined as a biological classification based on reproductive potential, while gender represents the social interpretation and enhancement of biological sex Gender not only amplifies biological differences but also extends these distinctions into areas where they are not applicable.
The World Health Organization (2011) distinguishes between sex and gender by defining sex as the biological and physiological traits that differentiate men and women, while gender encompasses the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes deemed suitable for each gender by society.
There is no biological justification for gendered behaviors, such as women being delicate and men being assertive, or for aesthetic choices like red toenails being exclusive to women When sex is viewed as a biological fact and gender as a social construct, these distinctions become less defined Society often perceives gender as shaped by social influences and therefore flexible, while sex is seen as a fixed biological characteristic However, researchers Eckert and McConnell-Ginet challenge these traditional views.
There is no obvious point at which sex leaves off and gender begins, partly because there is no single objective biological criterion for male and female sex
[…] the very definition of the biological categories male and female, and people‟s understanding of themselves and others as male or female, is ultimately social (p 10)
Fausto-Sterling (2000) summarized the situation as follows:
Labeling individuals as male or female is a societal choice influenced by our beliefs about gender rather than purely scientific facts While scientific knowledge can inform these decisions, it is ultimately our perceptions of gender that shape the definition of sex Additionally, these beliefs play a significant role in determining the types of research and knowledge that scientists generate regarding sex.
Gender is not solely determined by biological factors such as chromosomes, hormones, or physical traits; rather, it is a complex social construct that emphasizes differences while downplaying similarities According to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003), the process of defining gender involves exaggerating biological differences to create a dichotomy, influencing aspects like occupation, behavior, and language use.
This study examines gender as a social construct that shapes the differentiation within the gender order It specifically analyzes how males and females differ in their approaches to giving and receiving compliments.
1.5.2 Gender-based differences in language use
Many researchers emphasize the similarities between men and women rather than their differences Kunkel and Burleson (as cited in Canary & Dindia, 1998) noted that while some differences exist, the similarities are equally, if not more, significant Stier and Hall (1984) found no evidence that men touch women more than women touch men, concluding that touch in opposite-gender interactions is generally balanced Similarly, Hall and Veccia (1990) observed that men and women touch each other with equal frequency across various ages and body parts Despite these findings, there remains a tendency among researchers to focus more on gender differences than on the similarities.
A study on heterosexual married couples revealed that while women tend to introduce a greater variety of conversational topics, men are more likely to determine which topics are further explored Women often employ attention-grabbing phrases such as "Know what?" or "Guess what I just heard," while men are more inclined to withhold conversational support, offering fewer affirmative responses like "mm-hm" or "yeah." This dynamic highlights the differing communication styles between genders in marital conversations (DeFrancisco, 1991; Fishman, 1978; Leet-Pellegrini, 1980).
Research indicates that women engage in more "interactional work" during conversations, employing speech strategies that not only help them maintain their share of conversational time and attention but also offer support to their male counterparts (Crawford, 1995, p 42).
Research indicates that the stereotype of women as talkative persists due to societal norms that expect silence from them (Kramer, 1977; Spender, 1989) Spender argues that women who speak up are often labeled as talkative, highlighting a bias against their vocal expression (1989) In contrast, men tend to dominate conversations, especially in settings where speaking enhances their status, such as classrooms and faculty meetings (Crawford and MacLeod, 1990; M Sadker & D Sadker, 1994; B Eakins & G Eakins, 1976) Studies from the U.S and Britain show that men generally speak more than women in public contexts that value discourse (Holmes, 1991) Holmes (1995) notes that men prefer public, referential talk, while women favor intimate, affective conversations, suggesting that each gender thrives in environments where they feel comfortable Furthermore, women may perceive formal public settings as more threatening than men, who may find intimate contexts less comfortable (Holmes, 1995) Thus, both genders contribute less when placed in uncomfortable situations.
Lakoff's groundbreaking studies on language use highlighted the influence of women's subordinate social status on their communication styles In her seminal works from the early 1970s, she noted that women often employ distinct language features, such as specific color terms (e.g., mauve, ecru, lavender), adjectives (e.g., divine, adorable), and a higher frequency of tag questions (e.g., "John is here, isn’t he?") and weak expletives (e.g., "Oh fudge, I’ve put the peanut butter in the fridge again!") This differential use of language reflects social insecurity and varies significantly from male communication patterns Lakoff defined tag questions as declarative statements that do not assume belief from the addressee, allowing for flexibility in conversation and not compelling agreement with the speaker's views.
Downtoning a statement can indicate a lack of confidence, as evidenced by situations where verification is straightforward, such as "John is here, isn’t he?" or when expressing personal opinions like "The way prices are rising these days is horrendous, isn’t it?" These examples suggest that the speaker's insecurity is reflected in their need for affirmation, highlighting the importance of assertive communication.
In the years that followed the publication of her work, a considerable amount of research was conducted in connection with Lakoff‟s hypotheses A study by Dubois and Crouch
A study by Bock (1996), as referenced in Dubois and Crouch (1975), indicated that the claim that women use more tag-questions than men is oversimplified and not supported by substantial evidence In fact, research shows that men produced more tag-questions than women A poll conducted among 122 American college students revealed that only 41% agreed with the assertion that women use more tag-questions, while 17.2% disagreed and 41% remained undecided.
Further analyses have uncovered additional properties of tag-questions, revealing that they not only express uncertainty and a desire for acceptance but also serve as tools for politeness, hedging, and boosting Furthermore, tag-questions enhance communication by inviting interaction; for instance, the phrase "haven't you" allows the addressee, Andrew, to engage with the topic introduced by the speaker and initiate a conversation with Frank.
(1) Showing insecurity: I graduated last year, didn’t I?
(2) Facilitating conversation: Andrew, this is our new neighbor, Frank Andrew has just changed jobs, haven’t you?
Regarding the different functions of the tag-question, Holmes (1992, p 319) presented the following results:
Table 1-3: Functions of tag-questions between women and men (Holmes, 1992)
Function of tag Women Men
As it can be seen, men use question tags more often to express uncertainty while women use them largely to facilitate communication
A different division of the function of tag-questions, originally proposed by Holmes
GENDER AND POLITENESS
In her analysis of politeness within a Mayan community, Brown (1980, 1983) posits that women generally exhibit greater politeness than men She notes that women often employ more elaborate positive politeness strategies in interactions among themselves compared to men Furthermore, Brown highlights that many linguists have observed women's language to be more hypercorrect and formal than that of men This tendency may stem from the fact that women often seek to gain prestige through their appearance and linguistic behavior, as they may not achieve status through their jobs or income (Trudgill, 1972).
Brown viewed politeness as closely tied to social standing, particularly emphasizing its significance for women She believed that stable relationships typically lead to predictable levels of politeness Any noticeable shift in politeness indicates a change in respect, increased social distance, or a face-threatening situation Consequently, she argued that most variations in politeness levels stem from the mitigation of a face-threatening act (FTA).
In her analysis of strengthening and weakening particles in the gender-differentiated Mayan community of Tenajapa, she found that women employed more strengthening particles when conversing with both women and men, while also using more weakening particles when addressing men Notably, women communicating with other women utilized a greater number of particles overall compared to men speaking to men This finding underscores the complexity of women's linguistic styles, as highlighted by Brown, who noted that their choices are influenced by context and audience rather than adhering to a uniform style (Mills, 2003) Holmes (1995) later commented on Brown's insights regarding these linguistic particles.
The particles analyzed are predominantly found in speech that conveys feelings and attitudes The data indicates that women tend to discuss their feelings and attitudes regarding events more than men do This suggests that certain linguistic features associated with women's speech may be linked to the types of discourse that women prefer.
Despite instances where Brown's hypothesis was not supported by her data, she maintained that there are significant differences in the use of politeness between women's and men's speech.
Smith-Hefner's (1988) analysis of politeness in Java reveals that cultural definitions of politeness vary significantly In Javanese society, polite forms are linked to high status and linguistic skill, with women expected to exhibit more politeness than men within the family, indicating subservience Conversely, in public contexts, politeness is predominantly associated with males.
Holmes (1995) argued that in general women were more polite than men as they are more concerned with the affective rather than the referential aspect of utterances since
Politeness is fundamentally about showing concern for others' feelings, with studies suggesting that women tend to exhibit positive politeness more frequently than men This behavior reflects a stereotype that associates women with friendliness and consideration in their interactions However, the distinction between positive and negative politeness can be challenging, as few speech acts are inherently negative Negative politeness often involves linguistic strategies that mitigate the impact of potentially face-threatening communication.
In brief, many researchers have asserted a global difference between men‟s and women‟s use of politeness However, the generalizations are not always true in different cultures As Mills (2003) put it:
Analyzing gender is crucial at both local and structural levels, as it influences the production and interpretation of politeness within a community of practice Gender and other factors shape the context, and participants actively perform and interpret gender in relation to existing stereotypes.
RELATED STUDIES
1.7.1 Review of the studies on compliments and compliment responses
In applied linguistics, particularly regarding language acquisition and intercultural communication, understanding the social dynamics of language use is crucial Recent research on speech acts, such as apologies and compliments, reveals significant insights (Wolfson, 1984) Notably, studies indicate that the act of giving and responding to compliments is more complex than it initially seems, highlighting intricate relationships among language, society, and culture (Pomerantz, 1978; Wolfson, 1981; Wolfson & Manes, 1980; Holmes, 1988a; Herbert, 1989).
Studies of compliments have focused on the following areas: compliment formulas, functions, topics, compliment responses, and compliment as a gender-preferential strategy in one culture or across cultures
A comprehensive study by Wolfson and Manes analyzed over 1,000 American compliments, revealing that around 80% adhere to three primary syntactic structures: "NP is/looks (intensifier) ADJ" (e.g., "Your sweater is really nice"), "I (intensifier) like/love NP" (e.g., "I really like your car"), and "PRO is (intensifier) (a) ADJ NP" (e.g., "That’s a really good question").
Following Wolfson and Manes‟ investigation, there were other studies, which confirmed their finding of the formulas in other varieties of English, for example, Holmes (1988a), Herbert (1990), etc
Ye's (1995) research revealed that Chinese compliments are largely formulaic, utilizing a narrow spectrum of positive semantic carriers He identified that the predominant types of these carriers are adjectives, verbs, and adverbs, which are influenced by the language's structural characteristics.
Jia (1997) studied that Chinese adverbs often occurred with most of the positive adjectives and verbs The most popular syntactic patters are:
1 (Your) NP (ADV) ADJ (e.g (Your) This sweater is really nice.)
2 (You) V NP (ADV) ADJ (e.g (You) wear this coat really beautiful.)
3 NP (You V) (ADV) ADJ (e.g This job you did really good.)
He also noted that Chinese compliments rarely used the speaker‟s perspective, “I”
The findings concerning compliment formulas indicate that compliments are readily recognizable items of discourse They reduce the possibility of misunderstanding between the speaker and hearer
Investigating the different ways in which Vietnamese compliments are expressed, Q Nguyễn (1998, p 183-185) suggested a range of lexico-modal markers commonly deployed by Vietnamese speakers in giving compliments:
(i) vừa, vừa mới, đơn giản là, có lẽ, có thể, có khả năng, phải chăng, ở mức độ nào đó thì, nói khí không phải chứ, …
(ii) một chút, một tẹo, một tẹo teo, tí chút, đôi chút, tàm tạm, đại loại, kiểu, kiểu như là,…
(iii) vô cùng, thực sự, thật là, thật, rất, rất chi là, quả là, rất là, lắm, thế, đấy, hẳn ra, ra, lên, …
In American culture, compliments play a vital role in fostering social harmony and facilitating interactions They express gratitude, help initiate or conclude conversations, and can soften criticisms or requests Additionally, compliments reinforce solidarity between the speaker and the listener, while also serving as a means of expressing praise and admiration.
Compliments can lead to embarrassment and offense if misused, highlighting their significance in American English (Dunham, 1992; Holmes & Brown, 1987) In contrast, other cultures, such as Thai culture, place a higher value on humility and modesty, resulting in fewer compliments being exchanged A comparative study by Cedar (2006) reveals that Thai compliments are more restricted in purpose and are delivered with careful consideration, unlike the more frequent and open nature of compliments in American English.
In American English, compliments can be categorized into three main areas: appearance or possessions, abilities or accomplishments, and personality traits (Knapp, Hopper & Bell, 1984; Nelson, El Bakary & Al Batal, 1993) These topics reflect societal values and what is deemed admirable, with positive remarks often highlighting noticeable changes such as weight loss or new possessions (Hatch, 1992) While compliments on appearance and possessions are commonly exchanged regardless of social status, those regarding abilities and accomplishments are more selectively given, as it is generally assumed that individuals in higher positions are better equipped to evaluate the performance of those in lower status, using compliments as a form of positive reinforcement (Wolfson, 1989).
Research indicates that the values associated with compliments differ across cultures In Vietnamese culture, compliments are often focused on spiritual life, abilities, promotions, and social communication, while topics like appearance and economic status are considered sensitive Conversely, in Japanese society, the emphasis is placed on abilities and achievements rather than appearance, which is more valued in English-speaking cultures Similarly, in Korea, compliments regarding personality traits such as being "good-natured," "diligent," and "polite" are more common than in English, reflecting societal norms and expectations These insights highlight the necessity for nonnative speakers to understand both appropriate compliment topics and the cultural values that inform them in the target language.
Research indicates that American speakers often demonstrate creativity in responding to compliments, avoiding straightforward acceptance (Herbert, 1986, 1989; Pomerantz, 1978) Holmes (1988a) analyzed New Zealand data and identified 12 strategies for responding to compliments, categorizing them into three main types: Accept, Reject, and Defect/Evade Her findings showed that accepting compliments was the most common response, accounting for 61% of all replies Similarly, Nelson et al (1996) found that nearly half of compliments were deflected, with few outright rejections, as rejecting compliments is less common due to its potential to threaten social face (Knapp et al., 1984; Nelson et al.).
Compliment responses have often been examined in a contrastive fashion to illuminate cultural differences in CR behavior between different speech communities Q Nguyễn
A study by Kiều (2006) revealed distinct differences in how American and Vietnamese speakers handle compliments Americans tend to accept compliments, often using strategies like scaled-down disagreements or reciprocal compliments to avoid self-praise In contrast, Vietnamese speakers typically prefer to obviate compliments, frequently downgrading the initial praise or shifting credit to a third party, reflecting a cultural tendency towards modesty While expressions of acceptance and appreciation are common in American English, they are notably rare in Vietnamese communication, highlighting a cultural inclination to reject compliments as a sign of humility.
A contrastive study by Gajaseni (1994) on American and Thai compliment responses revealed that Americans are more inclined to accept compliments and provide lengthier replies The research indicated that both Americans and Thais are more likely to accept compliments from individuals of higher social status, while rejecting them more frequently from those of lower status This suggests that both cultural groups perceive accepting compliments as a more polite response than rejecting them.
A study by Chiang and Pochtraeger (1993) revealed that American-born English speakers tend to respond to compliments with positive elaboration, while Chinese-born speakers are more inclined to deny or negatively elaborate on compliments The findings indicate that rejection or denial of compliments is the least preferred response among Americans.
Yoko (1995) conducted a study comparing Japanese compliment responses (CRs) to American norms, finding that Japanese speakers often reject compliments, viewing acceptance as problematic He highlighted that the typical American response is "thank you," which acknowledges the compliment without implying agreement, thus avoiding a conceited appearance Yoko emphasized that compliments create a dilemma for recipients, as they must navigate the balance between rejecting the compliment and maintaining social rapport He concluded that, in Japanese culture, it is generally expected that individuals do not accept compliments about themselves or their possessions (p 53).
Nelson, Al-Batal, and Echols (1996) conducted a study comparing compliment responses (CRs) in Arabic and English, revealing that both groups were more inclined to accept compliments rather than reject them The research highlighted that Americans typically responded with "appreciation tokens" such as "thanks," while Arabic-speaking Syrians frequently utilized formulaic expressions not present in the American responses.
1.7.2 Review of the studies on gender-based differences in compliments and compliment responses
Research has highlighted significant gender differences in the use of compliments Wolfson (1984) found that the manner in which women were addressed reinforced their subordinate societal roles, regardless of their status Women tend to compliment other women more frequently than they do men, and this trend is contrasted by men, who primarily compliment each other on possessions rather than appearance In fact, compliments regarding appearance are the most common among women.
Holmes (1988a) investigated gender dynamics in compliment interactions, revealing that males are more likely to ignore or evade compliments compared to females Her findings indicated distinct gender-preferential strategies in responding to compliments, with New Zealand men often perceiving compliments as face-threatening acts (FTAs), while women typically view them as opportunities to foster solidarity In her subsequent research, Holmes analyzed a corpus of 484 compliment exchanges documented by linguistics students, further exploring these gendered response patterns.