INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study
The rationale of the study
Language is intricately linked to culture, with speaking rules varying significantly across different languages These cultural norms influence how we adjust our language based on context and the person we are communicating with For instance, the use of compliments differs not only in language but also in timing, context, and the roles of the individuals involved When individuals apply their native cultural norms while communicating in a second language, it can lead to misunderstandings or perceptions of rudeness A Vietnamese student, for example, might misinterpret an American professor's compliment about his performance by responding with self-deprecation, saying, "Oh, no, I'm not good at all," which may not align with the expected response in that cultural context.
The American professor may perceive a student's uncertainty about his judgment when they respond in their native language, highlighting the complexities of sociocultural and pragmatic language use for learners Without adapting their language to different contexts, second language speakers risk failing to convey their intentions, despite having a solid understanding of grammar and vocabulary While minor grammatical errors or mispronunciations are often overlooked, pragmatic failures are typically not excused Incorrect language use can lead to negative perceptions of the speaker, such as being seen as arrogant or unfriendly, and may also reinforce ethnic stereotypes.
Pragmatics, the study of language use in context, presents significant challenges for instructors in language classrooms This raises the question of whether pragmatics can be effectively taught and learned Recent interventional studies in inter-language pragmatics have explored the impact of formal instruction on students' understanding of pragmatic concepts, as highlighted by researchers Rose and Kasper.
Research has demonstrated the advantages of formal instruction in pragmatics over uninstructed learning, highlighting the effectiveness of various teaching techniques such as conscious learning, awareness-raising, and observational tasks Studies have compared implicit and explicit instructional methods, revealing that while both approaches enhance learners' pragmatic abilities, explicit instruction tends to be more effective Additionally, Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) found that both inductive and deductive instruction improved learners' use of compliment formulas; however, only the deductive approach helped learners align their response strategies with native norms Thus, while both instructional methods can foster pragmalinguistic improvement, the deductive approach is particularly beneficial for sociopragmatic development.
Despite the ability to teach pragmatic language rules in classrooms, articulating and generalizing these concepts remains challenging for educators Many ESL/EFL textbooks, including those used at Quy Nhon University, often fail to accurately reflect natural language use, as noted by various studies (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; Boxer & Pickering, 1995) Kasper (1997) highlights that native speakers' intuitions may not reliably inform pragmatic language use, emphasizing the need for research-based teaching materials Typically, published materials are based on developers' intuitions, leading to misrepresentations of actual language use This paper aims to investigate whether instruction rooted in pragmatic studies enhances students' understanding of the target culture in giving and responding to compliments compared to traditional textbook-based approaches.
The aims of the study
This study focuses on several key objectives: first, it reviews existing literature on speech act performance, specifically the giving and responding to compliments in American English, utilizing empirical data Second, it aims to develop instructional strategies grounded in theoretical frameworks to teach these speech acts to second-year students at Quy Nhon University's Department of Foreign Languages Third, the research investigates the varying impacts of instructional methods derived from textbooks compared to those based on pragmatic studies, particularly the formulas established by Manes and Wolfson (1981) regarding American distributions Finally, the study discusses the findings, draws conclusions, and offers recommendations for effective teaching practices in a foreign language context.
In meeting these aims the study will have the consequences of:
1 helping students to have a deep understanding of speech act performance: giving and responding to compliments in American English; and
2 encouraging the students to practice that speech act naturally and effectively in real contexts
The thesis includes five chapters
Chapter one serves as the introduction to the thesis, outlining the study's background, rationale, aims, and providing an overview of the entire thesis.
Chapter two focuses on literature review relevant to speech act performance: giving and responding to compliments
Chapter three outlines the study's methodology, detailing the research question, design, subject characteristics, study instruments, instructions, and data collection procedures.
Chapter four analyzes and discusses the findings of the data collected
Chapter five presents conclusions and recommendations aimed at enhancing the teaching and learning of speech act performance, specifically focusing on giving and responding to compliments These insights are tailored for second-year students at the Department of Foreign Languages at Quy Nhon University.
Overview of the thesis
This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the theoretical background of the research, organized into four key sections Section 2.1 delves into the essential concepts of speech act theory, focusing specifically on "compliments and compliment responses." In Section 2.2, it summarizes various strategies for giving and responding to compliments, drawing from previous empirical studies Lastly, Section 2.3 investigates the notion of pragmatic transfer, highlighting the interplay between language and culture, which can enhance teachers' approaches to instructing on speech acts.
2.1.1 Notion and classification of Speech Act
Effective communication goes beyond mere conversation; it involves performing actions through speech British philosopher John Austin (1962) was the pioneer in identifying various functions of utterances within interpersonal communication His foundational theory was later expanded upon by notable pragmaticists, including John Searle.
In their 1976 study, researchers highlighted the strong connection between speech acts and language functions, emphasizing that when a speaker conveys a message with specific meaning and reference, they simultaneously perform an action, such as making a promise, request, or apology (Austin, 1962 & Geis, 1995:3).
“I promise I’ll be there” not only conveys information but itself constitutes the act of promising
Austin (1962) believes that a single speech usually contains three separate but related kinds of act: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act
According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1976), clarified by Richard et al (1992: 217), the locutionary act is the saying of something, which is meaningful
LITERRATURE REVIEW
Theory of Speech Act
2.1.1 Notion and classification of Speech Act
Effective communication goes beyond mere conversation; it involves performing actions through speech British philosopher John Austin (1962) was the pioneer in identifying various functions of utterances within interpersonal communication His foundational theory has since been expanded upon by several pragmaticists, notably John Searle.
In their 1976 study, researchers highlighted the strong connection between speech acts and language functions, emphasizing that when a speaker conveys a message with specific meaning and reference, they often simultaneously perform an action, such as making a promise, request, or apology (Austin, 1962 & Geis, 1995:3).
“I promise I’ll be there” not only conveys information but itself constitutes the act of promising
Austin (1962) believes that a single speech usually contains three separate but related kinds of act: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act
According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1976), as clarified by Richard et al (1992: 217), communication involves three types of acts: the locutionary act, which is the meaningful expression of words; the illocutionary act, which refers to the intended function of the statement; and the perlocutionary act, which encompasses the effects or outcomes resulting from the utterance For instance, when someone says, "I’ve just made some coffee," this represents a locutionary act The speaker may intend to make an offer (illocutionary act), which could lead the listener to accept and drink the coffee (perlocutionary act).
Illocutionary acts are considered the most significant among the three types of speech acts According to Yule (1997: 52), the term "speech act" is often understood narrowly, focusing primarily on the illocutionary force of an utterance This is important because the same utterance can convey different illocutionary meanings For example, the phrase "I'll see you later" can serve as a prediction, a promise, or a warning, illustrating the versatility of illocutionary acts in communication.
Philosophers and pragmatists, including Austin (1962), Searle (1976), Yule (1997), and Peccei (1999), have sought to classify speech acts Austin identifies five types of utterance functions: verdictive (e.g., assess, appraise), exercitives (e.g., command, direct), commissives (e.g., promise, propose), behabitives (e.g., apologize, thank), and expositives (e.g., accept, agree) His classification emphasizes how speakers convey their intentions, while Searle focuses on listeners' responses to utterances, leading to a widely recognized classification of speech acts (Wardhaugh, 1992) Searle categorizes speech acts into five distinct types.
1 Commissives : committing a speaker to doing something (e.g a promise or a threat)
2 Declarations : changing the state of affairs in the world (e.g a pronouncement at a court or a resignation)
3 Directives : getting the listener to do something (e.g a suggestion or a request)
4 Expressives : expressing feelings and attitudes about something ( e.g apology or a complaint)
5 Representatives : describing states or events in the world (e.g an assertation or a report)
Furthermore, Yule (1997: 55) summarizes the five general categories of speech act as below:
Table 2.1 The five general functions of speech acts
Speech act type Direction of fit S = Speaker
Declarations words change the world S causes X
Representatives make words fit the world S believes X Expressives make words fit the world S feels X
Directives make the world fit words S wants X
Commissives make the world fit words S intends X
Peccei (1999) introduces a sixth category of speech acts, known as Rogative, which involves speakers seeking information, where the hearer is responsible for aligning the words with reality This addition complements the existing five types of speech acts, highlighting the intricate relationship between language and meaning.
“the world” and on who is responsible for bringing about the relationship
Table 2.2 The relation between “the words” and “ the world”
Speech act category Relation between “the words” Who is responsible and “the world” for the relation
Declarations transform the speaker's perspective to align with the world around them Representatives convey the speaker's view of the external world, while expressives reflect the speaker's emotional state in relation to psychological experiences Rogatives focus on the listener's role, ensuring their engagement with the message Commissives commit the speaker to future actions, demonstrating accountability, and directives guide the listener's actions, emphasizing the importance of their response.
Based on the relationship between structure and function of speech acts, there is another approach to divide speech acts into direct and indirect speech acts
In English, structural forms can be categorized into three types: declarative, interrogative, and imperative, each serving distinct communicative functions—statements, questions, and commands or requests (Yule, 1997) Peccei (1999) explains that direct speech acts have a clear connection between their linguistic structure and their intended function, while indirect speech acts convey meaning through the execution of another speech act.
(a) “Could you stop making that noise?” (directive)
The utterance directly gets the addressee to stop making noise; i.e the request is used to perform a request, then we have a direct speech act
(b) “It’s very noisy in here!”
The statement about the room being noisy serves not only as a description but also acts as an implicit request for the listener to reduce the noise, such as lowering the radio volume or ceasing to whistle This illustrates the concept of an indirect speech act, where the structure of the statement conveys a function beyond its literal meaning.
For a speech act to be effective, it is essential that specific felicity conditions are met This means the utterance should be delivered by the appropriate individual to the correct audience, in the suitable context, at the right moment, and in an appropriate manner When these criteria are fulfilled, the speech act is considered to be performed correctly (Jackson and Stockwell, 1996:140).
Guy Cooks emphasizes that speech act theory connects the purpose of utterances to specific felicity conditions and the participants' awareness of these conditions, which can enhance our understanding of the coherence in communication exchanges.
Speech acts are a universal aspect of communication found in all languages, yet their expression varies across cultures due to differing socio-cultural norms What is deemed appropriate in one culture may be considered inappropriate in another As Wierzbicka (1991:149) notes, “Every culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech acts and speech genres.”
To communicate effectively across cultures, it is essential for learners to develop sociolinguistic competence According to Wolfson (1981), a lack of this competence can create a vicious cycle, where learners, unaware of how relationships are formed in the target culture, miss opportunities for interaction This limited engagement hinders their ability to learn both the language and the sociolinguistic rules that are crucial for effective communication.
Research on speech acts across cultures aims to provide empirically valid analyses that encompass not only linguistic forms but also the variations in functions and social rules governing their use This work seeks to assist foreign language learners in minimizing cultural conflicts and preventing communication breakdowns.
2.1.3 The Speech Act of Giving and Responding to Compliments
The speech act of compliments and compliment responses belongs to the group of Verdictive (Austin, 1962) or Expressives, expressing positive feelings and attitude about something or someone ( Wardhaugh, 1992; Yule, 1997, & Peccei, 1999)
A compliment is a speech act that acknowledges and attributes positive qualities, skills, or characteristics to someone other than the speaker, typically the person being addressed, as defined by Holmes (1988a: 485) This act of praise is valued positively by both the speaker and the listener.
Compliments and Compliment Responses
In a study by Manes and Wolfson (1981), 686 naturally occurring compliments were analyzed, revealing a surprising level of formulaic expression The research, which included a diverse group of middle-class Americans across different ages, occupations, and educational backgrounds, found that 85% of the compliments adhered to just three main syntactic structures, with the most prevalent formula accounting for 53.6% of the total.
1 NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)
3 PRO is (really) (a) (ADJ) NP
That’s a really nice wall hanging
Manes and Wolfson (1981:120-121) These three patterns together with six additional patterns Manes, J and Wolfson, N found made up of 97.2% of the data they acquired The six additional syntactic patterns are:
5 You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)
You really handled that situation well
6 You have (a) (really) ADJ NP
You have such beautiful hair!
What a lovely baby you have!
In their research, Manes and Wolfson (1981) highlighted key patterns in compliment usage among middle-class American English speakers Wolfson (1983) further validated these findings with a comprehensive analysis of over 1,200 instances of compliments, revealing that 50% of compliments adhered to a primary syntactic formula Additionally, two subsequent syntactic patterns comprised another 29% of the compliments observed in the study.
Recent studies conducted by researchers of both genders in locations such as New York, Texas, South Africa, and New Zealand have confirmed the initial findings on the frequency and distribution of formulas, as noted in previous works by Herbert (1986b, 1987), Holmes (1988), and Holmes and Brown (1987), among others The diverse methods of data collection employed by these researchers enhance the credibility of the consistent results observed.
2.2.1.2 Embedded Formulas and Framing Remarks
Manes and Wolfson (1981) emphasize the need for further exploration of embedded formulas, such as introductory phrases like “I think” or “I want to tell you.” Additionally, they highlight the significance of framing remarks, which function similarly to pre-sequences, warranting a detailed discussion of their roles and effects in communication.
Compliments serve to direct attention to the subject of praise and enhance the compliment itself They should be viewed within the context of the entire discourse unit, which encompasses any introductory remarks, the standard compliment, and the subsequent response.
Manes, J & Wolfson, N (1981:128) The purpose of framing remarks can be shown in the following examples demonstrated by Manes & Wolfson (1981:128):
(1) A: Did you get your hair cut?
(2) A: I love your sweater It’s beautiful Where did you buy it?
In the examples presented, the bold and italicized sentences serve as framing remarks The first, "Did you get your hair cut?" captures the recipient's attention while signaling a forthcoming compliment The second, "Where did you buy it?" effectively seeks additional details about the object of the compliment.
2.2.1.3 Lexical Aspect in American Compliments
The lexical choices for complimenting discovered by Manes and Wolfson
In their 1981 study, Manes and Wolfson emphasized the importance of teaching the speech act of complimenting in EFL classrooms, revealing that 80% of compliments in their corpus were adjectival They found that two-thirds of these adjectival compliments relied on just five key adjectives: nice, good, beautiful, pretty, and great Wolfson further noted that the prevalence of adjectives in compliments is significant, as they effectively convey positive sentiments.
“positive semantic value” And that is what the main function of complimenting needs: to have a positive evaluation
The frequent use of five specific adjectives in American English can greatly benefit language teachers and learners These adjectives allow learners to effectively express compliments across a wide range of topics, making them highly versatile in conversational contexts.
The terms “nice” and “good” are often seen as vague, making them applicable to nearly any subject In contemporary American English, the word “beautiful” is also becoming less specific in its usage Interestingly, “pretty” is used more frequently than the broader term “great,” indicating that women receive a significantly higher number of compliments related to their appearance This suggests that men and women tend to select different adjectives when offering compliments, highlighting a distinction in how each sex expresses admiration.
Manes and Wolfson (1981) explored various semantic patterns, including the use of verbs, adverbs, and intensifiers, in their corpus analysis They discovered that, unlike adjectives, 25% of compliments utilized verbs to convey positive meaning, with a striking 90% of these compliments relying on just two positive verbs: "like" and "love."
Non-positive verbs are often used together with the intensifier “really” For instance, “You really speak very good English.”
2.2.1.4 Power, Distance and Rate of Imposing in American Compliments
By systematically connecting and analyzing data, we can uncover valuable insights into the rights and obligations that community members hold towards each other This information is culturally specific and may not be readily apparent to native speakers.
Wolfson (1981, 1983) emphasizes that the spontaneous speech forms individuals use with various interlocutors reflect not only the roles and expectations of the speakers but also the dynamics of role manipulation and the development or reinforcement of relationships.
Wolfson highlights a qualitative difference in speech behavior among middle-class Americans, distinguishing between interactions with non-intimates, status unequals, and strangers versus those with intimates, status-equal friends, coworkers, and acquaintances His analysis of everyday speech reveals that extreme social distances—both minimum and maximum—often elicit similar speech behaviors In contrast, relationships that fall in the middle of the social distance spectrum exhibit significant variations in communication styles This concept is referred to as "the Bulge."
At first glance, it may seem perplexing to compare nonintimates, status unequals, and strangers with status-equal friends, coworkers, and acquaintances The key difference lies in the stability of relationships; nonintimates have a clearer understanding of expectations due to fixed social status and distance, while the latter group experiences greater instability Essentially, when social dynamics are perceived as stable, it becomes easier for individuals to anticipate each other's behavior.
In a diverse urban environment, speakers often navigate multiple, distinct networks, leading to uncertain relationships These connections are dynamic and filled with potential, allowing for negotiation and freedom, yet they lack a sense of security.
Pragmatic transfer
Pragmatic transfer, as defined by Kasper (1992), refers to the impact of learners' knowledge of other languages and cultures on their understanding and use of the pragmatic aspects of a second language (L2) This pragmatic knowledge encompasses the skills necessary for interpreting and executing verbal communication in alignment with a speaker's intentions, while considering contextual and discourse-related factors (Faerch & Kasper, 1984).
2.3.2 Language and Culture: types of pragmatic transfer
Stemming from the inseparable relationship between language and culture, Kasper (1992) identifies two types of pragmatic transfer: pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
As EFL teachers, it is essential to recognize that language learning is intrinsically linked to cultural understanding This relationship between language and culture is crucial for effective communication in a foreign language.
Figure 2.1 The pragmatic continuum: language – culture
(linguistic means of conveying (socially appropriate illocutionary force and politeness values) linguistic behavior)
The distinction between the roles of linguists and teachers has significant pedagogical implications According to Thomas (1983), while linguists aim to accurately report their observations, teachers must adopt a prescriptive approach tailored to specific contexts Effective language teaching necessitates an understanding of both linguistic systems and cultural contexts, which are influenced by personal beliefs about language and the world As a result, teachers can readily address pragmalinguistic errors but should approach sociopragmatic failures with caution, focusing on discussion rather than correction to respect students' values and beliefs.
Kasper (1992) highlights the distinction in transfer, focusing on pragmalinguistic transfer, which encompasses illocutionary force and politeness values She categorizes politeness into discernment politeness—markers used regardless of the communicative goal—and strategic politeness, which involves linguistic strategies designed to address participants’ face needs (Brown and Levinson, 1987).
Pragmalinguistic transfer refers to how the illocutionary force or politeness value associated with specific linguistic elements in a learner's first language (L1) impacts their understanding and use of form-function relationships in their second language (L2).
Sociopragmatic transfer encompasses both context-external factors, which relate to the role relationships among participants regardless of specific linguistic actions, and context-internal factors that are inherent to a particular speech event According to Kasper (1992:209), understanding these dimensions is crucial for analyzing communication dynamics.
“sociolinguistic transfer, then is operative when the social perceptions underlying language users’ interpretation and performance of linguistic action in L2 are influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts
This chapter provides a concise overview of literature related to the concepts and classification of speech acts, specifically focusing on American compliments and their responses It examines the structures, embedded formulas, and framing remarks involved, along with the lexical aspects, power dynamics, social distance, and the rate of imposition in these interactions Additionally, it addresses the various addressing forms, topics, and gender differences present in American compliments and responses, while also discussing the implications of pragmatic transfer.
METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
Billmyer (1990) was a pioneer in examining the impact of instruction on compliments, revealing that participants could learn to compliment in American English effectively, regardless of whether they received instruction, likely due to their immersion in an English-rich environment This raises the question of whether similar outcomes would occur in foreign language contexts Rose & Kwai-fun (2001) explored this in a foreign language setting at the City University of Hong Kong, discovering that while both inductive and deductive teaching methods improved pragmalinguistic skills, only deductive instruction was effective in enhancing sociopragmatic proficiency In Vietnam, although various speech acts between Vietnamese and American English speakers have been studied, their practical application in teaching remains largely unaddressed, with most instruction at institutions like Quy Nhon University relying heavily on deductive methods Thus, this study aims to investigate these dynamics further.
- How is the speech act of giving and responding to compliments taught at Quy Nhon University?
- How do the second-year learners majoring in English at Quy Nhon University employ strategies in giving and responding to compliments with instruction?
- What are their problems in giving and responding to compliments?
Research Design
The study involved 160 second-year English major students from the Foreign Languages Department at Quy Nhon University, selected from a total of 223 students across classes 2006A, 2006B, 2006C, 2006D, 2006E, and 2006G The lower participation rate was due to class 2006H opting out after conducting a pilot test of the questionnaires, as well as some students being absent or not completing the questionnaires properly The participants were randomly divided into two groups: Group A, which included 80 students from classes 2006A, 2006B, and 2006C, and Group B, consisting of 80 students from classes 2006D, 2006E, and 2006G.
In terms of gender, the predominant of the two groups belongs to female (91.3 %) of group A and (92.5 %) of group B, whereas males account for only 8.8
% of group A and 7.5% of group B correspondently
Table 3.1 Gender distribution of the respondents
The subjects in this study are aged between 19 and 22 years, with the majority being 20 years old, representing 71.3% in group A and 73.8% in group B The next most common age is 21, accounting for 18.8% in group A and 20.0% in group B.
In Vietnam, some students enroll in university either a year earlier or more than a year later than the typical age In this study, 5.0% of participants from group A were 19 years old, while an equal number were 22 years old, with 3.8% and 2.5% representing other ages.
Table 3.2 Age distribution of the respondents
Age Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
A significant portion of respondents attended high school in a town, with 40% from group A and 50% from group B Following this, 37.5% of group A and 32.5% of group B reported attending school in the countryside The remaining participants were from big cities, accounting for 8.8% in group A and 10.0% in group B, while those from mountainous areas made up 3.8% to 6.3% of the respondents in both groups.
Table 3.3 Distribution of the respondents’ high school places
Group A Group B where attended high school Frequency Percent Frequency Percent a big city 7 8.8 8 10.0 a town 40 50.0 41 51.3 the countryside 30 37.5 26 32.5 a mountainous area 3 3.8 5 6.3
Especially, where the respondents attended high school seemed not to affect the starting year when they began to learn English Nearly all the students
A significant majority of students, 93.8% in group A and 83.8% in group B, began learning English at the age of 12 while in the sixth form In contrast, only 2.5% of students from both groups started studying English at the earlier age of 9, three years ahead of their peers, and these early learners were predominantly from urban areas Notably, there were no students who commenced their English studies prior to age 9.
English at the age of 15 when they reached grade 10
Table 3.4 Age distribution when starting learning English
Age beginning learning English Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
The respondents from both groups exhibit similar fundamental characteristics, such as gender, age, high school backgrounds, and the age at which they began learning English They were tasked with completing three data collection instruments: a self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ), a written discourse completion questionnaire (DCQ), and a metapragmatic assessment questionnaire.
(MAQ), all of which are described in the next section
A pilot test of a questionnaire was conducted one month prior to its official distribution among 25 students from class 2006H to ensure its accuracy and reliability The questionnaire was structured in two parts.
The initial section of the questionnaire focuses on gathering background information about the students, requiring participants to disclose details such as their name, class, gender, age, high school attended, and the duration of their English language learning This data is essential for creating student profiles and serves as a foundation for the subsequent analysis of the study.
The main section of the questionnaire comprised three instruments: the SAQ, DCQ, and MAQ, all featuring twelve compliment scenarios derived from a preliminary survey of thirty second-year students from class 2006H These students were asked to document their most recent compliments made, received, or witnessed in English, resulting in a diverse pool of scenarios primarily occurring in home and school contexts, reflecting their daily environments Ultimately, twelve scenarios were selected for inclusion based on their frequency, representation of both contexts, and relevance to topics such as appearance, possession, skills or talents, and task performance.
Item Setting Speaker, hearer Compliment Topic
1 Home Student = Student male – female Task performance (cooked meal)
2 Home Mother > Student female –female Appearance (best suit)
3 School Teacher > Student female – female Possession (new bag)
4 School Teacher > Student female – female Skills or talents (computers)
5 School Student = Student male – female Skills or talents (good singer)
6 School Student = Student female – male Possession (new watch)
7 School Student = Student male – male Task performance (presentation)
8 School Student < Teacher female – male Possession (a new computer)
9 Home Student < Mother female – female Appearance (best dress)
10 School Teacher > Student male – female Skills or talents (good writing)
11 School Student > Tutee female – male Task performance (exam result)
12 School Teacher > Student female – female Appearance (new shirt)
The study involved twelve scenarios presented in questionnaires, focusing on two contexts: home and university, with a greater emphasis on school where compliments are more frequently exchanged Participants included students and three additional individuals—teachers, mothers, and tutees—who regularly interact with the students The scenarios also reflected varying power dynamics, as the study examined how status relations influence the giving and receiving of compliments Gender dynamics were evident, with five scenarios featuring interactions between females, six involving mixed-gender exchanges, and only one between males, highlighting that women generally engage in complimenting more than men To prevent bias, the scenarios were randomly arranged in the questionnaire, ensuring that students responded without recognizing patterns.
In the context of the ACT topic, various situations illustrate the importance of compliments in different settings At home, a student acts as a boyfriend, praising his girlfriend for her cooking skills, while also taking on the role of a tutor, commending a male tutee for his impressive English exam results Additionally, at university, a friend acknowledges another friend's excellent presentation in class, highlighting the value of positive reinforcement in academic and personal relationships.
In various scenarios highlighting the theme of "appearance," a mother praises her daughter for wearing her finest suit to a job interview, while the daughter reciprocates by complimenting her mother on her elegant dress for a wedding Additionally, at the university, a female teacher admires a female student's new shirt, showcasing the importance of positive reinforcement in personal appearance across different settings.
In various university scenarios related to the theme of "POSSESSION," a female teacher admires a female student's stylish new bag, a male student praises a female classmate for her elegant new watch, and a female student compliments her male teacher on his sleek new computer.
In various university scenarios highlighting "CHARACTER-ABILITY," a female teacher praises a female student's exceptional computer skills, while a male student admires a female classmate's impressive singing talent Additionally, a male teacher acknowledges another female student's remarkable writing abilities, showcasing the importance of recognizing and celebrating diverse talents in an academic setting.
The SAQ format, developed by Hudson, Deter, and Brown (1992, 1995), is designed to assess pragmatic proficiency by measuring participants' self-confidence in their pragmatic abilities In this study, students rated their confidence in producing and responding to compliments on a scale from completely appropriate to completely inappropriate Recognizing that instruction can influence confidence in language skills, the author proposed the SAQ as a valuable pretest and posttest measure of self-confidence The SAQ was the first of three questionnaires administered in the study.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Responses to Self- Assessment Questionnaire
Before classroom instruction, the self-assessment questionnaire indicated that most students felt confident in their ability to produce the speech act, with group average scores ranging from 3.88 for group A to 3.98 for group B on a 5-point scale.
Students’ self-ratings of producing compliments and compliment responses
Group A (average points) Group B (average points) Pre-teaching questionnaire 3.88/ 5.00 3.98/ 5.00
A significant majority of students in Vietnam, specifically 93.8% from group A and 83.8% from group B, began learning English at the age of 12, often during their sixth or third form This early exposure has provided them with opportunities to hear discussions about the differences between American and Vietnamese compliments and responses Additionally, Vietnam's entry into the World Trade Organization has led to the implementation of new foreign language training policies and the introduction of advanced technologies, enhancing English learning for Vietnamese students With resources like Cable TV and the Internet, students can easily access American films and engage in conversations with foreigners from home At Quy Nhon University, three American teachers are dedicated to teaching English speaking skills each academic year, focusing on helping students communicate as naturally as possible.
After implementing two instructional methods—one based on empirical studies (group A) and the other from the textbook "Say It Naturally – Verbal Strategies For Authentic Communication" by Wall, A P (group B)—students in group A experienced a significant increase in confidence, averaging 0.61 points, compared to a mere 0.09 points in group B While both instructional approaches seemed to enhance self-confidence, the overall effectiveness remained minimal for both groups.
Table 4.2 presents the average scores of nine compliment strategies across twelve scenarios in the pre-questionnaire for both groups In this analysis, a lower score indicates a more preferred strategy, where the top choice is assigned a score of 1, the least favored strategy receives a score of 9, and an inappropriate strategy is marked with a score of 10.
The pre-questionnaire scores in Table 4.2 reveal that students from both groups exhibited similar preferences across all strategies, utilizing each one except for the “Isn’t NP” strategy.
In a recent study, only 11.77% of students in group A and 10.21% in group B ranked the strategy of giving compliments as effective, while a significant majority, 86.88% in group A and 88.54% in group B, deemed it inappropriate This perception stems from cultural norms in Vietnam, where such compliments are rarely expressed, making phrases like “Áo bạn không đẹp à!” unsuitable for conveying praise.
MAQ average marks of the nine compliment strategies in the pre-phase
1 NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)
4 You have (a) (really) ADJ NP
7 You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)
On the other hand, they liked to use structure “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ
(PP)” most, followed by the patterns “What (a) (ADJ) NP!” in compliments because in Vietnamese, people often compliment others like that
They also agreed that strategies “PRO is (really) (a) (ADJ)” and “You have
(a) (really) ADJ NP” were used to give compliments Moreover, the strategies of
“I (really) {like, love} NP” and “You V (a) (really) ADJ NP” were popularly marked fifth and sixth respectively Most of them did not prefer the strategies of
“You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)” and “ADJ (NP)!” although they considered these strategies to be appropriate
Mother-tongue cultural influences significantly impact students' approaches to giving compliments, leading to a different rank-order of the nine strategies identified by the students compared to those established by Manes and Wolfson (1981).
In addition, the data show that each strategy possessed different choices Let us take some typical examples:
In the responses to the topic "Act," the strategy "NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)" was ranked first by 29.58% of group A and 32.92% of group B Additionally, 38.33% of group A and 36.67% of group B placed it second, while the remaining students assigned it lower rankings, with nearly equal proportions for third through eighth places.
The survey results on the topic of "Appearance" revealed that a majority of respondents placed the pattern "PRO is (really) (a) (ADJ)" in third place, while some ranked it second, and many others placed it fourth Additionally, a smaller number of students ranked it first, fifth, sixth, or in other positions, indicating varied preferences among the participants.
Students' feedback on the topic of "Character-ability" showed that nearly 50% of participants in both groups prioritized the structure "NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)" as their top choice Additionally, 25.83% from each group ranked it second, while 10% placed it third The remaining students assigned lower rankings, including third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth, with minimal percentages for these options.
Nonetheless, when turning to the post-questionnaire, which is displayed in Table 4.3, we see that the results between the two groups are quite different
In group A, students ranked the strategies for giving compliments according to Manes and Wolfson’s (1981) framework across all twelve scenarios Each student received a comprehensive overview of the nine compliment formulas, along with the percentage usage by native speakers for each strategy Additionally, various factors influencing the speech act of complimenting and responding, including age, power dynamics, social distance, gender, and lexical choices, were thoroughly explained to the students.
MAQ average marks of the nine compliment strategies in the post-phase
NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)
You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)
You have (a) (really) ADJ NP
Students in group B maintained a consistent ranking of the nine strategies, mirroring their responses from the pre-questionnaire Additionally, the majority expressed a preference for the strategies “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)” and “What (a) (ADJ).”
The patterns “I (really) {like, love} NP” and “You V (a) (really) ADJ NP” ranked fifth and sixth in popularity among students Notably, nearly all students in group B deemed the strategy “Isn’t NP ADJ!” to be inappropriate Additionally, each strategy across the twelve situations offered a wide range of choices.
Group A's instructions significantly impacted students' use of compliment strategies, aligning more closely with Manes and Wolfson's approaches compared to the strategies employed by students in group B.
Table 4.4 presents a summary of the average scores for four compliment strategies from the pre-questionnaire conducted with two groups In this evaluation, a lower score indicates a more favored strategy, with a score of 1 representing the most preferred strategy, 4 for the least preferred, and 5 for the inappropriate strategy.
MAQ average marks of the compliment response strategies in the pre-phase
Strategy Group A (average marks) Group B (average marks)
Responses to Discourse Completion Questionnaire
Manes and Wolfson’s nine syntactic formulas were central to the complimenting scheme in both the pre- and post-questionnaires The students often crafted lengthy compliments, incorporating various strategies from Manes and Wolfson's study, as well as additional techniques such as questions (e.g., "Where did you buy it?"), encouragements (e.g., "Try next time."), expressions of gratitude (e.g., "Thank you for a lovely evening."), and indirect compliments popular in Vietnamese culture (e.g., "You can open a good restaurant.") Additionally, some compliments fell outside these categories, labeled as "others." Ultimately, the coding scheme for compliments included a total of 11 general types.
Table 4.6 Students’ compliments in DCQ in the pre-phase
NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)
You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)
You have (a) (really) ADJ NP
Prior to classroom instruction, students in both groups A and B predominantly used the compliment structure “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP),” as shown in Table 4.6 This preference aligns with Vietnamese cultural practices, where such compliments are common Conversely, none of the students employed the pattern “Isn’t NP ADJ!”—a style sometimes found in American compliments—indicating that negative questions are rarely used in Vietnamese culture for expressing compliments.
According to Kaplan (1972), English speakers, such as the British and Americans, typically communicate in a direct manner, while individuals from Oriental cultures, including the Vietnamese, often prefer indirect or elaborate expressions This observation is supported by the strategy "Combination," which ranks second in usage, with 9.90% in group A and 9.27% in group B.
“Exclamation” (What (a) (ADJ) NP!) is also the strategy which Vietnamese students often used in complimenting, being the third position in the table
The ranking of compliment types among the two groups is largely consistent, despite variations in percentages This indicates that Vietnamese students share similar methods of expressing compliments, influenced significantly by their cultural context.
After the instruction, the students in the two groups performed the compliments differently as presented in Table 4.7
With regard to group A, the instruction made the students increase their using strategies “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)”, “I (really) {like, love} NP”,
Students effectively utilized the complimenting patterns “ADJ (NP)!” and “Combination,” but none used the forms “Isn’t NP ADJ!” or “Others.” This indicates that instructional methods significantly aided students in learning and applying compliments, bringing them closer to the target culture.
Table 4.7 Students’ compliments in DCQ in the post-phase
NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)
You V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)
You have (a) (really) ADJ NP
In group B, however, the instructions made the students use strategies “You
After the teaching intervention, students increasingly utilized compliment strategies such as “V (NP) (really) ADV (PP)”, “You have (a) (really) ADJ NP”, “What (a) (ADJ) NP!”, and various combinations However, the strategy “Isn’t NP ADJ!” was not employed by any student Notably, 2.50% of students continued to give compliments using the “Others” strategy, indicating a lingering influence of Vietnamese cultural norms.
Starting first with compliments in situations 1, 7 and 11 Table 4.8 displays the results for the pre-questionnaire for both groups.
Table 4.8 DCQ compliments in situations 1, 7 and 11 in the pre-phase
(number/ percent) Manes and Wolfson 1-3
The initial eleven coding categories for compliments, which produced over forty unique compliment strategies, were streamlined into six categories These include two groups based on Manes and Wolfson's syntactic formulas (formulas 1-3 and formulas 4-9), three categories that merge one of these formulas with another formula, a question, or another element, and a category for compliments that do not fit into Manes and Wolfson’s nine formulas.
The analysis of the pre-questionnaire reveals notable differences in the distribution of compliment strategies between the two groups, although their rank-order remains consistent Both groups utilized the compliment strategies identified by Manes and Wolfson.
1-3 with the highest percentage (of which “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)” occupied 50.42% (group A) and 41.25% (group B)), followed by Manes and
Wolfson 4-9 (in fact, there did not exist strategy “Isn’t NP ADJ!” in the participants’ compliments); 5.42% (group A) and 10.83% (group B) produced compliments with strategy “Combination” (Formula +Formula) In other words, 96.26% (group A) and 91.67% (group B) used Manes and Wolfson’s nine formulas
The "Others" category received the lowest percentage among the strategies used, with group A employing the Combination (Formula + …) strategy at 2.08%, while group B did not utilize this approach Additionally, neither group produced compliments using the Combination "Formula + Question" strategy.
Now we move to the results for the post-questionnaire in Table 4.9 below
The usage of Manes and Wolfson’s formulas has seen a notable increase, with group A experiencing a rise of 1.66% in student engagement, indicating that all participants in the post-questionnaire employed these formulas for giving compliments Similarly, group B demonstrated an increase of 2.08% in the application of the formulas Additionally, students favored the strategy of combining the formula with other elements, highlighting a shift in their approach to complimenting.
“others” However, there were still 6.25% (group B) who complimented other people by saying something like some popular Vietnamese compliments; some examples extracted from the source in situation 11 are as follows:
(1) “I’m really happy about you have 10 marks I think you have improved your English, but you have to try more.”
The findings reveal that the strategy Combination (Formula + Formula) was predominantly used, with 41 out of 44 compliments in group A and 39 out of 67 in group B employing the initial strategy outlined by Manes and Wolfson (1981).
Table 4.9 DCQ compliments in situations 1, 7 and 11 in the post-phase
(number/ percent) Manes and Wolfson 1-3
Instruction significantly enhanced students' awareness of the nine complimenting formulas proposed by Manes and Wolfson (1981) Additionally, the empirical studies provided a more effective approach to understanding the target culture compared to traditional textbook methods.
Table 4.10 below shows the results for the pre-questionnaire for both groups
Table 4.10 DCQ compliments in situations 2, 9 and 12 in the pre- phase
(number/ percent) (number/ percent) Manes and Wolfson 1-3
The analysis reveals that students primarily employed four strategies for compliments, with Manes and Wolfson strategies 1-3 ranking the highest, followed by strategies 4-8 Notably, the strategy "Isn't NP ADJ!" was categorized as opting out, while the Combination strategy (Formula + Formula) was also utilized The category labeled "Others" represented a minimal share, comprising only 0.83% in group A and 2.50% in group B.
In further details, of 78.75% (group A) and 84.58% (group B) using Manes and Wolfson 1-3, 75.00% (group A) and 80.83% (group B) utilized strategy “NP
In a study analyzing compliment strategies, it was found that no students in group A and only 1.25% in group B utilized the phrase "I (really) {like, love} NP." Additionally, 3.75% of group A and 2.50% of group B employed the structure "PRO is (really) (a) (ADJ)." These findings highlight the differences in complimenting styles between the two groups.
In addition, the truth about strategy Combination (Formula + Formula) is that 6.25% out of 7.09% (group A) and 6.67% out of 7.09% (group B) utilized strategy “NP {is, looks} (really) ADJ (PP)” )
In terms of Combination (Formula + Question) and Combination (Formula
+ ….), the students did not produce any compliments in such structures.