Vietnam national university, hanoi
College of foreign languages
Department of Postgraduate Studies
HOÀNG THỊ MINH ÁNH

An investigation of gender differences
in responding to compliments

(Sự khác biệt về giới trong cách tiếp nhận lời khen) M.A Thesis
Minor program thesis Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Code: 60.22.15 Supervisor: DR. HÀ CẨM TÂM Hanoi – 2009

vi
Table of contents

Certificate of originality of thesis …………………………………
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….
List of abbreviations and conventions………………………………

Part 1: Introduction………………………………………………………….
1. Rationale………………………………………………………………………
2. Aims of the study……………………………………………………………
3. Scope of the study……………………………………………………………
4. Method of the study…………………………………………………………
5. Organization of the study…………………………………………………….

Part 2: Development…………………………………………………………
Chapter 1: Literature Review…………………………………………
1.1 Overview of speech acts……………………………………………………………

9
11
11
12
14
15
17

vii
Chapter 2: The study…………………………………………………………
2.1 The research designing…………………………………………………………….
2.1.1 The research question………………………………………………………
2.1.2 Selection of informants………………………………………………………
2.1.3 Data collection instruments…………………………………………………
2.1.4 Situation design………………………………………………………………
2.1.5 Data-collecting procedures…………………………………………………
2.2 Analytical Framework……………………………………………………………

Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion………………………….
3.1. Data analysis procedures……………………………………………………….
3.2 Results……………………………………………………………………………
3.2.1 Compliment response strategies by males of the topic dimension………….
3.2.2 Compliment response strategies by females of the topic dimension………
3.2.3 Compliment response strategies by gender …………………………………
3.2.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………
3.3 Discussions………………………………………………………………………….

Part 3: Conclusion……………………………………………………………
1. Major findings…………………………………………………………………
2. Implications………………………………………………………………………
iv

List of Tables Table No.

Table 3.2.1:
Table 3.2.2:
Table 3.2.3:
TITLE

Compliment response strategies by males
Compliment response strategies by females
Compliment response strategies by genders

PAGE

26
28

29

Ques.
Rea.
Ret.
RI
SD
.

Appreciation Token
Appearance
Comment Acceptance
Comment History
Disagreement
Discourse Completion Tests
Face saving act
Face threatening acts
No Acknowledgement
Performance
Possession
Praise Upgrade
Qualification
Question
Reassignment
Return
Request Interpretations
Scale Down
and individual variables. Social factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of education,
social status and social relationship between the interlocutors will inevitably influence the
complimenting behavior of all interlocutors.

2
Several studies have shown that there are some differences between males and females in
their realization patterns of compliments and compliment responses. Two important studies
that focus on gender differences in complimenting and responding to compliments are
those by Holmes (1988) and Herbert (1990). They found that the syntactic patterns and
lexical choice used by men and women were different. Based on the findings, they
assumed that females use compliments for keeping solidarity while males regard
compliments as potential face threatening acts (FTAs). They examined kinds of topics and
situations, as well as gender-based distributions.
Although a lot of research has been carried out on compliments and compliment
responses, the study on relationship between genders in compliment responses is still
something new in Vietnam. The purpose of this study is to examine the sociolinguistic
characteristics of gender differences in compliment responses, in other words, whether the
social variables of the interlocutors, namely, social status, gender and age, have any
influence on the compliment response strategies the respondent may employ.

2. Aims of the study
This study examines the differences of linguistic strategies between British women‘s
and men‘s compliment responding, exploring the function of the positive speech acts as
positive strategies. The study provides an analysis concerning the differences between the
same genders and the different genders in compliment responds strategies. The reason why
men and women differ in language use is that they often different role in society.

3. Scope of the study
The study focuses on the differences of linguistic strategies between British male and
female subjects in the workplace in responding to compliments in some daily situations in

of the study, the selection of subjects, instruments, situation design, analytical framework
and the procedures of data collecting and analyzing. In Chapter Three, this paper will show
the results of the study. In Chapter Four, this paper will give discussions and the major
findings of the results obtained in the research. And finally in Part 3, this paper will briefly
summarize the major discoveries of this study, indicate the limitations and implications of
the study and point out the directions for further research.
4
Part 2: Development
Chapter 1: Literature Review
This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background of the research.
These theories include theories on speech act, politeness. The theories will build up the
theoretical framework of this study.

1.1 Overview of speech acts
Although many theories have studied speech act theory, generally all of them share
the common theme that speech acts are the actions that are involved when some one says
something.
According to Searle (1969:24), language is part of a theory of action, and speech acts
are those verbal acts such as promising, threatening and requesting that one perform in
speaking.
George Yule (1996:47) defines that actions performed via utterance are generally
called speech acts, and in English, are commonly given more specific labels such as
apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request. The circumstances in
which actions are performed via utterances are called the speech events. In many ways, it
is the nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as
performing a particular speech act. For example, on a wintry day, the speaker reaches for a
cup of tea, believing that it has been freshly made, takes a sip, and produces the utterance

(Commissive), adopt attitude, or express feeling (Behabitive), and clarify reasons,
argument, or communication (Expositive). ―Compliment‖ can be categorized into the
group of bahabitives to express one‘s attitude towards something.
John Searle (1969) divides the illocutionary act into five types of general functions.The
five-category classification of illocutionary acts is representatives, directives, commissives,
expressives and declarations.
Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker believes
to be the case or not. Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions, for
example: ―The earth is flat.‖ or ―It was a rainy day‖, representing the world as he or she
believes it is.
Directions are those kinds of speech acts that speakers used to get somebody else to
do something. They express what the speaker wants. They can be positive or negative, for
example: ―Don‟t smoke!” or ―Give me a cup of tea!” They may be very modest attempts

6
as inviting or suggesting, or they may be very fierce attempt as insisting, ordering, or
commanding.
Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves
to some future course of action, such as promises, threats, refusals, pledges etc. They can
be performed by the speaker alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group. For
example, ―I will be back”. or, ―We will not do that”.
Expressives is to state what the speaker feels. They express psychological state and
can be statements of the speaker‘s attitude, feelings and emotions, for example, pleasure,
pain, likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow, complaints, apologies and compliments etc.
Declaratives is the speech act which changes the world with their utterance, such as
command, declaration, etc. For example: ―We find the defendant guilty!”
The theory of speech acts is not only useful illustrating the kinds of things we can do
with words but also necessary for identifying some of the conventional utterance forms we
use to perform specific actions. However, a more extended interaction should be taken into
consideration in order that we could understand how those actions are carried out and

meaning is understood literally, as in a direct speech act, for example, ―you look nice in
blue”. Similarly, implicit compliments account for indirect speech acts whose meaning can
be inferred among participants, for instance, “I wish I could play the piano like you do”
(Cordella, Large and Pardo 1995).
In an early study, Manes and Wolfson (1981), examining a corpus of compliments
uttered in daily conversation in American English, discovered that there exists a large
amount of patterning at both the syntactic and the semantic levels. They found that five
positive evaluative adjectives—nice, good, pretty, beautiful, and great—accounted for
two-thirds of the adjectives that complimenters used. By the same token, the two verbs like
and love accounted for 86 percent of the positive evaluative verbs. They concluded that
compliments are highly formulaic, both in their syntactic form and in the lexical items that
carry the positive evaluation. Subsequent studies in this vein of research (e.g., Holmes
1986, 1988; Herbert 1990) have tended to corroborate Manes and Wolfson‘s general
findings, focusing on the gender difference in compliment forms. Both Holmes and
Herbert found that women used the I like/love NP formula much more than men, and that
women‘s compliments were more personal in focus, while men complimented on ability
and performance.
Manes and Wolfson (1981) and Wolfson (1983) observed that compliments seem
to fall naturally into two general categories—those which focus on appearance and/or

8
possessions, and those which have to do with ability and/or accomplishments. With respect
to the first category, in addition to compliments on apparel, hairstyle, and jewelry, it is
very common for Americans to compliment one another on such seemingly personal
matters as weight loss. Favorable comments on the attractiveness of one‘s children, pets,
and even husbands, boyfriends, wives, or girlfriends seem to fall within this same category,
as do compliments on cars and houses. Compliments assigned to the second category
include those referring to the addressee‘s skill or performance, e.g. a well-done job, a
skillfully played game, a good meal. According to Manes and Wolfson‘s (1981) and
Wolfson‘s (1983) studies on compliments in American English, the greatest number of

referential or informative. They are generally described as positively affective speech acts
serving to increase or consolidate the solidarity between the speaker and addressee.
However, compliments have other functions too. Wolfson points out that they are
used to reinforce desired behavior, for example in a classroom situation. They often serve
to strengthen or to replace other speech acts such as apologies, thanking, and greetings.
They are also frequently used to soften criticism. Thus, compliments may be followed by
“but” or “though” and a criticism. Compliments are also used to open a conversation and
they may even be used as sarcasm, e.g., “You play a good game of tennis-for a woman.”
(Wolfson, 1983:86-93)
While the primary function of compliments is most obviously affective, it is possible
that some compliments are intended to convey and perceived as having a stronger
referential message than are others. Johnson and Roen (1992) argue that the compliments
they analyzed in written peer reviews simultaneously conveyed both affective (or
interpersonal) meaning and referential (or ideational) meaning. In some contexts,
compliments may function as praise and encouragement. Herbert (1990) suggests, based
on an analysis of American compliments, which some compliments serve as expressions of
praise and admiration rather than offers of solidarity. Thus, the relationship between
participants is crucial in accurately interpreting the functions of a compliment.
1.2.3 Compliment responses
One major focus of research on complimenting events has been on compliment
responses. Pomerantz (1978) pointed out that responses represent the recipient‘s resolution
of conflicting conversational constraints. In any conversational exchange, she suggested,
the preferred second part will present an agreement with the previous utterance. There is,
thus, pressure on the recipient to agree with the complimenter and accept the compliment.
On the other hand, there is strong pressure on speakers to avoid or minimize self-praise.

10
Her American data reveal that a large number of compliment responses deviate from the
model responses of accepting compliments, and actually show a prevalence of
disagreements and rejections. According to her analysis, the prevalence of disagreements

11
acknowledgement, 12. request for interpretation. And Herbert noticed that 66% of
Americans responded to compliments with agreement and only 0.4% responded with
disagreement.
Herbert conducted a contrastive study on American and South African compliment
responses spoken by college students (1989, 1990). His data suggested that Americans
exhibit a high frequency of compliment-expression but a low frequency of compliment-
acceptance; South Africans exhibit a low frequency of compliment-expression but a high
frequency of compliment-acceptance. He explained the contrast in terms of ideological
differences between Americans and South Africans. That is, the high frequency of
compliments and the low rate of acceptance in the U.S. data reflect American notions of
equality and democratic idealism, whereas the low frequency of compliments and the high
rate of acceptance are tied to elitism in South Africa.
We have mentioned complimenting as speech act and compliment responses. The
next section will discuss notions of politeness and face.

1.3 Politeness
This section deals with an overview on politeness theory, the face-saving view of
politeness, politeness in compliment and compliment responses, and gender and politeness.
1.3.1 Definition of politeness
Politeness has been the focus of attention of a number of linguists for more than a
quarter of a century. During that time numerous and various attempts have been made to
define politeness. Politeness is viewed as one of major social constraints on human
interaction, which regulate participants‘ communicative behavior by constantly reminding
them to take into consideration other people‘s feelings. .
Lakoff (quoted in Yule,1996:106) defines politeness as ―A system of interpersonal
relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential conflict and
confrontation inherent in all human interchange”. This author connected politeness with
Grice‘s Cooperative Principle, which is based on the assumption that people are
cooperative and aim to be as informative as possible in communication.

connected.
In Brown and Levinson‘s comprehensive analysis of politeness and face, two other
concepts are also mentioned. They are face threatening act and face saving act. If a speaker
says something that represents a threat to another individual‘s expectations regarding self-
image, it is described as a face threatening act (FTA). For example, requests threaten the

13
hearer‘s negative face because the speaker is trying to make the hearer act to his own
benefit, and therefore is depriving the hearer of his right to freedom of action, etc.
Oppositions threaten the hearer‘s positive face because the speaker is stating there is
something wrong with the hearer‘s beliefs. Offers threaten the Speaker‘s negative face
because the speaker is giving up his right to freedom of action for the benefit of the hearer,
and apologies threaten the speaker‘s positive face because speaker is confessing he has
done something that cannot be approved. Alternatively, given the possibility that some
action might be interpreted as a threat to another‘s face, the speaker can say something to
lessen the possible threat. This is called a face saving act (FSA). Pridham (2001:52)
explains that ―you challenge someone‘s face in two ways: either by telling them what to
do, which implies you have rights over them, or by showing you disagree with or do not
appreciate their values and beliefs‖. By challenging other people‘s faces, one is said to be
making a “face-threatening act”. To avoid face-threatening or minimize the degree of
face-threatening, there are various strategies one can employ such as saying something
with a delay or saying something with hedges that indicate hesitation. This is called a face-
saving act (FSA).
The interlocutor takes to preserve both positive and negative faces for themselves and
the people they interact with essentially add up to politeness. They further suggest that
when people interact with others they must be aware of both kinds of face and therefore
have a choice of two kinds of politeness. A face saving act which is concerned with the
person‘s positive face will tend to achieve solidarity through offers of friendship, for
example, the use of compliments. Brown and Levinson (1978) outline four main types of
politeness strategies: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and indirect

the mutual understanding and friendship of the people who are involved in the
conversation. When people make compliments, they consider showing politeness in the
first place.
Compliments are face-threatening acts which threatens the face of both the hearer
and speaker. According to Brown and Levinson (1978), when a speaker offers a
compliment, it threatens the hearer‘s negative face because the hearer may feel a need to
protect his or her goods or give the goods to the speaker. On the other hand, as a
compliment is considered a gift to the hearer, it threatens the speaker‘s negative face if the
gift of compliment is not accepted. A compliment also damages the hearer‘s positive face
because upon receiving a compliment, the hearer is constraint to accept or return the
compliment. In addition to that, a compliment also puts the speaker‘s positive face at risk
because by complimenting the hearer, the speaker will give an impression that he or she

15
desires to possess the hearer‘s goods. People in the west will respond to others
complimenting happily with “thank you” to satisfy the conplimenter‘s positive face. When
a person says to a female colleague, for example, that “I like your earrings”, he is
indicating the effort she has made to improve her appearance and that he shares her values
of what constitutes a pair of beautiful “earrings”. By doing so, he makes her ―feel good‖,
since appearance is an important component in the self-image of females almost all over
the world. Still, as far as compliments are concerned, sometimes, the complimentee will
feel their positive face being threatened. Under this situation, they will try to be indifferent
or avoid to answer it directly, to save their faces. For example, A: How efficient of you to
get this done on time. B: It is nothing.
Brown and Levinson argue that nearly all speech acts are so-called FTAs, in which
faces of the interlocutors tend to be threatened in language interaction. For example,
compliments may themselves threaten the addresser‘s negative face, and compliment
responses may threaten the speaker‘s positive face (Holmes, 1988). In order to avoid
FTAs, interlocutors will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat and save their
faces. The speaker should employ the appropriate strategy in order to protect others and

interrupt less in conversation and “to be more attentive listeners, concerned to ensure
others get a chance to contribute” than men (Home, 1995:67). They also interpret and use
certain speech acts differently to men. For instance, not only do women use more
apologies than men but their apologies serve more often than men‘s “as remedies for
space and talk offences-areas of interaction where women are particularly vulnerable and
where they may have developed a greater sensitivity” (Home, 1995:185).
Holmes (1988 and 1995) focused her study on gender difference in complimenting in
everyday speech in New Zealand. Through analysis, she found there existed a number of
differences between male and female in complimenting. One of the important findings was
that women gave and received more compliments than men did. This conclusion was
based, in part, on the fact that data collectors found it much more difficult to gather
compliments from men than from women in natural settings.She also found that women
complimented women more than they did men. Men also complimented women more than
they did men. Holmes suggested that women tended to view compliments as expressions
of positive effect, while men were more likely to be embarrassed by them and/or to view
them as face-threatening acts.
We have just discussed the notion of politeness. In next section, the paper will
mention gender in compliment and compliment responses 17
1.4 Previous studies of gender in compliment and compliment
responses
Some researchers (e.g., Herbert 1990; Holmes 1988) claim that male and female
compliments in American English serve different functions. Two important studies that
emphasize gender differences in complimenting are those by Holmes (1988) and Herbert
(1990). Explicit and precise analyses involved in these studies produced some findings on
gender differences in complimenting. For example, Holmes found that women gave and
received more compliments than men did, and Herbert suggests that female compliments
rely heavily on solidarity, while males focus on assertion of praise. Holmes (1988b) reports

compliment behavior of Americans and found that the way a woman was spoken to was,
no matter what her status, a subtle and powerful way of perpetuating her subordinate role
in society. Women used compliments more often to other women than they did to men or
than men did to each other. Furthermore, compliments on appearance were the dominant
topic for women, whereas men complimented on possessions.
Ye (1995) also examined gender-based differences in compliments and compliment
responses. He classified the compliment strategies employed by respondents into four
categories: Explicit Compliment, Implicit Compliment, Non-Compliment and No
Response. Results showed that both males and females gave the same order of rank in their
preference of compliment strategies. However, statistical analysis showed that there was a
significant difference between genders using these four compliment strategies. Male and
female respondents were found to use positive semantic carriers differently in adverbs and
nouns. Males used nouns more often than females, while females used more adverbs (Ye,
1995). According to Ye‘s study, the distribution of compliment responses also showed that
male and female respondents adopted different strategies. Specifically, males chose Non-
Acceptance more often them females, whereas females showed a much stronger tendency
to Acceptance. In short, women are likely to view compliments as expression of positive
affects whereas men tend to be embarrassed by compliments and/or consider them face-
threatening acts.
In conclusion, in this chapter we have reviewed the major issues of speech act,
politeness, theories on gender differences and some the previous studies on gender-based
differences in compliments and compliment responses. In the following chapter, it will
demonstrate the experiment design concerning dissecting of research questions and
hypothesis, methods of data collection and data analysis. 19
Chapter 2: The study

This chapter presents the research questions, the informants of the study, data