gender-based differences in compliments and compliment responses in the american comedy tv-series ugly betty sự khác biệt trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen giữa các giới trong tiếng anh

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


BÙI THỊ ÁNH NGỌC

GENDER-BASED DIFFERENCES IN COMPLIMENTS
AND COMPLIMENT RESPONSES IN THE AMERICAN
COMEDY TV-SERIES “UGLY BETTY”
Sự khác biệt trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen
giữa các giới trong tiếng Anh qua bộ phim truyền hình Mỹ
“Ugly Betty”

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Major:
English Linguistics
Major code:
60 22 15




Hanoi - 2011
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


BÙI THỊ ÁNH NGỌC

GENDER-BASED DIFFERENCES IN COMPLIMENTS
AND COMPLIMENT RESPONSES IN THE AMERICAN
COMEDY TV-SERIES “UGLY BETTY”
Sự khác biệt trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen
giữa các giới trong tiếng Anh qua bộ phim truyền hình Mỹ
“Ugly Betty”

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Major:
English Linguistics
Major code:
60 22 15
Supervisor:
Kiều Thị Thu Hương, Ph.D.




Hanoi - 2011
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
List of abbreviations vii
List of tables viii

List of figures ix
INTRODUCTION 1
1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Methodology 3
6. Significance of the study 3
7. Organization of the study 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. SPEECH ACT THEORY 5
1.1.1. Austin’s speech act theory 5
1.1.2. Searle’s speech act theory 6
1.2. POLITENESS AND FACE THEORY 8
1.2.1. Notion of politeness and face 8
1.2.2. Conversational-maxim view on politeness 8
1.2.2.1. Grice’s cooperative principle 8
1.2.2.2. Leech’s politeness principle 9
1.2.3. Face-management view on politeness 11
1.2.3.1. Negative and positive face 11
1.2.3.2. Positive and negative politeness 12
1.3. COMPLIMENTS 13
1.3.1. The definition of compliments 13
1.3.2. The topics of compliments 13
1.3.3. The functions of compliments 14
v

1.4. COMPLIMENT RESPONSES 14
1.5. GENDER AND LANGUAGE 17
1.5.1. Gender and sex 17

1.5.2. Gender-based differences in language use 19
1.5.2.1. Topic control 19
1.5.2.2. Talking time 20
1.5.2.3. Tag questions 20
1.5.2.4. Interruption 23
1.5.2.5. Use of silence 24
1.5.3. Explanations for gender-based differences in language use 24
1.6. GENDER AND POLITENESS 27
1.7. RELATED STUDIES 29
1.7.1. Review of the studies on compliments and compliment responses 29
1.7.2. Review of the studies on gender-based differences in compliments and
compliment responses 33
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 37
2.1. METHODOLOGY 37
2.1.1. Material 37
2.1.2. Data collection procedures 37
2.1.3. Participants 37
2.1.3.1. Female characters 37
2.1.3.2. Male characters 38
2.1.4. Data analysis procedures 39
2.2. RESULTS 39
2.2.1. The differences in compliment behavior between males and females 39
2.2.1.1. Frequency of compliments 39
2.2.1.2. Topics of compliments 42
2.2.1.3. Functions of compliments 47
2.2.2. The differences in compliment responses between males and females 51
2.3. DISCUSSION 56
2.3.1. Discussion of the findings on the differences in compliment behavior between
males and females 56
vi

2.3.2. Discussion of the findings on the differences in compliment response between
males and females 58
CONCLUSION 61
1. Summary of the findings 61
2. Implications 62
2.1. Intercultural communication 62
2.2. Pedagogical implications 63
3. Limitations of the study 65
4. Suggestions for further research 65
REFERENCES 67
APPENDIX
Compliments and compliment responses in the American comedy TV-series “Ugly Betty”
(Episodes 1-10, Season 1) I















1

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
An effective language user is competent in not only linguistics but also
pragmatics. As Yule (1996) put it, “nothing in the use of the linguistic forms is
inaccurate, but getting the pragmatics wrong might be offensive” (p. 5-6). To
be able to use a target language appropriately in terms of pragmatic
competence, language users should employ a variety of speech acts.
Complimenting is one of them.
Compliments not only express sincere admiration of positive qualities, but they
also replace greetings, thanks or apologies, and minimize face-threatening acts
(henceforth FTAs), such as criticism, scolding, or requests (Brown & Levinson,
1987; Holmes, 1988a; Wolfson, 1983, 1989). Complimenting is a tool of
establishing friendship that creates ties of solidarity in American culture. It is
also an important social strategy that functions as an opener for a conversation,
allowing meaningful social interactions to follow. Americans pay compliments
so frequently that neglecting to do so can even be interpreted as a sign of
disapproval (Manes, 1983; Wolfson, 1989; Wolfson & Manes, 1980) and a
wrong use of compliments may cause embarrassment and offense (Dunham,
1992; Holmes & Brown, 1987).
Each culture requires various kinds of speech act behavior. Blum-Kulka, House
and Kasper (1989) found that “culturally colored interactional styles create
culturally determined expectations and interpretative strategies, and can lead to
breakdowns in intercultural and interethnic communication” (p. 30). In other
words, when people from different cultures interact, breakdowns in
communication may happen due to signaling different speech act strategies that
reflect the culture‟s distinctive interactional style. Complimenting is a
particularly suitable speech act to investigate because it acts as a window
through which we can view what is valued in a particular culture. Thus, it is
essential for Vietnamese learners of English to know how to give appropriate

compliments and responses in English.
Complimenting is inevitably affected by social factors including gender.
According to Tannen (1990), gender differences are parallel to cross-cultural
differences. Therefore, it is worthwhile to study the interactions between men
and women, men and men, or women and women exchanging compliments and
responses.
All those reasons stimulate the researcher to conduct a study on gender-based
differences in compliments and compliment responses in English conversations
through the American Comedy TV-series “Ugly Betty”. The people in the TV
series are not real people, but the actors are chosen to match the real ones in
2

daily life. What can be assumed is that the data would bare resemblance to real
life language. Hopefully, the study will make a contribution to the field which it
is envisioned and fill the gaps in previous research.
1.2. Aims of the study
First of all, the study sets out to investigate the gender-based differences in
compliment behavior including the frequency of compliments, compliment
topics and the functions of compliments. Secondly, the differences between
males and females in compliments response strategies are explored. The
findings will pave the way for several pedagogical implications and
intercultural communication.
1.3. 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?
1.4. Scope of the study
There are four seasons in this TV-series with the total of 85 episodes. However,

due to the size and limitation of a preliminary research, the dialogues in the
episodes one to ten in the first season are used with the development of the
story. Every episode takes about 40 minutes. Totally, this study will analyze ten
episodes of around 400 minutes.
The compliments among 18 characters balanced in gender, 9 females and 9
males, are chosen. Some compliments are excluded from the present study:
compliments to a place or an object that does not belong to interactants,
compliments to speakers themselves or to a group of people, compliments from
a group to a particular thing or a special person.
Furthermore, a compliment may be sincere or insincere. Mills (2003) stated
The hearer might consider that the speaker is being insincere and is only
complimenting because he/she wants something – i.e. that it is serving
some longer term goal; or it might be interpreted as suggesting that the
person does not look good at all, but the speaker is being kind. (p. 220)
Also, compliments can have an ironic meaning (Holmes, 1995, p. 119). For
instance, if the interlocutors are enemies, the compliments between them have
ironic meanings. Within the scope of an M.A. thesis, only sincere compliments
are analyzed.
3

1.5. Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this paper with priorities
given to the quantitative. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations
are based on the analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed on
Stata 10, a software program commonly used in social sciences. In addition,
such methods as descriptive, analytic, comparative and contrastive are also
utilized to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database so as to
find out gender-based differences in compliments‟ frequency, topics and
functions and types of compliment response strategies. The outputs of data-
processing are carefully investigated and those, whose significance of chi-

square results is below 0.05, i.e. they are statistically worth noting, are selected
and taken into further consideration.
2. RESULTS
2.1. The differences in compliment behavior between males and females
2.1.1. Frequency of compliments
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).
In this study, 167 valid compliments are classified in two groups: compliments
to somebody who is present and compliments to somebody who is absent.
The results revealed that both females and males tended to compliment the ones
who were present, because the purpose of compliments is to express respect for
the hearer and the speaker also wants to get a response, whereas people who are
not present cannot give responses.
In comparison with males, females seemed to compliment ones who were
absent more than males (p = 0.005). Females complimented this type of
addressees in 30.68% and males did it in 12.66%. Because males are more
powerful than females, they usually use the voice of commands and directives
to express their feelings (Coates, 2004), which make them require more
responses. For females, they usually compliment with personalized forms
(Herbert, 1998) and just express their feelings, so they will not necessarily
receive any responses.
 Frequency of compliments from the four level perspectives:


4

Table 1: The number of compliments in the overall episodes

F-f
F-m
M-m
M-f
Number
47
(28.14%)
41
(24.55%)
22
(13.17%)
57
(34.13%)
Total
167
χ2 = 20.7824
,
p = 0.000
Table 2: Compliments by gender of participants

Female
Male
a. By gender of complimenter
88 / 167
(52.69%)
79 / 167 (47.31%)
b. By gender of addressee
104 / 167
(62.28%)
63 / 167 (37.72%)

a
χ2 = 0.9701
,
p = 0.325
b
χ2 = 20.1317
,
p = 0.000
The data in Table 1 and 2 show that females gave more compliments than
males. However, the difference is slight (χ2 = 0.9701, p > 0.05), 52.69% in
comparison with 47.31%. It is also clear that compliments between males and
males were the fewest, only 13.17%.
The results also revealed that there was a significant difference in compliments
by gender of addressee (χ2 = 20.1317
,
p < 0.001). Females received far more
compliments than males (62.28% as opposed to 37.72%). Besides, it should be
noted that men complimented women far more often than they complimented
other men (χ2 = 20.3103, p < 0.001).
2.1.2. Topics of compliments
Regarding the topics of compliments, the present study classified them into
four types based on Herbert (1998)‟s research: appearance, possession,
performance or skill or ability, and personality.
For those ones which do not belong to the above four categories or maybe have
mixed topics, the study classified them into “Others”.

5

Table 3: Interaction between compliment topic and gender of participants
Gender

Topic
F-f
F-m
M-m
M-f
Total
No.
%
Appearance
9
(19.15)
1
(2.44)
3
(13.64)
15
(26.32)
28
16.77%
Possession
7
(14.89)
2 (4.88)
2 (9.09)
5

(8.77)
16
9.58%
Performance/
ability/ skill
22
(46.81)
24
(58.54)
16
(72.73)
31
(54.39)
93
55.69%
Personality
4
(8.51)
3 (7.32)
0
5
(8.77)
12
7.19%
Others
5
(10.64)
11
(26.83)
1

(4.55)
1
(17.54)
18
10.78%
Total
47
41
22
57
167
*Some rows do not add to 100% due to rounding / Percentages are given in
parentheses.
Table 3 shows that for both genders, the performance/ability/skill was the most
preferred topic (55.69%). The appearance took the second place (16.77%). This
result is different from Holmes‟ study (1988a, p. 455) that women tended to
compliment each other on appearance whereas men preferred to compliment on
possession.
The results recorded in Table 3 also reveal the male preference for
complimenting women on performance, ability or skill. More than one-half
(54.39%) of all the compliments given by males to females fell into this
category.
A factor contributing to the statistically significant gender differences is that
men did give and receive compliments on their appearance (Table 4).
Table 4: Compliments on Appearance

F
M
a. By gender of complimenter
10/88 (11.36%)

18/79
(22.78%)
b. By gender of addressee
24/104
(23.08%)
4/63
(6.35%)
a
χ2 = 3.8911, p = 0.049
b
p = 0.005
6

It is interesting to note that men gave more compliments on appearance than
women (χ2 = 3.8911, p < 0.05). Male – female interactions complimenting on
appearance took the first place (26.32%), female – female 19.15%, male – male
13.64%, female – male 2.44%. This is different from Holmes‟ (1988a) result:
female – female interactions complimenting on appearance accounted for the
highest percentage, 61% of the time, male - female 47%, female - male 40%
and male - male, 36% (p. 455).
In respect of the topics of Possession and Personality, the difference in the
frequency of occurrence was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
2.1.3. Functions of compliments
Every utterance has an intention, so does a compliment. The functions of
compliments analyzed in this study were classified into eight groups (1-8)
based on the previous research and one added group (9).
(1) To express admiration or approval of someone‟s work/appearance/taste
(Herbert, 1998).
(2) To establish friendship that creates ties of solidarity (Wolfson, 1989).
(3) To replace greetings, gratitude, congratulations, thanks, or apologies

(Wolfson, 1989).
(5) To soften the tight atmosphere and minimize FTAs such as criticism,
scolding, or requests (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1988b, and Wolfson,
1983, 1989).
(6) To open or sustain conversations as a politeness strategy allowing
meaningful social interactions to follow (Manes, 1983).
(7) To show the envy of other‟s possessions or performances (Manes, 1983).
(8) To fawn others especially form the subordinate to the dominant (Manes,
1983).
(9) To encourage others.
The results showed that, for females, the highest portion in their compliments
was the function of making solidarity (31.82%), and the second place was
admiration (29.55%). This means that females usually tended to show their
solidarity and admiration as part of their politeness.
With regard to males, the situation was reversed. Male compliments more often
offered admiration, 25.32% of the time and less offered solidarity, 20.25%.
This finding showed the similarity with Herbert‟s (1989).
2.2. The differences in compliment responses between males and females
In the total of 167 compliments, 130 compliments were given to someone
present. Thus, the responses to these 130 compliments were analyzed.
7

Compliment responses were classified mainly according to Herbert (1989)‟s
perspective. Slightly different from Herbert‟s categorizations, the responses in
this study were categorized into: Agreement, Non-agreement and Combination.
The responses which combined more than one strategy were labeled as
Combination.
Table 5: Compliment response interaction data

F-f

F-m
M-m
M-f
Agreement




Acceptance




APPRECIATION TOKEN
3
3
5
20
COMMENT ACCEPTANCE
3
1
1
3
PRAISE UPGRADE


2
1
Non-acceptance

COMMENT HISTORY
1
1


REASSIGNMENT


1

RETURN

1


Non-agreement




SCALE DOWN
2


3
DISAGREEMENT
1

2

5
QUALIFICATION


1

QUESTION
2


4
NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT
18
21
9
13
Combination
1
1

1
Total
31
30
19
50
As it can be seen from Table 5, AGREEMENT responses accounted for
35.38%, only slightly over one-third of the data. This is different from

Herbert‟s (1989) result that agreement accounted for about two-thirds of the
American data; and Holmes‟ (1988b) finding that both genders were most
likely to accept with an agreeing comment.
Table 6: ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT responses

F
M
a. By gender of complimenter
10/61 (16.39%)
32/69 (46.38%)
b. By gender of addressee
30/81 (37.04%)
12/49 (24.49%)
a
χ2 = 13.3092, p = 0.000
8

While AGREEMENT responses accounted for 35.38% of the data, the
subcategory of agreement, i.e., ACCEPTANCE (APPRECIATION TOKEN,
COMMENT ACCEPTANCE, and UPGRADE) occurred in 32.31% of the
interactions. It was not the case that these ACCEPTANCE responses were
equally distributed across interaction types. In particular, compliments offered
by males were more likely to be accepted than compliments offered by females
(p < 0.001), especially if offered to a female addressee. It was not the case that
females simply accepted more compliments than males: compare the roughly
42.11% acceptance rate in male - male interactions with the 19.35% acceptance
rate in female - female interactions (See Table 5). It was the gender of the
person offering the compliment that served as a better predictor of compliment
acceptance.
Table 7: APPRECIATION TOKEN responses

F
M
a. By gender of complimenter
6/61
(9.84%)
25/69 (36.23%)
b. By gender of addressee
23/81 (28.4%)
8/49 (16.33%)
a
χ2 = 12.4221, p = 0.000
In respect of APPRECIATION TOKEN responses, the paradigm case of
compliment acceptance (Herbert, 1989), Table 7 reveals that the predictor of
this response type was the male gender of the complimenter, with 36.23% of
male compliments receiving this “textbook” response in comparison with only
9.84% of compliments by females (p < 0.001). Female complimentees offered
this response 28.4% as often as male complimentees (16.33%). It can be
generalized that male compliments were accepted, one way or another,
particularly by female recipients.
Table 8: AGREEMENT (ACCEPTANCE and NON-ACCEPTANCE)
responses

F-f
F-m
M-m
M-f
a. By gender of
interactants
7/31

(22.58%)
6/30
(20%)
9/19
(47.37%)
24/50
(48%)


F

M
b. By gender of
complimenter

13/61
(21.31%)

33/69
(47.83%)
c. By gender of
addressee

31/81
(38.27%)

15/49
(30.61%)
a
χ2 = 10.0021, p = 0.019

b
χ2 = 9.9553, p = 0.002;
c
χ2 = 0.7834, p = 0.376

9

Considering simultaneously the two broad subcategories of AGREEMENT
(i.e., Acceptance and Non-acceptance), in Table 8, we can see that the
interaction type in which there was the greatest likelihood of AGREEMENT is
male – female (48%) interactions, which as noted earlier, is the preferred
interaction type for ACCEPTANCE responses. Male compliments were
generally more likely to meet with AGREEMENT responses (See Table 8(b)).
Agreements occurred in slightly more than one-third (35.38%) of the
compliment exchanges. The remaining two-thirds were comprised of the large
category of NON-AGREEMENT (62.31%), in which the compliment recipient
avoided agreeing with the content of the compliment, and the smaller category
of COMBINATION (2.31%).
Table 9: NON-AGREEMENT responses

F-f
F-m
M-m
M-f
By gender of
interactants
a
23/31
(74.19%)
23/30

(76.67%)
10/19
(52.63%)
25/50
(50%)
a
χ2 = 10.7322, p = 0.013
According to the table above, the least likely scenario for NON-AGREEMENT
occurred in the male – female interaction type, whereas, female compliments,
especially those addressed to males were more likely to meet with this sort of
NON-AGREEMENT.
Regarding to the subtype of non-agreement, i.e., NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT
responses, it is surprising that topic shift and silence accounted for 75.31% of
NON-AGREEMENT responses. There was a significant difference between the
genders in choice of this strategy (p = 0.001) (See Table 10).
While this category accounted for only 3.13% of Holmes‟ (1988b) data and
5.08% of Herbert‟s (1989) Binghamton corpus, it occurred in a high frequency
(46.15%) in the present study. Holmes (1988b) found a slightly stronger
preference for these responses from men (5.3%) than women (2.4%). Herbert
(1989) also concluded that this response type was most common in male – male
interactions. In contrast, analyzing the present data according to gender of
participants, it can be seen that this strategy was most common in female –
male interactions and that there was a significantly greater likelihood of this
response type from male addressees (Table 10(c)).


10

Table 10: NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT responses

F-f
F-m
M-m
M-f
a. By gender of
interactants
18/31
(58.06%)
21/30
(70%)
9/19
(47.37%)
13/50
(26%)


F

M
b. By gender of
complimenter

39/61
(63.93%)

22/69
(31.88%)
c. By gender of
addressee

31/81
(38.27%)

30/49
(59.18%)
a
χ2 = 16.7502, p = 0.001
b
χ2 = 13.3539, p = 0.000
c
χ2 = 6.4583, p = 0.011
The above analysis showed that, on the whole, there were significant
differences between males and females in giving compliments and using the
response strategies. Nevertheless, they still shared some common features.
3. DISCUSSION
3.1. Discussion of the findings on the differences in compliment behavior
between males and females
The investigation of 167 compliments and responses in the American corpus
revealed that gender played a significant role in compliment behavior. It is not
the case that frequency of the compliment act was similar in all gender-varied
cell types. Similar to Wolfson‟s (1984) finding, females received far more
compliments than males. One explanation for this might be that women‟
positive attitude to compliments is recognized by both women and men in these
speech communities. Perhaps people pay more compliments to women because
they know women value them (Holmes, 1995). One might focus on why people
do not compliment men as often as they do women. As Holmes (1995) put it,
“it appears to be much more acceptable and socially appropriate to compliment
a woman than a man” (p. 125). Since compliments express social approval, one
might expect more of them to be addressed “downwards” as socializing
devices, or directed to the socially insecure to build their confidence (Holmes,

1995). Wolfson (1984) also took this view:
women because of their role in the social order, are seen as appropriate
recipients of all manner of social judgments in the form of compliments…
the way a woman is spoken to is, no matter what her status, a subtle and
powerful way of perpetuating her subordinate role in society. (p. 243).
In other words, she suggested that compliments addressed to women have the
same function as praise given to children, that is they serve as encouragement
11

to continue with the approved behavior. They could be regarded as patronizing,
socialization devices (Holmes, 1995).
Herbert (1989) claimed that compliments from males occurred less frequently
than compliments from females and that the “easiest” type of compliment to
collect was female – female. However, in the present study, the highest
frequency of compliment behavior was interactions between males and
females. As Mills (2003, p. 221) put it, the two genders “do not always operate
in globally different ways but that there may be patterns to the way that the
genders behave according to context and the gender of the interactants.”
With regard to the topic of compliments, Holmes (1988b) concluded that
women complimented each other on appearance more than on any other topics
and compliments on possessions were used significantly more often between
males. In contrast, the present data revealed that men gave more compliments
on appearance than women did. In addition, for both genders, the performance
or ability or skill was the most preferred topic to compliment. “The tendency
for men to compliment women on this topic may reflect women‟s subordinate
social status in the society as a whole” (Holmes, 1988b, p. 456).
In the initial discussion of the function of compliment exchanges, it was
suggested that compliments serve a number of functions in interactions. “As
positively affective speech acts, the most obvious function they serve is to oil
the social wheels, paying attention to positive face wants and thus increasing or

consolidating solidarity between people” (Holmes, 1988a, p. 462). Herbert and
Straight (1989) argued that American compliments are vehicles for the
(re)negotiation of solidarity. Investigating a corpus of 167 American
compliments, the researcher found that women tended to use and perceive
compliments as solidarity signals. This potential use of compliments has been
recognized by virtually all researchers who have speculated about the function
of compliments (Herbert, 1986; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1987; Manes & Wolfson,
1980; Norrick, 1980; Wolfson, 1988; Wolfson & Manes, 1980). Different from
women, men were more likely to experience compliments as an expression of
admiration. This finding may open a new look since in the previous research,
male compliments served the function of minimizing FTAs (Holmes, 1988a).
The evidence in support of this interpretation of male compliments offered by
Holmes was the high frequency of possession compliments in male – male
interactions: 25% versus an average of 9.32% in other interaction types.
Possession compliments were the most likely FTA in the sense given here.
Furthermore, the interaction types in Holmes‟ sample were not equally
represented, for example, there were 248 female – female interactions and 44
male – male.
12

3.2. Discussion of the findings on the differences in compliment responses
between males and females
Perhaps, the differences in compliment response type frequencies from males
and females were more impressive than the differences in compliment topic and
function. It is surprising that in contrast with the researcher‟s prediction and the
results in most previous research, there was more likelihood of non-agreement
responses than agreement responses in the present study. Pomerantz (1978)
when investigating compliment responses of Americans mentioned one similar
case. Unlike other native speakers of English, a wife always downgrades or
rejects the compliments of her husband, Perflexed, which hurts him:

Husband: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.
Wife: ….It’s just a rag my sister gave me.
(Pomerantz, 1978, p. 87)
Abby, Perflexed‟s friend, explains that the wife negates compliments just
because she lacks self-confidence. Pomerantz, however, proposed that her
behavior deviated from the common standards of accepting compliments.
In order to explain the high frequency of non-agreement responses, the
researcher proposed a hypothesis that it might be due to the original culture of
the analyzed characters because America is called “the country of immigrants”.
However, after examining the background of the participants, the hypothesis
was rejected since there are only two characters emigrating to the U.S.:
Christina from Scotland, the U.K; and Ignacio from Mexico.
Non-agreement responses occurred more than agreement responses may be due
to the high frequency (46.92%) of NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT responses in
the present data. It can be explained that, for most of the compliments receiving
no response, right after the compliment, the complimenter changed the topic.
Complimenting is a type of speech act that needs immediate responses, so in
those cases, when a new topic arose, the recipient did not respond to the
compliment but responded to the new topic instead. For instance:
(127): Justin: I made the frame out of chenille sticks.
Daniel: Cool! Where’s you find those?
Compliment New topic
Justin: Fabric store.
Response to the new topic
There is an important difference in the likelihood of compliment
ACCEPTANCE that depended most directly on the gender of the person giving
13

the compliment. Compliments from females would most likely not be accepted,
while compliments from males would, especially by male recipients. The

increased frequency of ACCEPTANCE responses to male compliments by
female addresses may be the manifestation of the linguistic consequences of
status differences apparent in cross-gender interactions (Herbert, 1989). In the
present study, it is also noticeable that American speakers accepted only
slightly more than one-third of the compliments offered (33.84%). Similarly,
Herbert (1989) considered differences in compliment behavior between
American South African English speakers and noted that compliment
acceptance was far less common among the former and the latter, 36.35% in
comparison with 76.26%. This difference may be tied to “cultural value
profiles” of the two groups (Herbert, 1989).
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Summary of the findings
The purposes of this study were to investigate the differences in compliment
behavior and compliment responses between men and women. The analysis of
167 compliments and compliment responses revealed the following results.
Firstly, females made more compliments than males, but the difference was
slight. This finding is different from Holmes‟s study (1988a) arguing that
women complimented far more than men. Regarding the objects of the
compliments, both genders preferred to make compliments to the ones who
were present. However, females gave more compliments to absent people than
males did, which can be explained by their gossip-oriented personality. Folk
linguists usually claim that females like to gossip more (Coates, 2004). Jones
(1980) also stated that “Gossip is essentially talk between women in our
common role as women (p. 195). Jones argued that gossip arises from women‟s
perception of themselves as a group with a great deal of experience in common.
Thus, they discuss others behind their backs and express their feelings more
than males.
Secondly, females tended to compliment other females more whereas males
complimented females far more than they complimented other males.
Compliments between males and males were the fewest. In respect of the

addressees, females received much more compliments than males.
Thirdly, both genders complimented others‟ performance or ability or skill
most to compliment. This result is different from the former views. Some
previous studies found that females tended to compliment others‟ appearance,
while males focused on possessions (Wolfson, 1983; Manes, 1983 and Holmes,
1988a). Besides, in this research, there was no significant statistic difference in
the choice of the two topics: Possession, Performance/ability/skill and
14

Personality between females and males, except for the topic of Appearance.
Holmes (1988a) reported that there was the highest likelihood of compliments
on appearance occurring in female – female interactions. Differently, from the
present data, it is interesting to find that male – female interactions
complimenting on appearance accounted for the highest frequency.
Fourthly, similar to Herbert‟s finding (1989), females used compliments most
often to establish, confirm or maintain solidarity while male compliments more
often offered admiration.
Fifthly, in terms of compliment responses, different from most of the findings
in previous studies, there was more likelihood of non-agreement than
agreement in this research. It may be due to the high frequency of NO
ACKNOWLEDGMENT responses.
In particular, the interactions between males and females accounted for the
highest percentage of AGREEMENT. With a view to ACCEPTANCE
responses, compliments offered by males were more likely to be accepted than
compliments offered by females. Considering Appreciation Token responses,
the predictor of this type was the male gender of the complimenter. The results
also revealed that the least likely scenario for NON-AGREEMENT occurred in
the male – female interaction type while female compliments, especially those
addressed to males were more likely to meet with this sort of NON-
AGREEMENT.

4.2. Limitations of the study
Despite considerable efforts of the researcher, certain limitations are
unavoidable in this preliminary research due to time constraint and other
unexpected factors.
First of all, although the primary materials from a TV-series can avoid the
limitation of eliciting data outside of context as using DCT, they are not totally
the same as real life.
Secondly, the corpus chosen for the study is based on only ten episodes, which
remains relatively small. Therefore, the results, to some extent, cannot reflect
the behavior of a larger population.
In spite of the aforementioned shortcomings, the researcher‟s flexibility, serious
work and justified data collection as well as research methodology well
maintained the validity and reliability of the results. Nonetheless, it is
noteworthy that these above limitations should be taken into consideration
when further studies are carried out.

15

4.3. Suggestions for further research
With regard to compliment behavior, many other questions may arise, such as
the offer of compliments and responses based on genders with different ages,
different relationships, or different status. Thus, those factors should be taken
into account in further research.
Future studies might also concern the compliment behaviors between groups of
English native speakers from different countries or even regions of the United
States. Since it cannot be assumed that all English speakers compliment and
respond to compliments in the same way, a study that compares compliment
behavior and compliment responses by the users of the same language, but
different regions and cultures would give more thorough understanding of this
complicated speech act.

Furthermore, a cross-culture study can be conducted to find out the differences
in compliment behavior and compliment responses between English native
speakers and non-English native speakers.
Last but not least, since the characters in a TV-series are fictional ones, it is
highly recommended that further research should collect materials from
naturally-occurring situations with the help of other methods such as
conversation analytic approach. The marvelous and systematic methods used in
conversation analysis (CA) are of great help in exploring the strategies
concerning organization and development of on-going talk, as well as the usage
of linguistic devices in certain structural organizations. According to Levinson
(1983), it is CA with its elaborate techniques for the analysis and explanation of
conversational mechanisms that can provide substantial insights into these
matters, simply because conversation is the very place where people „do things
with words‟ together, and „the prototypical kind of language use‟ (p. 284).
Seeing the sound reason for CA to be applied to the study of speech acts,
Levinson (1983) proposed:
Nearly all the pragmatic concepts … claimed to tie in closely with
conversation as the central or most basic kind of language usage … the
proper way to study conversational organization is through empirical
techniques, this suggests that the largely philosophical traditions that have
given rise to pragmatics may have to yield in the future to more empirical
kinds of investigation of language usage. (p. 285)
Therefore, the synthetic approach of CA could be adopted to investigate the
speech act of compliments within and across languages and cultures.
I

REFERENCES
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Request and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Company.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language – A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Harlow:
Longman.
Dunham, P. (1992). Using compliments in the ESL classroom: An analysis of culture and gender. MinneTESOL, 10, 75-85.
Herbert, R. K. (1986). Say “thank you” – Or something. American Speech, 61, 76-78.
Herbert, R. K. (1989). The ethnography of English compliment and compliment responses: A contrastive sketch. In W.
Oleksy, Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 3-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Herbert, R. K. (1998). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. In J. Cheshire & P. Trudgill (Eds.), The
Sociolinguistics Reader 2: Gender and Discourse (pp. 53-75). Arnold, London.
Holmes, J. (1988a). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28,
485-508.
Holmes, J. (1988b). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 455-
465.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman Publishing, New York.
Holmes, J. & Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 523-546.
Jones, D. (1980). Gossip: notes on women’s oral culture’. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The voices and words of women and men
(pp. 193-198). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1987). La description des échanges en analyse conversationnelle: L’exemple du compliment.
DRLAV – Revue de Linguistique, 36-37, 1-53.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and
language acquisition (pp. 88-95). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Norrick, N. (1980). The speech act of complimenting. In E. Hovdhaugen (Ed.), The Nordic languages and modern
linguistics (pp. 296-304). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.),
Studies in the organization of conversation interaction. Academic Press.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

II

Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics, 5(3).
Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second language
discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 21-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliments as a social strategy. Interactional Journal of Human Communication,
13(3), 410-451.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

III

APPENDIX
COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLIMENT RESPONSES IN THE AMERICAN COMEDY TV -
SERIES “UGLY BETTY” (EPISODES 1 – 10, SEASON 1)
1
Betty: I like your poncho.
Amazon: Milan. Dolce & Gabbana. Fall.
2
Christina: Betty, we’re all proud of you.
3-4
Betty: That Traveler layout with the tiki torches was so gorgeous.
I just wanted to say what a big fan I am of your work.
Craig: I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t look at other photographer’s stuff.
5
Amanda: Ugh, she is so fabulously douchey.
6-7
Amanda: Oh, he’s amazing.
He’s shot, like, everything.
8
Betty: Your best one.
9
Marc: Killer poncho.
Betty: Thanks.
10
Ignacio: You’ve always been so good to me. So strong. Patient. Optimistic. Just like your mother was.

Betty: Thanks, Dad.
11
Daniel: I never saw that layout you made until tonight. I thought it was smart. And beautiful.
Betty: Thank you.
12
Ignacio: You look way too young to be anyone’s boss.
Daniel: I’ve gotten that before.
13
Bradford: Good work
Daniel: This idea was actually…
14
Daniel: Nice place.
Betty: We’re just in between interior designers.
15
Daniel (-Betty): She appears to be good. Capable. A go-getter.
16
Marc: Nice, you stole the good stuff.
Justin: Thanks.
17
Amanda: Hi! Love your highlights!
Kate: Me, too.
18
Betty (- Amanda): You’re being so thoughtful.
19
Wilhelmina: Good work, darling.
Marc: So did you leak the pictures?
20
Wilhelmina: Very good.
21
Kate: I like that bunny.

Betty: Really?
22
Kate: It’s kind of hideous, but also strangely adorable.
23-28
Christina (- Kate): Oh I hear she’s lovely.
Betty: She seemed really friendly.
She looked great the way she was.
IV

Betty: (- Kate) She was so nice. She sat down and talked to us forever.
Hilda: she looks pretty damn good.
Christina: Look at Kate Winslet - the beautiful super star on the cover.
29
Kate: You can’t fire that wonderful assistant of yours.
30
Marc: And I certainly applaud your efforts at personalizing your desk. So different.
Betty: Thanks, Marc!
31
Marc: Great bunny!
Betty: Oh thanks! It was a gift from my sister when I graduated Queens College.
32
Ignacio: Bueno, the woman has good taste.
33
Wilhelmina: You’re gorgeous!
34
Christina: You look fine.
Betty: But you’re not Vincent Bianchi.
35
Fabia: Baby, you look better.
36

Betty: Daniel, your first issue was a big success.
Daniel: It wasn’t my issue, and you know it. I just signed my initials to lots of memos.
37-38
Betty: That cover shoot you did for "Rolling Stone" - wow, that was amazing.
Bianchi: Oh, thank you. You have excellent taste.
39
Wilhelmina: Daniel, I for one, think it’s wonderful you’ve taken such initiative at the magazine.
40
Betty (- Vincent Bianchi): Yeah, he’s really amazing.
41-42
Betty (- Vincent): This one right here this is my favorite. He’s amazing.
He’s shot everyone from, like, Madonna to the Dalai Lama.
43-46
Kenny: You’re a legend.
Betty: Me?
Kenny: You saved the Fabia layout in your first week.
Betty: Oh, no. No, no, no, no. It didn’t happen like that.
Kenny: What is your secret?
Betty: Um just, uh, doing my job.
Kenny: And she’s modest, too.
47
Justin: You’d be perfect for my school project.
Betty: Oh, yeah. If it’s okay with your mum.
48
Justin: You’re a celebrity. The Meade security guard knows your name!
Betty: Thanks!
49
Daniel: Good point.
Wilhelmina: Thank you.
50

Marc: Nice.
Justin: Thank you.
51
Marc: Nice vest.
Justin: Thanks, Hugo Boss.
52
Marc: Pretty cool, huh?
Justin: Best day of my entire life.
53
Amanda (- Betty): Oh, that’s sweet. See? You did the right thing taking him back.
V

54
Betty (- Igano): Good one.
55
M: You know, paper burns at 451 degrees.
W: Good. You can become a science teacher after I fire you.
56-57
Marc: You do set the standards.
Women look to you for inspiration, and when you go to that ball tonight with that young man of yours, I
guarantee no woman in America tomorrow morning will leave her house without a man ten years younger
than her.
Wilhelmina: Five years.
58
Marc (- Wilhelmina): Hail to the queen. She lives. She breathes.
59
Hilda (- Leah, a lawyer): That was amazing.
Leah: You know what? Don’t tell him, but that subchapter.
60
Wilhelmina: Oh, things with Nico are fine. IIse’s steaming her pores as we speak.

Fabia: Good.
61
Nico (- Wilhelmina): How proud you must be.
62
Sofia Reyes (- Daniel): The only one in this room who was born into his job.
63
Betty: Sofia Reyes. She she’s a best - selling author.
64
Wilhelmina: Do you know Rodrigo in styles?
Betty: Sure. He has great taste. Impeccable,
65
Wilhelmina: It’s the greatest lesson the senator ever taught me.
66
Betty: You’re our rock, dad.
67
Bradford: Meade publishing launches a new weekly targeting the empowered modern woman.
The point is, that I wish to introduce the best-selling author and editorial brains behind our new magazine,
“M.Y.W.,” Sofia Reyes.
68
Daniel (- Sofia): She was ten steps ahead of me on every point.
69-71
Daniel (- Sofia) I mean, it’s gotta be smarter.
You know, skillful.
Something profound.
Jewelry!
72-73
Sofia: Betty, I’ve got something for you. This one’s nice and dry.
Betty: Wow, that's so nice. Thank you.
74
Sofia (- Betty) You’re my key demographic for “M.Y.W.”

75
Betty: Um you know, I'm- I'm not so sure that I'm qualified to give an opinion on the subject.
Sofia: Betty Suarez, you are more than qualified.
76
Betty (- Sofia): I mean, I have read every single one of your books, and, um, when I was at Queens college, I
wrote a report about you.
Sofia: I’m honored.
77
Sofia: and I’m taking advantage of Betty’s intelligence.
78
Christina (- Wilhelmina): I’m sure you’ll be a big hit at the next bagpipe convention.
79-80
Sofia: I thought your article was terrific.
Betty: You liked it?
Sofia: I loved it.