GENDER BASED DIFFERENCES IN COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLIMENT RESPONSES IN THE AMERICAN COMEDY TV SERIES UGLY BETTY

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
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To complete this paper, I own indebtedness to many people for their assistance and
encouragement during the conduct of my study.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest thanks and gratitude to my
supervisor – Dr. Kiều Thị Thu Hương for her continual support, enlightening guidance,
valuable advice and considerable encouragement, which are decisive factors in the
completion of this paper.
Besides, I would love to give my sincere thanks to all my teachers at the Faculty of Post-
Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi (ULIS - VNU) for their profound knowledge and outstanding teaching.
I am also grateful to my family, my colleagues at ULIS - VNU and my friends, who have
encouraged me throughout this research process.
Last but not least, I am especially indebted to the authors whose materials have been used
in the study.
iii
ABSTRACT
This study examines the differences in compliment behavior and compliment response
strategies in American English between males and females. The data were collected from
the ten episodes in the first season of the American Comedy TV-series “Ugly Betty”. The
analysis of 167 compliment exchanges showed that there were significant differences
between males and females in giving compliments and using the response strategies.
Nevertheless, they still shared some common features. Regarding compliment frequency,
females tended to compliment other females more whereas males complimented females
far more than they complimented other males. In this research, except for the topic of
appearance, there was no significant statistic difference in the choice of others compliment
topics between the two genders. It should be noted that male – female interactions
complimenting on appearance took the first place. In terms of functions, females used
compliments most often to establish, confirm or maintain solidarity while male
compliments more often offered admiration. The findings of the differences in response
type frequencies from the two groups revealed that there was more likelihood of non-
agreement than agreement. It might be due to the high frequency of no acknowledgement

responses. In the light of these findings, several pedagogical implications were drawn.
Most importantly, English foreign language teachers should show the learners how to
appropriately compliment and respond in communicative situations.
1
INTRODUCTION
The introduction states the problem and the rationale of the study, together with the aims,
scope, methodology, the significance and the organization of the whole paper. Above all, it
is in this chapter that the research questions are set out to work as the guidelines for the
whole research.
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
2
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 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.
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
and intercultural communication implications.
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?
4. Scope of the study
3

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.
5. Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this paper with priorities given to the
quantitative one. 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.
6. Significance of the study
The present study is conducted to find out the influences of gender on compliment
behavior and compliment response strategies in English. It will add to the research on
4
compliments and second language acquisition. Regarding researchers who share the same
interest in the topic, they could rely on this paper to get useful information for their future

studies.
Besides, the study could help Vietnamese learners of English to be aware of sociolinguistic
aspects of English and thus to improve their pragmatic competence. As for teachers of
English, the findings from this paper may have crucial pedagogical implications for
practice of teaching English as a foreign language.
7. Organization of the study
After the Introduction, the rest of the paper includes the following parts:
Chapter 1 (Literature Review) provides the background of the study including the
definitions of key concepts and the discussions of related studies.
Chapter 2 (The study) describes the procedures to conduct the research, presents, analyzes
the results and discusses the findings the researcher obtained according to the two research
questions.
Conclusion summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper, provides some
implications and points out the limitations of the research as well as proposes several
suggestions for further studies. Following this part are References and Appendix.
5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, theoretical preliminaries and fundamental concepts related to the research
topic are reviewed. Moreover, the overview of related studies is also taken into
consideration.
1.1. Speech act theory
1.1.1. Austin’s speech act theory
Austin, with a pivotal work in the field of linguistics How to Do Things with Words (1962),
was one of the first modern scholars recognizing that words are in themselves actions.
According to Austin, in saying something the speaker does something (1962).
Austin stated that there are three related acts in the action of performing an utterance:
locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. Locutionary act is the basic act
of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression. The second dimension, the
illocutionary act, is performed by uttering some words, such as complimenting,
commanding, offering, promising, threatening, thanking, etc. In other words, it is the

communicative force of an utterance. The third part is the perlocutionary act, which is the
actual result of the locution. The perlocution is defined by the hearer’s reaction.
Let us consider the following example:
A: “Give me some cash.”
The locutionary act is the sound A makes when he says the utterance. The illocutionary act
is that A performs the act of requesting B to give him some cash. It may or may not be
what the speaker B wants to happen but it is caused by the locution. A’s utterance may
have any of the following perlocutions: A persuaded B to give him the money; B refused to
give him the money; B was offended; etc.
Of these three dimensions, the illocutionary force is the most discussed. The term “speech
act” is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an
utterance. The illocutionary force of an utterance is what it “counts as”. Austin
6
distinguishes the locutionary and illocutionary acts by stating that the interpretation of the
locutionary act is concerned with meaning and the interpretation of the illocutionary act
with force. He later proposed a tentative classification of explicit performative verbs. He
divided them into five categories based on the notion of illocutionary force. They are
verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives and expositives. Compliment can be
categorized into the group of behabitives to express one’s attitude towards something.
1.1.2. Searle’s speech act theory
Searle (1975) wrote that Austin’s classification needed to be seriously revised because it
contained several weaknesses. One problem is that the same utterance can potentially have
different illocutionary forces. The speaker will find it hard to assume whether the intended
illocutionary force will be recognized by the hearer. Searle (1976) attempted to explain the
notion of the illocutionary act by stating a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the
performance of a particular kind of the illocutionary acts. He reclassified it and proposed
so-called direct and indirect speech act. To be exact, a declarative used to make a statement
is a direct speech act, but a declarative used to make a request is an indirect speech act
(Yule, 1996). Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts includes five types:
1) Declarations (“bringing about changes through utterances”): These kinds of speech

acts change the world via their utterance. E.g.: declaring, christening.
2) Representatives (“telling people how things are”): These speech acts, which
represent a state of affairs, have a word-to-world fit. In other words, the speaker’s intention
is to make words fit the world. E.g.: asserting, disagreeing.
3) Expressives (“expressing our feeling and attitudes”): These kinds of speech acts
state what the speaker feels. They express psychological states and can be statements of
pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow. Based on this classification, compliment
belongs to “Expressives”.
4) Directives (“trying to get people to do things”): The speakers use these kinds of
speech acts to get someone else to do something. They express what the speaker wants.
E.g.: commands, orders, requests.
7
5) Commissives (“committing ourselves to doing things”): The speakers use these
kinds of speech acts to commit themselves to some future action. They express what the
speaker intends. E.g.: promises, refusals.
Following Searle, Yule (1996, p. 55) summarized the five general functions of speech acts
as follows:
Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule, 1996, p. 55)
Speech act type Direction of fit S = speaker
X = situation
Declarations
Representatives
Expressives
Directives
Commissives
words change the world
make words fit the world
make words fit the world
make the world fit words
make the world fit words

S causes X
S believes X
S feels X
S wants X
S intends X
Mey (2001, p. 87) wrote that Searle’s proposal “is more oriented than Austin’s towards the
real world, inasmuch as it takes its point of departure in what actually is the case, namely
that people perform a speech act whenever they use language, irrespective of the
‘performative’ criterion,” yet noted that both sets of speech acts definitely share
similarities.
The theory of speech acts has been influential not only in philosophical and linguistic
fields, but also in foreign language learning and teaching and cross-cultural research.
Although the theories proposed by Austin and Searle do not capture the cultural intricacies
that arise in actual realizations of speech acts, they can be useful tools in categorizing
human language, as long as these cultural variations are carefully considered. Many
researchers explored the actual forms and their functions of different speech acts in
different languages in cross-cultural study. They found that speech acts were constrained
by politeness principle at different degrees depending on different cultures. Thus, it is
essential to refer to two important notions - politeness and face in the next section.
1.2. Politeness and face theory
1.2.1. Notion of politeness and face
Politeness could be treated as a fixed concept, as in the idea of ‘politeness social behavior’,
or etiquette, within a culture. It is also possible to specify a number of different general
principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture. In an interaction,
let us assume that participants are generally aware that such norms and principles exist in
the society at large. There will be a more narrowly specified type of politeness. In order to
describe it, the concept of face should be clarified. According to Yule (1996), “face means
the public self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that
everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize” (p. 60). He also stated that
“politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to show

awareness of another person’s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in
situations of social distance or closeness” (p. 60). When the other is socially distant,
showing awareness for their face is described in terms of respect or deference. On the other
hand, when the other is socially close, showing the equivalent awareness is often described
in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.
1.2.2. Conversational-maxim view on politeness
1.2.2.1. Grice’s cooperative principle
In the 1968 lectures entitled “Logic and Conversation”, Grice sought to bring a
philosophical, formalist approach to human language by proposing a series of terms that
have become mainstays in the field of linguistics and in other areas. One of the most
important ideas posed is that of conversational implicatures, which are ideas implied in
conversation, and are “cooperative efforts, and each participant recognizes in them, to
some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least mutually accepted
directives” (p. 307). From these implicatures arises the ground-breaking cooperative
principle, or the idea that the main goal of any conversation is communication, and the
participants must be cooperating to achieve this goal. Grice elaborated on this, saying that
a vital part of the cooperative principle (CP) is to “make your conversational contribution
such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of
the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 307).
Grice then divided this principle into four basic maxims which go towards making a
speaker’s contribution “cooperative”: Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. Each of
these maxims is understood to be obeyed by participants when successful communication
occurs. When communication breaks down, however, it is due to a violation of one or more
of these maxims. These violations can be either be a simple violation (such as a lie), an
“opt out” (e.g., refusing to answer a question), a “clash” (failure to fulfill one maxim
without violating another), or “flouting,” which Grice defined as to “blatantly fail to
fulfill” a maxim (p. 310).
Grice’s work on conversational implicatures formed a general theory for human
communication that has largely been accepted as universal and applicable to any language.
However, there exists a great deal of debate over the cross-cultural implications of Grice’s

maxims and since their introduction, many authors have felt that he ignored a cultural
component which makes its application to certain non-Western languages and cultures
difficult, and as some have proposed, impossible.
1.2.2.2. Leech’s politeness principle
Leech is one of the linguistists who are concerned with how politeness provides a missing
link between the Grice’s CP and the problem of how to relate sense to force (Leech, 1983).
In Leech’s view, the CP in itself cannot explain 1) why people are often so indirect in
conveying what they mean; and 2) what is the relationship between sense and force. Leech
emphasized the normative or regulative aspect of politeness. This is brought out by his
construction of politeness into the Politeness Principle (PP) and its maxims, which
includes the Tact Maxim, the Generosity Maxim, the Approbation Maxim, the Modesty
Maxim, the Agreement Maxim and the Sympathy Maxim.
Leech’s PP may be formulated in a general way from two aspects: to minimize (other
things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs and maximize (other things being
equal) the expression of polite beliefs. Leech’s maxims of politeness principle tend to go in
pair as follows:
1) Tact Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
a. Minimize the cost to other b. Maximize the benefit to other
2) Generosity Maxim (in impositives and commissives)
a. Minimize benefit to self b. Maximize cost to self
3) Approbation Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
a. Minimize dispraise of other b. Maximize praise of other
4) Modesty Maxim (in expressives and assertives)
a. Minimize praise of self b. Maximize dispraise of self
5) Agreement Maxim (in assertives)
a. Minimize disagreement between self and other
b. Maximize agreement between self and other
6) Sympathy Maxim (in assertives)
a. Minimize antipathy between self and other
b. Maximize sympathy between self and other

(Cited in Fraser, 1990, p. 225)
Leech (1983) noted that in his politeness principles and maxims, there is a more general
law that politeness is focused more strongly on other than on self, and within each maxim,
sub-maxim (b) seems to be less important than sub-maxim (a). In fact, among the six
maxims, the most essential one is the tact maxim, for it is used in impossitive and
commissive, where politeness is the most greatly needed. On the other hand, approbation
maxim and modesty maxim are very useful to test compliment and compliment responses
in this study.
The same as Grice, Leech is also by no means free from challenges and criticisms. For
example, Gu (1990) suggested to revise the first two maxims: Tact maxim and Generosity
maxim. Moreover, Leech divided the illocutionary into 4 groups: competitive, convivial,
collaborative and conflictive. Compliment, the speech act, by which the speaker benefits
the listener, should fall into the category of convivial, from the perspective of Leech
(1983).
1.2.3. Face-management view on politeness
1.2.3.1. Negative and positive face
The most profound thought of the concept of face is that by Brown and Levinson (1978).
They have set out to develop an explicit model of politeness, which will be applied across
cultures. They put forward that people engage in rational behavior to achieve satisfaction
of certain wants. The wants related to politeness are the wants of face.
According to Brown and Levinson, there are two kinds of faces: “negative face” and
“positive face”. Negative face is about a person’s need to be independent, to have freedom
of action, and not to be imposed on by others. It is essentially the want that others do not
impede your actions. Positive face is one’s wish to be accepted, even liked by others, to be
treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by
others. In short, negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the need to
be connected.
Pridham (2001) explained 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” (p. 52). By challenging other

people’s faces, one is said to be having a “face-threatening act” (FTA). An act of uttering
something to lessen the potential threat is called a “face-saving act” (FSA). For instance,
in a late night scene, where a young neighbor is playing his music very loud and an older
couple are trying to sleep. One of them, in [1], proposes an FTA and the other suggests an
FSA.
[1] Him: I’m going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon because it’s getting a
bit late and people need to get to sleep.
(Cited in Yule, 1996, p. 61)
1.2.3.2. Positive and negative politeness
Brown and Levinson (1987) argued 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, 1988b). In conversations,
people take rational actions to preserve both positive and negative faces for themselves and
the people they interact with. Brown and Levinson (1987) further suggested that we have a
choice of two kinds of politeness. An FSA which is concerned with the person’s positive
face will tend to achieve solidarity through offers of friendship, for example, the use of
compliments. This is called positive politeness. On the other hand, an FSA which is
oriented to the person’s negative face will tend to show deference, emphasize the
importance of the other’s time or concerns, and even include an apology for the imposition
or interruption. This is also called negative politeness (Yule, 1996). The negative
politeness often leads to indirectness, and formality in language use.
In Brown and Levinson’s opinion, complimenting is a kind of positive politeness strategy
that addresses the hearer’s positive face. It signals the complimenter’s noticing and
attending to the complimentee’s interests and needs. People in the West will respond to
others’ compliments 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 dress”, he is
indicating the effort she has made to improve her appearance and that he shares her values
of what constitutes a beautiful “dress”. 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.
(Cited in Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 48)
1.3. Compliments
1.3.1. The definition of compliments
In the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2004, p. 98), compliments have
three kinds of meanings: they are remarks that express admiration of someone or
something; they are remarks that show that we trust someone else and have a good opinion
of them; they are remarks that express praise, or good wishes.
According to Holmes (1988b), “a compliment is a speech act which explicitly or implicitly
attributes credit to someone other than the speaker, usually the person addressed, for some
‘good’ (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is positively valued by the speaker and
the hearer” (p. 446).
It can be seen from the above definitions that firstly, a compliment is a polite speech act. It
can be direct or indirect, which means it could have an explicit meaning that people can
recognize it quickly, or its structure could not be obvious, however people still regard it as
a compliment as long as it can attribute credit to someone according to its implicit
meaning. Lastly, it is given to others, not to the speakers themselves.
1.3.2. The topics of compliments
A topic may properly serve as the focus of a compliment. In spite of the broad range of
topics found in some research, the majority of compliments are restricted to only a few
general topics. Based on the U.S. data, 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 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 appearance/possession compliments are given and received by acquaintances,
colleagues, and casual friends, especially by females. In other studies, compliment topics
can be classified into three categories based on the objects of compliments:
appearance/possessions, performance/skills/abilities and personality traits (Manes &
Wolfson, 1981; Knapp, Hopper & Bell, 1984; Wolfson, 1989; Herbert, 1998).
1.3.3. The functions of compliments
The main function of complimenting behavior is “to create or reinforce solidarity by
expressing appreciation or approval” (Manes & Wolfson, 1981, p. 130). Specifically, the
functions are divided into the following groups based on previous studies.
(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).
(4) To soften the tight atmosphere and minimize FTAs such as criticism, scolding, or
requests (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1988b, and Wolfson, 1983, 1989).
(5) To open or sustain conversations as a politeness strategy allowing meaningful
social interactions to follow (Manes, 1983).
(6) To show the envy of other’s possessions or performances (Manes, 1983).
(7) To fawn others especially from the subordinate to the dominant (Manes, 1983).
1.4. Compliment responses
As a greeting expects a greeting in response, compliment expects a compliment response.
This compliment - response sequence can perhaps be seen as an “adjacency pair” in which
one initiation utterance is expecting a conventionalized response. However, a

complimenter is usually expecting the compliment recipient to respond with a different
second pair-part. It can be generally divided into two main types: agreement and non-
agreement. Herbert’s framework with examples from his American ethnographic data is a
well-designed compliment response categorization.
Table 1-2: Herbert’s CR types (1989)
Agreement (1) Appreciation
Token
A verbal or nonverbal
acceptance

of the
compliment, acceptance
not being tied to the
specific semantics of the
stimulus.
(1) Thanks/ Thank
you/ [nod/ smile].
(2) Comment
Acceptance
Addressee accepts the
complimentary force and
offers a relevant comment
on the appreciated topic.
(2) F1: I like your
hair long.
F2: Me too. I’m
never getting it cut
short again.
(3) Praise Upgrade Addressee accepts the
compliment and asserts

that the complement force
is insufficient.
(3) F: I like that
shirt you’re
wearing.
M: You’re not the
first and you’re not
the last.
(4) Comment
History
Addressee offers a
comment (or series of
comments) on the object
complimented; these
comments differ from (2)
(4) F1: I love that
outfit.
F2: I got it for the
trip to Arizona.
in that the latter are
impersonal, that is, they
shift the force of the
compliment from the
addressee.
(5) Reassignment Addressee agrees with the
compliment assertion, but
the complimentary force is
transferred to some third
person or the object itself.
(5) F: That’s a

beautiful sweater.
M: My brother
gave it to me.
(6) Return As with (5) except that the
praise is shifted (or
returned) to the
first speaker.
(6) F: You’re
funny.
M: You’re a good
audience.
Non-
agreement
(7) Scale Down Addressee disagrees with
the complimentary force,
pointing to some flaw in
the object or claiming that
the praise is overstated.
(7) F: That’s a nice
watch.
M: It’s all
scratched up. I’m
getting a new one.
(8) Disagreement Addressee asserts that the
object complimented is not
worthy of praise: the first
speaker’s assertion is in
error.
(8) F1: Your
haircut looks good.

F2: It’s too short.
(9) Qualification Weaker than (8): addressee
merely qualifies the
original assertion, usually
with though, but, well, etc.
(9) F1: Your
portfolio turned out
great.
F2: It’s alright, but
I want to retake
some pictures.
(10) Question/
Question Response
Addressee questions the
sincerity or the
appropriateness of the
compliment.
(10) M1: Nice
sweater!
M2: You like it?
(11) No
Acknowledgement
Addressee gives no
indication of having heard
the compliment: The
addressee either (a)
responds with an irrelevant
comment (i.e., Topic shift)
or (b) gives no response.
(11) M1: That’s a

beautiful sweater.
M2: Did you finish
the assignment for
today?
(12) Request
Interpretation
Addressee, consciously or
not,

interprets

the
compliments as a request
rather than a simple
compliment. Such
responses are not
compliment responses per
se as the addressee does
not perceive the previous
speech act as a
compliment.
(12) F: I like your
shirt.
M: You

want to
borrow this one
too?
Although the framework of compliment response categorization cited is well-grounded, it
may not be able to account for all compliment response data in a certain study, for example

this one. Therefore, it is at times necessary to revise the framework to make it more
suitable for a specific study.
1.5. Gender and language
1.5.1. Gender and sex
The English-language distinction between the words sex and gender was first developed in
the 1950s and 1960s by British and American psychiatrists and other medical personnel
work with intersex and transsexual patients. Since then, the term gender has been
increasingly used to distinguish between sex as biologically and gender as socially and
culturally constructed.
Gender is not something we are born with, and not something we have, but something we
do (West and Zimmerman, 1987) – something we perform (Butler, 1990). As Eckert and
McConnell-Ginet (2003) put it,
sex is a biological categorization based primarily on reproductive potential,
whereas gender is the social elaboration of biological sex. Gender builds on
biological sex, it exaggerates biological difference and, indeed, it carries
biological difference into domains in which it is completely irrelevant. (p. 10)
Another distinction between sex and gender is stated by World Health Organization
(2011): “Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and
women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and
attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”.
There is no biological reason, for example, why women should mince and men should
swagger, or why women should have red toenails and men should not. But when sex is
considered as “biological” and gender is regarded as “social”, these above distinctions are
not clear-cut. People tend to think of gender as the result of nurture – as social and hence
fluid – while sex is simply given by biology. However, Eckert and McConnell-Ginet
(2003) stated that:
There is no obvious point at which sex leaves off and gender begins, partly
because there is no single objective biological criterion for male and female sex
[…] the very definition of the biological categories male and female, and
people’s understanding of themselves and others as male or female, is

ultimately social. (p. 10)
Fausto-Sterling (2000) summarized the situation as follows:
Labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision. We may use scientific
knowledge to help us make the decisions, but only our beliefs about gender –
not science – can define our sex. Furthermore, our beliefs about gender affect
what kinds of knowledge scientists produce about sex in the first place. (p. 3)
“To what extent gender may be related to biology, it does not flow naturally and directly
from our bodies” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 13). The individual’s
chromosomes, hormones or secondary sex characteristics do not determine occupation, gait
or use of color terminology. According to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003), “gender is
the very process of creating a dichotomy by effacing similarity and elaborating on
difference, and even where there are biological differences, these differences are
exaggerated and extended in the service of constructing gender” (p. 13).
This study focuses on gender as a social construction – as the means by which society
jointly accomplishes the differentiation that constitutes the gender order. In particular, it
analyzes the differences between males and females in complimenting and responding to
compliments.
1.5.2. Gender-based differences in language use
Several contributors appear to adopt the view that similarities rather than differences
characterize men and women. For instance, Kunkel and Burleson found that “some
noteworthy differences between men and women exist, when both within- and between-
gender comparisons are made; the similarities are as important-if not more important-than
the differences” (as cited in Canary & Dindia, 1998, p. 3). Stier and Hall (1984) in a study
on communication behavior reported no overall tendency for men to touch women more
than vice versa. They concluded: “In general touch in opposite-gender dyads did not
apperar to be strongly asymmetrical” (p. 456). Similarly, Hall and Veccia (1990) found
that, over all ages and body parts, men touched women with the same frequency that
women touched men. However, even when such similarities are granted, researchers often
remain eager to explore and elaborate on gender differences more than similarities.
1.5.2.1. Topic control

In a study of heterosexual married couples, women introduced more conversational topics,
but men were more likely to decide which topics would be picked up and elaborated.
Women resort to more attention-seeking devices (Know what? or Guess what I just heard).
Women may offer- and men withhold - conversational support in the form of assenting
responses (mm-hm, yeah) (DeFrancisso, 1991; Fishman, 1978; Leet-Pellegrini, 1980).
“These patterns suggest that women do more ‘interactional work:’ their speech strategies
function both to hold a share of conversational time and attention for themselves and to
provide support to their male conversational partners” (Crawford, 1995, p. 42).
1.5.2.2. Talking time
There is a particularly interesting finding given that being talkative is one of the strongest
stereotypes of women’s speech (Kramer, 1977). Spender (1989) suggested that the
perception of women as the talkative gender continues because the implicit norm is silence.
She also stated that “Quite simply, if a woman is expected to be quiet then any woman who
opens her mouth can be accused of being talkative” (1989, p. 9). However, when talk
offers the possibility of enhancing the speaker’s status, men tend to talk most. Men talk
more than a ‘fair share’ of talk time in a variety of settings: classrooms from elementary
school to university level (Crawford and MacLeod, 1990; M. Sadker & D. Sadker, 1994),
university faculty meetings (B. Eakins & G. Eakins, 1976), college students’ discussions of
a social issue (Leet-Pellegrini, 1980) and so on. There is plenty of evidence from research
in the United States and from Britain demonstrating that males tend to talk more the
women in public contexts where talk is highly valued and attracts positive attention
(Holmes, 1991). According to Holmes (1995, p. 37), “men tend to value public,
referentially orientated talk, while women value and enjoy intimate, affectively orientated
talk.” Each gender may be contributing more in the situation in which they are most
comfortable. Holmes (1995) also stated that, “women may experience formal public
contexts as more face threatening than men do, while men, perhaps, find private and
intimate contexts less comfortable” (p. 37). Each gender contributes least in the situation
they find most uncomfortable.
1.5.2.3. Tag questions
Lakoff’s studies were among the first widely influential ones on language-use features. In

her seminal publications, Lakoff (1972, 1973, and 1975) stated that the differential use of
language needed to be explained in large part on the basis of women’s subordinate social
status and the resulting social insecurity. According to her observation, women’s use of
color terms (mauve, ecru, lavender), of adjectives (divine, adorable), their frequent use of
tag-questions (John is here, isn’t he?) and weak expletives (Oh fudge I’ve put the peanut
butter in the fridge again!) differed radically from male use. In certain contexts, women
use question tags more frequently than men do. She defined the tag-question as
a declarative statement without the assumption that the statement is to be
believed by the addressee: one has an out, as with questions. The tag gives the
addressee leeway, not forcing him to go along with the views of the speaker (p.
16).
Furthermore, she claimed that downtoning a statement shows lack of confidence. Support
for this position comes from those situations in which either verification of the statement
can be made by mere inspection: John is here, isn’t he? or where it reflects the opinion of
the speaker: The way prices are rising these days is horrendous, isn’t it? Clearly, these
sentences need not be questioned and, thus, demonstrate the speaker’s insecurity.
In the years that followed the publication of her work, a considerable amount of research
was conducted in connection with Lakoff’s hypotheses. A study by Dubois and Crouch
(1975) showed that her essay relied on casual observation; it is not adequate. Hence, her
claim was oversimplified. In fact, in their study, men produced more tag-questions than
women. Recent evaluative reaction studies also support this position. Bock (1996) (as cited
in Dubois and Crouch (1975)) conducted a poll of 122 American college students on the
question: “Women use more tag-questions than men”. Less than 41% agreed with this
statement while 17.2% disagreed and 41% were undecided.
Additional properties of tag-questions continued to be revealed by further analyses. In
addition to expressing uncertainty, insecurity and the wish to be accepted (1), tag-questions
also function as expressions of politeness, as hedging and boosting devices. Moreover,
they facilitate communication. In (2) the speaker’s ‘haven’t you’ gives the addressee,