Pragmatic transfer in complimet responses by vietnamese learners of english

CAN THO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN COMPLIMENT
RESPONSES BY VIETNAMESE LEARNERS OF
ENGLISH
BA Thesis
Field of study: English Language Teaching

Supervisor: BUI LAN CHI, M.A

Researcher: Nguyen Thi Hong Quyen
Class: NN0652A1
Student code: 7062919
Course: 32

Can Tho, April 2010


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to give my deep gratitude to Mrs. Bui Lan Chi,
whose comments and suggestions were very useful to make my thesis possible.
Next, I also would like to thank my friend, Mr. Tran Quang Nhat, who helped me
deliver the Discourse Completion Task questionnaires to American native
speakers. Moreover, I really appreciate the great help of English majored and nonmajored students of Can Tho University as well as American native speakers who
participated in my thesis. Last but not least, my gratitude is extended to English
Department of Can Tho University for offering the most favorable conditions to
help me complete this thesis.

TÓM TẮT
Nghiên cứu này nhằm khảo sát sự khác nhau giữa cách đáp lại lời khen của
người Việt bản ngữ và người Mĩ bản ngữ và ảnh hưởng tiếng mẹ đẻ của người Việt
học tiếng Anh khi đáp lại lời khen bằng tiếng Anh. Công cụ duy nhất để thu thập
số liệu cho luận văn này là “phiếu thu thập số liệu.” Phiếu thu thập số liệu với hai
phiên bản: một bản bằng tiếng Anh và một bản bằng tiếng Việt được thiết kế bao
gồm tám tình huống, dựa trên bốn chủ đề khen ngợi: bề ngoài, sở hữu, kỹ năng và
tính cách. Những lời đáp lại lời khen được thu thập từ 30 người, được chia thành
ba nhóm: nhóm người Mĩ bản ngữ, nhóm người Việt bản ngữ và nhóm người Việt
học tiếng Anh. Kết quả cho thấy sự khác biệt lớn trong cách đáp lại lời khen giữa
người Mĩ bản ngữ và người Việt bản ngữ, tập trung vào hai hướng: tần suất của
chiến lược đáp lại lời khen và nội dung của chiến lược. Ngoài ra, kết quả cũng cho
thấy rằng có sự ảnh hưởng tiếng mẹ đẻ trong cách đáp lại lời khen của người Việt
học tiếng Anh. Các ảnh hưởng này thể hiện ở hai cấp độ: tần suất của những chiến
lược và nội dung của những chiến lược. Kết luận rút ra giúp cung cấp thêm nguồn
tài liệu cho việc sử dụng thích hợp tiếng Anh trong giao tiếp đa ngôn ngữ và nâng
cao ý thức của người Việt học tiếng Anh về khả năng ngữ dụng và ý thức về sự
khác biệt văn hóa khi giao tiếp, sử dụng tiếng Anh như một ngoại ngữ.


ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to investigate the differences between
compliment responses by Vietnamese native speakers and by American native
speakers as well as the pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese learners of English when
responding to compliments in English. To collect data, Discourse Completion Task
was employed as the only instrument. The Discourse Completion Task
questionnaires with two versions: one in English and one in Vietnamese were
designed to include eight scenarios based on four compliment topics: appearance,
possession, accomplishment/skills and personality traits. The compliment

responses were collected from thirty people who were divided into three groups:
American native speakers (ANS), Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and
Vietnamese learners of English (VLE). The results revealed a significant
difference in compliment responses by American native speakers and Vietnamese
native speakers focusing on two dimensions: the frequency of compliment
response strategies and the content of the strategies. Moreover, the results also
demonstrated evidence of pragmatic transfer in compliment responses by
Vietnamese learners of English. This pragmatic transfer was at two levels: the
levels of the frequency of compliment response strategies and the level of content
of the strategies. The findings helps to provide more literature for the appropriate
use of English language in intercommunication and raise the awareness of
Vietnamese learners of English about pragmatic competence and cross-culture
when communicating in English as a foreign language.


TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................i
Abstract (Vietnamese)................................................................................................. ii
Abstract (English)...................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables...............................................................................................................vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................vii
Abbreviations........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
1.1 Rationale .......................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims and significance of the present study ...................................................1
1.2.1 Aims of the study .................................................................................2
1.2.2 Significance of the present study ..........................................................2
1.3 Organization of the thesis .............................................................................2
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................4
2.1 Communicative competence..........................................................................4

2.2 Pragmatic competence...................................................................................5
2.3 Pragmatic transfer.........................................................................................6
2.4 Speech act theory .........................................................................................6
2.5 Compliments and compliment responses ......................................................7
2.5.1 Definition of compliments ...................................................................7
2.5.2 Lexical and syntactical features of compliments ..................................7
2.5.3 Compliment topics...............................................................................7
2.5.4 Classification of compliment response strategies .................................8
2.6 Inter-language studies on compliment responses ..........................................9
2.7 Inter-language studies on pragmatic transfer in compliment responses ......10
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................12
3.1 Research questions.....................................................................................12
3.2 Hypotheses.................................................................................................12
3.3 Participants ................................................................................................12
3.4 Data collection instrument..........................................................................13
3.4.1 Rationale for using DCT...................................................................13


3.4.2 Description of DCT questionnaire ....................................................13
3.5 Data analysis..............................................................................................13
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS...........................................................................................15
4.1 General results ...........................................................................................15
4.2 Vietnamese native speaker group vs. American native speaker group ........15
4.2.1 Differences in the frequency of compliment response strategies .......16
4.2.2 Differences in the content of compliment response strategies............18
4.3 Vietnamese learners of English and pragmatic transfer ..............................20
4.3.1 Pragmatic transfer in the frequency of compliment response
strategies....................................................................................................20
4.3.2 Pragmatic transfer in the content of compliment response
strategies

..................................................................................................................23
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS,
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION....................................................................26
5.1 Discussions of the findings.........................................................................26
5.2 Implications ...............................................................................................27
5.3 Limitations.................................................................................................27
5.4 Suggestions for further research .................................................................27
5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................28
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................ix
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................xi
APPENDIX B.............................................................................................................xii
APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................... xiii


List of Tables
Table 2.1 Herbert's taxonomy of compliment responses
Table 2.2 Contrastive studies on compliment responses
Table 2.3 Inter-language studies on pragmatic transfer in compliment responses
Table 3.1 Grouping of participants
Table 4.1 Number of agreement and on-agreement strategies produced by three
groups: American native speaker group (ANS), Vietnamese native
speaker group (VNS) and Vietnamese learners of English group (VLE)
Table 4.2 Number of compliment response sub-strategies produced by American
native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers


List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Communicative language competence in the Common European
Framework (CEF)
Figure 4.1 Differences in agreement and non-agreement strategies produced by

American native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers
Figure 4.2 Differences in compliment response sub-strategies produced by
American native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers
Figure 4.3 Pragmatic transfer in agreement and non-agreement compliment
response strategies by Vietnamese learners of English
Figure 4.4 Pragmatic transfer in compliment response sub-strategies by
Vietnamese learners of English


Abbreviations
CR

Compliment response

CRs

Compliment responses

ANS

American native speakers

VNS

Vietnamese native speakers

VLE

Vietnamese learners of English

DCT

Discourse Completion Task

L1

First Language

L2

Second Language


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes three parts: (1) the rationale for this study, (2) the aims and the
significance of the present study, and (3) the organization of the thesis.

1.1 RATIONALE
In the intercommunication, the misunderstanding and the communication
breakdowns are unavoidable because of different cultural norms and different
pragmatic knowledge. Smiling, for instance, in Korean culture means that a person
is foolish or thoughtless. However, on the island of Puerto Rico, a smile can have
many positive meanings: “Please”, “Thank you”, and “You’re welcome.” (Tanka
and Baker, 2002, p.313) These misunderstandings were demonstrated to be due to
the effects of the mother tongue on the interpretation and the production of the
foreign language. These effects were investigated in a number of previous studies
and called the “pragmatic transfer”. While people can forgive the mistakes of
pronunciation and grammar, they may consider the inappropriate use of language

forms as rudeness. Therefore, pragmatic transfer plays an important role in the
field of Pragmatics and Applied Linguistics.
Vietnam has been co-operating with many foreign countries, using English
as the international language. It is required that the Vietnamese have to speak
English not only fluently but also appropriately. There have been a number of
studies on pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese learners of English in the speech acts
of refusals, apologies, requests, compliments… However, very few studies focused
on the pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese learners of English in compliment
responses. Hence, conducting study in this line helps to provide more literature on
the issue of pragmatic transfer in compliment responses in the process of teaching
and learning English. It also contributes to raise the awareness of Vietnamese
learners of English about pragmatic competence and cross-culture. It is also hoped
that the communication breakdowns in the intercommunication between
Vietnamese non-native speakers of English and native speakers of English can be
reduced.


1.2 AIMS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
1.2.1 Aims of the study
This study aims at finding out the differences in compliment responses by
Vietnamese native speakers and American native speakers as well as the evidence
of pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese learners of English when responding to
compliments in English.
1.2.2 Significance of the present study
As discussed in the previous section, the main purpose of this study was to
investigate the pragmatic transfer in compliment responses by Vietnamese learners
of English. The findings help to provide more literature on pragmatic transfer
issue. Therefore, it is hoped to make the process of teaching and learning English
more effective. The communication breakdowns caused by pragmatic transfer in
compliment responses can be avoided some-how.

1.3 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
This thesis consisted of five chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature
review, (3) Research method, (4) Results, (5) Discussions, implications,
limitations, suggestions and conclusion.
Chapter 1 presents the rationale for conducting the study on pragmatic
transfer in compliment responses by Vietnamese learners of English. Moreover,
the aims and the significance of the present study as well as the organization of the
thesis were also included in this chapter.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to the thesis topic as well as
summarizes and analyzes the previous studies. In this chapter, the “communicative
competence”, the “pragmatic competence”, the theory of “speech acts”, the
“pragmatic transfer” as well as the compliments and compliment responses were
described. In addition, “inter-language studies on compliment responses” and

“inter-language studies on pragmatic transfer in compliment responses” were
presented.
Chapter 3 introduces the research questions and the hypotheses as well as
describes the collecting data instrument, the participants and the data analysis
procedure.


Chapter 4 focuses on describing the results found. It includes: the overall
results, the differences in compliment responses by Vietnamese native speakers
and American native speakers, the pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese learners of
English when responding to compliments in English.
Chapter 5 discusses the results and the limitations of the present study.
Teaching implications are then suggested.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the literature relevant to the thesis topic and analyses the previous
studies. It includes seven parts: (1) Communicative competence, (2) Pragmatic competence, (3)
Pragmatic transfer, (4) Speech act theory, (5) Compliments and compliment responses, (6) Interlanguage studies on compliment responses, (7) Inter-language studies on pragmatic transfer in
compliment responses.

2.1 COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
The concept “communicative competence” is comprised of two words in
which the word “competence” has been the most controversial term in general
applied linguistics since 1960s. It came from the classic distinction of Chomsky
between “competence” and “performance”. According to Chomsky, competence
refers to the monolingual speakers-listener's knowledge of language and
performance refers to the actual use of language in real situation. However,
Chomsky received the strong disapproval from advocates for communicative
views at the idea of using concept of idealized, purely linguistic competence
(Savigon, 1972).
In 1972, Dell Hymes proposed the concept of “communicative
competence,” which is considered broader and more realistic. Competence is
considered not only as the knowledge of but also the ability to use language with
appropriate items. Therefore, Hymes included both grammatical competence to
form correct sentences and ability to use grammatical competence in variety of
communicative situation.
Since Hymes proposed the concept “communicative competence,” it has
been discussed and redefined by many other authors. In 1988, Spitzberg defined
communicative competence as “the ability to interact well with others” (p.68). He
explains the term 'well' refers to accuracy, clarity, comprehensibility, coherence,
expertise, effectiveness and appropriateness” (p.68). In 1994, a much more
complete definition was provided by Friedrich. According to him, communicative

competence is best understood as “a situational ability to set realistic and
appropriate goals and to maximize their achievement by using knowledge of self,
other, context, and communication theory to generate adaptive communication
performance”.
Although communicative competence has been discussed and redefined
many times, the basic idea remains knowledge and ability/skills for language use.
After years of studying communicative competence, many theoreticians in the
field of applied linguistics have reached an agreement “that a competent language
user should process not only knowledge about language but also the ability and


skills to activate that knowledge in a communication event.” (Bagaric’ &
Dijigunovic’, 2007: 73). Since then, communicative competence has widely
become the goal of language learning process.
2.2 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
The notion “pragmatic competence” has been mentioned in the
communicative competence models of many linguists since 1980 (Canal and
Swain, 1980, Bachman and Palmer, 1990, 1996). However, it is more
comprehensive in the description of components of communicative language
competence in the Common European Framework (CEF) (2001).
Figure 2.1 Communicative language competence in the Common
European Framework (CEF)
Communicative language competence
Language competence
Pragmatic competence
Discourse competence

Functional competence

Socio linguistic competence

As shown in the CEF, pragmatic competence is one of three components
that form communicative language competence (another term for communicative
competence). It is very distinct from language/linguistic competence and
sociolinguistic competence. Language competence is defined as knowledge of
and ability to use language resources to form well-structured messages. Thus it
involves lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, orthographic and
orthopedic competences. Both of the last two components concerns with the
appropriate use of language. However, sociolinguistic competence refers to the
possession of knowledge and skills for appropriate language use in a social
context. It involves rules of appropriate behaviors, expressions of people's wisdom,
differences in register and dialects and stress. Whereas, pragmatic competence is
defined as knowledge of how verbal acts are understood and performed in
accordance with a speaker's intention under contextual and discoursal constraints”
(Faerch& Kasper, 1984:214) and ability to apply it. Pragmatic competence is


broken down into two sub-components: discourse competence and functional
competence. Discourse competence is defined as the ability to combine language
structures into different types of cohesive texts. Functional competence refers to
the relationship between utterances and the intentions or communicative purposes
of language users. All in all, pragmatic competence is an important component that
contributes to the appropriate and effective communication of interactants from
different languages.
2.3 PRAGMATIC TRANSFER
The term “transfer” is generally used to refer to the systematic influences of
existing knowledge on the acquisition of new knowledge. The transfer studies
originated very early during 1940s and 1950s. However, those studies did not
address pragmatic issues until recently. According to Wolfson (1989), pragmatic
transfer has been referred to as sociolinguistic transfer. Beebe (1990) considered
pragmatic transfer as the transfer of L1 sociocultural competence or crosslinguistic influence. Although there are various ideas about pragmatics and about

transfer, the term “pragmatic transfer is best understood by Kasper. According to
him, the pragmatic transfer refers to the influence that previous pragmatic
knowledge of L1 has on the use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge.
“Pragmatic transfer shall refer to the influence exerted by learners’
pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L1 on their
comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information.” (Kasper,
1992: 207)
2.4 SPEECH ACT THEORY
Speech act theory was originated by Austin (1962). He claimed that many
utterances are equivalent to actions. For example, when we say “This food is very
delicious”, we are actually communicating an action like compliments. Speech act
theory focuses much on the classification of speech acts. Austin firstly found a
great distinction between constatives and performatives. A constative is considered
to convey a message which can be compared with the real world and declared true
or false. “The cat is on the table” is an example of a constative. On the other hand,
a performative is considered to be a sentence which is not true or false. Rather than
conveying a message, a performative acts upon the world; it doesn’t say
something, it does something. “I promise I’ll go back” is an example of a
performative. According to Austin, performatives include three categories:
locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary acts are
defined as the semantic or literal significance of the utterance. Illocutionary acts


are the most important. It involves the intention of the speaker. Perlocutionary acts
are the effect the speech act has on the listener.
Developing from Austin’s original study, Searle (1962) divided
illocutionary acts into five sub-categories: directive, commissive, expressive,
representative and declaration.
 Directive: The speaker wants the listener to do something.
 Commissive: The speaker indicates the she herself will do something in the

future.
 Expressive: The speaker expresses her feelings or emotional response.
 Representative: The speaker expresses her belief about the truth of a
proposition.
 Declaration: Her utterance results in a change in the external non-linguistic
situation.
2.5 COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLIMENT RESPONSES
2.5.1 Definition of compliments
Compliments are positive speech acts that establish solidarity and increase
rapport among people. For any culture, a compliment must express approval of
something that both parties, speakers and addressees, regard positively (Manes,
1983), and it must be valued by the culture indicated (Holms, 1987; Manes, 1983).
According to Holms (1988b, p.446), “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,..), which
is positively valued by the speakers and the hearers.”
2.5.2 Lexical and syntactical features of compliments
Compliments and compliment responses have been widely studied since
1970s. While later studies focused on how it differs across cultures, the early
studies focused on describing English compliments. In 1980, Wolfson and Manes
on their research on American English identified some lexical and syntactical
features of English compliments. They found English compliments to be
formulaic, that speakers use a small number of adjectives, and that compliments
and compliment responses could be classified into types of structures: adjective,
verb, adverb, and noun. . “Your blouse looks beautiful!” is an example of
adjectival compliment. About 2/3 of adjectival compliments use the words nice,
good, pretty, or beautiful (Manes and Wolfson, 1981). Good is often used for
performance and nice is mostly used for appearance/attire (Knapp et al., 1984). “I
really love your car!” is an example of a compliment that contains a semantically
positive verb. Love and like are used 90% of the time in this type of compliment.

Some other positive verbs that are used would be admire and be impressed
(Wolfson, 1989).
2.5.3 Compliment topics
Major compliment topics can be classified into three categories:
 Appearance/possessions
Compliments on someone’s appearance or possessions are the most
common type of compliments in American English (Wolfson, 1981).
 Performance/ skills/abilities
“You did a good job!” and “You are such a beautiful writer” are examples
of compliments on performances/skills/abilities.
 Personality traits
Such compliments as “Good boy” and “You’re so sweet” are compliments
on addressee’s personality traits. This category of compliments occurs less
frequently than those on appearance / possessions and performance / skills /
abilities (Holmes, 1988).
2.5.4 Classification of compliment response strategies
The first researcher who discussed compliment responses from the
pragmatic perspective was Pomerantz (1978). According to her, in American
English the interactant faces a conflict when responding to a compliment: (A)
AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER and (B) AVOID SELF-PRAISE (pp. 81-82). It
means that if the speaker accepts the compliments, s/he may be considered as
lacking modesty. If s/he rejects the compliments, s/he may be considered as
lacking appreciation of the speaker's opinion and value. Therefore, they have some
strategies to avoid this conflict categorized by Pomerantz as acceptance, rejection,
and self-praise avoidance.
Elaborating from Pomerantz's taxonomy, Herbert (1986 and 1990)
conducted a large scale analysis and ended up with a three-category, twelvestrategy taxonomy (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Herbert's taxonomy of compliment responses

Response strategies
A. Agreement
I. Acceptances
1. Appreciation Tokens
2. Comment Acceptance
3. Praise Upgrade
II. Comment history
III. Transfers
1. Reassignment
2. Return

Example

“Thanks; thank you; (smile)”
“Thanks; it’s my favorite too.”
“Really brings out the blue in my eyes,
doesn’t it?”
“I bought it for the trip to Arizona.”
“My brother gave it to me.”
“So is yours.”


B. Non-agreement
I. Scale down
II. Question
III. Non-acceptance
1. Disagreement
2. Qualification
IV. No acknowledgment
C. Other interpretations

I. Request

“It’s really quite old.”
“Do you really think so?”
“I hate it.”
“It’s alright, but Len’s is nicer.”
(silence)
“You wanna borrow this one too?”

2.6 INTERLANGUAGE STUDIES ON COMPLIMENT RESPONSES:
Different cultures have different ways of meaning and doing things with
words. Compliment responses in particular are also speech acts that differ across
cultures. Table 2.2 presents briefly the main findings of studies on differences in
compliment responses between various languages and English.
Table 2.2 Contrastive studies on compliment responses
( modified from Urano
20 00)
Study

Participants Language
compared

Methods

Results

Daikuhara About 50
(1986)
Japanese

L1 Japanese
L1 American
English

Observation

Only 5% of all
compliment responses
(CRs) in Japanese fell
into acceptance

Holmes
(1988)

L1 New Zealand
English
L1 Malay

observation

New Zealand English
preferred to acceptances
(61.1%) more than
Malay (39.9%)

Herbert
Americans
(1989)
South
Herbert & Africans

Straight
(1989)

L1 American
English
L1 South African
English

Observation

While 36.0% of all
compliment responses
in American data were
acceptance, in South
African English larger
proportion of
compliment responses
(76.1%) were
categorized as
acceptance

Chen
(1993)

L1 American
English
L1 Chinese

Written DCT

95.73% of all
compliment responses
in Chinese were

New
Zealanders
Malaysians

50
Americans
50 Chinese


“rejecting”. Only 4.44%
were acceptance
Gajaseni
(1994)

40
Americans
40 Thai

L1 American
English
L1 Thai

Oral DCT

Americans used
acceptance type

responses significantly
more often than Thai.

Nelson,
Al-Batal,
& Echols
(1996)

87
Americans
52 Syrians

L1 American
English
L1 Arabic

Interview,
observation

Arabic preferred
acceptance (67%) more
than American English
(50%).

Using Pomerantz’s taxonomy of compliment response strategies, these
studies ended up with some interesting findings. First, Arabic and South African
English tend to accept compliments and less likely to reject them than American
English. Second, Asians are more likely to avoid accepting compliments but rather
reject them compared with English. Due to the differences in compliment
responses between various languages and English, pragmatic transfer in

compliment responses by non-native speakers of English is desirable.
2.7 INTERLANGUAGE STUDIES ON PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN
COMPLIMENT RESPONSES
A number of studies have been conducted to demonstrate the existence of
pragmatic transfer in compliment responses from various languages to English.
The findings of these studies are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Interlanguage studies on pragmatic transfer in compliment
responses
Study
Focus
Participants
Methods
Findings
Chung- Evidence of
hye Han pragmatic
(n.d.)
transfer from
Korean to
English

10 Korean female
students
8 American female
students

Field notes The only sign of
and
pragmatic transfer was
interviews found in the disagree type
in the reject category.

However, this didn't lead
to miscommunication

Jing Qu Differences in
(2005) compliment
responses
between
Chinese and
American
English
Pragmatic

20 Chinese students
of English major
20 Chinese students
of non-English major

Discourse
Completion
Task
(DCT)

There is a significant
difference in compliment
responses between
Chinese and American
English.
Chinese learners of
English reflect their L1
behavior to some extents

transfer in
compliment
responses by
Chinese learners
of English.

when responding English
compliments

Hessa
Al
Falasi
(2007)

The occurrence
of pragmatic
transfer from
Arabic to
English
The effect of
proficiency to
pragmatic
transfer

Group 1: 10
American NS of
English
Group 2: 10 Emarati

NS of English majors
Group 3: 10 Emarati
NS of non-English
major

Discourse
Completion
Task and
interviews

Emarati NNS of English
brought about some L
expressions and strategies
in L2 production which
results communication
breakdowns
Proficiency didn't play a
role in producing targetlike compliment
responses

Tran
Quynh
Giao
(2008)

Pragmatic and
discourse
transfer of
combination of
compliment

responses
strategies in
second language
learning and
usage.

20 NS of Australian Naturalized The compliment response
English
-role plays strategy combinations
20 NS of Vietnamese
were found to be
20 Vietnamese
transferred from
learners of English
Vietnamese into
Vietnamese-English.

Since most of these studies (except Tran’s study) based on Pomerantz’s
taxonomy of compliment response strategies, the results of pragmatic transfer were
not well-shown. Differences in each particular strategy, for example, were not
presented.
Tran’ s study (2008) investigated pragmatic transfer in compliment
responses by Vietnamese non-native speakers of English in comparison with
Australian native speakers of English. The results of Tran’s study showed the
evidence of pragmatic transfer performed by Vietnamese learners of English.
However, Tran (2008) focused on analyzing the content of compliment responses
to investigate the pragmatic transfer in the combination of compliment response
strategies.
In this thesis, I also use Herbert’s taxonomy of compliment response
strategies to classify compliment responses collected. However, beside differences

in the content of compliment responses collected, I also focus on investigating the
numeric differences in the frequency of compliment response strategies.


CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter focuses on describing five following parts: (1) Research questions, (2)
Hypotheses, (3) Participants, (40 Data collection instrument, and (5) Data analysis.

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study attempts to address the two following questions:
1. What are the differences between compliment responses by Vietnamese
native speakers and by American native speakers?
2. To what extent do Vietnamese learners of English transfer their Vietnamese
pragmatic knowledge when responding to compliments in English?
3.2 HYPOTHESES
It is hypothesized that American native speakers tend to use more agreement
compliment response strategies and fewer non-agreement strategies than
Vietnamese native speakers. Another hypothesis is Vietnamese learners of English
will perform a strong pragmatic transfer when responding compliments in English.
3.3 PARTICIPANTS
The total number of participants was 30. They were divided into three
groups as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Grouping of participants
Group

Participants

Group 1 10 Vietnamese native speakers (VNS)

Group 2 10 American native speakers (ANS)
Group 3 10 Vietnamese learners of English (VLE)

Group 1 consisted of ten Vietnamese native speakers, who were the seniors
of Can Tho University. They were studying many majors rather than English such
as letter of literature, mathematics teaching, and physics teaching… Their age
ranged from twenty to twenty-three years old. They came from many different
provinces of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. They spoke Vietnamese as their mother
tongue.
Group 2 consisted of 10 Americans, some of whom were students and some
of whom had different jobs like waitresses, officers, and shop-keepers. Their age


ranged from twenty to twenty-five. They all live in Virginia, America. They spoke
English as their mother tongue.
Group 3 consisted of ten Vietnamese learners of English. They were also
the seniors of Can Tho University. They majored in English language teaching.
They also came from many different provinces of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
They spoke Vietnamese as their mother tongue. In addition, they could speak
English as a foreign language.
3.4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
The only data collection instrument in this study is Discourse Completion
Task (DCT). A DCT item typically consists of a situational description followed
by a brief dialogue, with one turn as an open slot to be completed by participants.
3.4.1 Rationale for using DCT
As shown in chapter 2, there are many methods that can be used to collect
data for pragmatic transfer study such as observation, interviews, naturalized roleplay, Discourse Completion Task... However, Discourse Completion Task is
chosen as the data collection instrument for my study because of the following
reasons. First, observation, interviews or naturalized role-play are time-consuming
while I have to conduct my study in a very limited time. Moreover, the lack of

American participants is another reason. In Can Tho, it is very difficult to find out
ten female Americans. It is even more difficult if we ask them to conduct an
interview or a role-play. With DCT method, I can collect data by emailing DCT
questionnaires to my friends in America and get them completed. Therefore,
Discourse Completion Task is the most appropriate instrument to collect data for
my study.
3.4.2 Description of DCT questionnaire
The DCT questionnaire consists of two parts: general information and
situations. In the first part “general information,” participants were required to
provide their general information such as name, gender, age, mother tongue and
foreign language. The second part consists of eight situations which were designed
basing on four topics of English compliments: appearance, possession,
accomplishment/skill and personality trait. Each topic included two situations.
There were two versions of DCT questionnaire: one in English and one in
Vietnamese. The following example is extracted from the DCT questionnaires.
(See Appendices A and B)
Scenario 1: You're going to an important interview for your new job in a
large investment company. You wear your best suit. Your roommates or your
family say “Oh! You look good in your suit! All the best with your interviews!”


You respond:...............................................................................................................
Tình huống 1: Bạn đang chuẩn bị đi phỏng vấn trong một công ty lớn cho
công việc mới trong một công ty lớn. Vì thế hôm nay bạn mặc bộ quần áo đẹp nhất
của mình. Những người bạn cùng phòng hoặc gia đình của bạn nói rằng: “Ồ! Bạn
mặc bộ này đẹp quá! Chúc buổi phỏng vấn tốt nhé!”
Bạn đáp lại lời khen:..................................................................................................
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. In quantitative
analysis, the compliment responses collected were classified according to

Herbert’s taxonomy of compliment responses strategies. The frequency of
occurrence of compliment response strategies was calculated to show the numeric
differences among the groups. The qualitative analysis was based on the content of
compliment responses.


CHAPTER 4

RESULTS
This chapter reports the results of the present study. It includes three parts: (1) the
overall results of agreement and non-agreement compliment response strategies produced by
three groups: American native speaker group, the Vietnamese native speakers group and the
Vietnamese learners of English group; (2) the differences in compliment responses by Vietnamese
native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers; (3) the pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese
learners of English when responding to compliments in English.

4.1 OVERALL RESULTS
The total number of compliment responses collected was 240 in which 175
compliment responses were in agreement strategies and 65 compliment responses
were in non-agreement strategies. All the groups used more agreement strategies
than non-agreement strategies. However, among three groups, American native
speaker group used the most agreement strategies and the least non-agreement
strategies while Vietnamese native speakers used the least agreement strategies
and the most non-agreement strategies. Table 4.1 will present the number of
agreement and non-agreement strategies produced by the three groups.
Table 4.1 Number of agreement and non-agreement strategies produced by
three groups: American Native Speakers (ANS), Vietnamese Native
Speakers (VNS) and Vietnamese learners of English (VLE)
ANS

VNS

VLE

Agreement

71

50

54

Non-agreement

9

30

26

Total number

80

80

80

Though agreement was used more by the three groups, there was a
difference in the number of agreement and non-agreement strategies used by them.

The detailed differences between compliment responses by American native
speakers and Vietnamese native speakers as well as the pragmatic transfer by
Vietnamese learners of English when responding to compliments in English will
be presented in two following sections.
4.2 VIETNAMESE NATIVE SPEAKER GROUP VS. AMERICAN NATIVE
SPEAKER GROUP
This section seeks to address research question 1: “What are the differences
in compliment responses by American native speakers and Vietnamese native


speakers?” The results showed that the differences focused on two dimensions: the
frequency of compliment response strategies and the content of the strategies.
4.2.1 Differences in the frequency of compliment response strategies
First, the differences between compliment responses by American native
speakers and Vietnamese native speakers were analyzed in the frequency of
compliment response strategies. In the frequency of strategies, those differences
were considered at two levels: the level of agreement and non-agreement strategies
and the level of agreement and non-agreement sub-strategies.
 Agreement and non-agreement strategies
First of all, the results revealed a significant difference between American
native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers in their choice of both agreement
and non-agreement strategies. Figure 4.1 below will present such differences.
Figure 4.1 Differences in agreement and non-agreement strategies produced
by ANS group and VNS group
80

Number of srategies

70
60

50
40

agreement
Nonagreement

30
20
10
0
ANS

VNS

Groups

Figure 4.1 showed that American native speaker group produced more
agreement strategies and fewer non-agreement strategies than Vietnamese native
speaker group. Indeed 71 agreement strategies and 9 non-agreement strategies
were used by American native speakers. Whereas, 50 agreement strategies and 30
non-agreement strategies were produced by Vietnamese native speakers. This
result supported the hypothesis that American native speakers used more
agreement strategies than Vietnamese native speakers.
 Agreement and non-agreement sub-strategies
The differences in compliment response strategies by American native
speaker group and Vietnamese native speaker group were shown more clearly in
their choice of agreement and non-agreement sub-strategies. Table 4.2 and Figure
4.2 below will present the number of compliment response sub-strategies produced
by American native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers as well as the
differences in their choice of compliment response sub-strategies.