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

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 TVseries “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.

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

Besides, I would love to give my sincere thanks to all my teachers at the Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam NationalUniversity, Hanoi (ULIS - VNU) for their profound knowledge and outstanding teaching.

Post-I am also grateful to my family, my colleagues at ULPost-IS - VNU and my friends, who haveencouraged me throughout this research process

Last but not least, I am especially indebted to the authors whose materials have been used

in the study

ABSTRACT

This study examines the differences in compliment behavior and compliment responsestrategies in American English between males and females The data were collected fromthe ten episodes in the first season of the American Comedy TV-series “Ugly Betty” Theanalysis of 167 compliment exchanges showed that there were significant differencesbetween 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 femalesfar more than they complimented other males In this research, except for the topic ofappearance, there was no significant statistic difference in the choice of others complimenttopics between the two genders It should be noted that male – female interactionscomplimenting on appearance took the first place In terms of functions, females usedcompliments most often to establish, confirm or maintain solidarity while malecompliments more often offered admiration The findings of the differences in responsetype 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 acknowledgementresponses In the light of these findings, several pedagogical implications were drawn.Most importantly, English foreign language teachers should show the learners how toappropriately compliment and respond in communicative situations

1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

An effective language user is competent in not only linguistics but also pragmatics AsYule (1996) put it, “nothing in the use of the linguistic forms is inaccurate, but getting thepragmatics wrong might be offensive” (p 5-6) To be able to use a target languageappropriately in terms of pragmatic competence, language users should employ a variety ofspeech acts Complimenting is one of them

Compliments not only express sincere admiration of positive qualities, but they alsoreplace greetings, thanks or apologies, and minimize face-threatening acts (henceforthFTAs), 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 anopener for a conversation, allowing meaningful social interactions to follow Americanspay compliments so frequently that neglecting to do so can even be interpreted as a sign ofdisapproval (Manes, 1983; Wolfson, 1989; Wolfson & Manes, 1980) and a wrong use ofcompliments may cause embarrassment and offense (Dunham, 1992; Holmes & Brown,1987)

Each culture requires various kinds of speech act behavior Blum-Kulka, House andKasper (1989) found that “culturally colored interactional styles create culturallydetermined expectations and interpretative strategies, and can lead to breakdowns inintercultural and interethnic communication” (p 30) In other words, when people fromdifferent cultures interact, breakdowns in communication may happen due to signalingdifferent 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 isessential for Vietnamese learners of English to know how to give appropriate complimentsand responses in English

Complimenting is inevitably affected by social factors including gender According toTannen (1990), gender differences are parallel to cross-cultural differences Therefore, it isworthwhile to study the interactions between men and women, men and men, or womenand 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 AmericanComedy TV-series “Ugly Betty” The people in the TV series are not real people, but theactors are chosen to match the real ones in daily life What can be assumed is that the datawould bare resemblance to real life language Hopefully, the study will make acontribution 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 complimentbehavior including the frequency of compliments, compliment topics and the functions ofcompliments Secondly, the differences between males and females in complimentsresponse strategies are explored The findings will pave the way for several pedagogicaland 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

There are four seasons in this TV-series with the total of 85 episodes However, due to thesize and limitation of a preliminary research, the dialogues in the episodes one to ten in thefirst season are used with the development of the story Every episode takes about 40minutes Totally, this study will analyze ten episodes of around 400 minutes

The compliments among 18 characters balanced in gender, 9 females and 9 males, arechosen 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 agroup 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 theinterlocutors are enemies, the compliments between them have ironic meanings Within thescope 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 theanalysis 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 complimentbehavior and compliment response strategies in English It will add to the research on

compliments and second language acquisition Regarding researchers who share the sameinterest in the topic, they could rely on this paper to get useful information for their futurestudies

Besides, the study could help Vietnamese learners of English to be aware of sociolinguisticaspects of English and thus to improve their pragmatic competence As for teachers ofEnglish, the findings from this paper may have crucial pedagogical implications forpractice 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 researchquestions

Conclusion summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper, provides some

implications and points out the limitations of the research as well as proposes severalsuggestions for further studies Following this part are References and Appendix

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, theoretical preliminaries and fundamental concepts related to the researchtopic are reviewed Moreover, the overview of related studies is also taken intoconsideration

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 bewhat the speaker B wants to happen but it is caused by the locution A’s utterance mayhave any of the following perlocutions: A persuaded B to give him the money; B refused togive him the money; B was offended; etc

Of these three dimensions, the illocutionary force is the most discussed The term “speechact” is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of anutterance The illocutionary force of an utterance is what it “counts as” Austin

distinguishes the locutionary and illocutionary acts by stating that the interpretation of thelocutionary act is concerned with meaning and the interpretation of the illocutionary actwith force He later proposed a tentative classification of explicit performative verbs Hedivided 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 itcontained several weaknesses One problem is that the same utterance can potentially havedifferent illocutionary forces The speaker will find it hard to assume whether the intendedillocutionary force will be recognized by the hearer Searle (1976) attempted to explain thenotion of the illocutionary act by stating a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for theperformance of a particular kind of the illocutionary acts He reclassified it and proposedso-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.

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

‘performative’ criterion,” yet noted that both sets of speech acts definitely sharesimilarities.

The theory of speech acts has been influential not only in philosophical and linguisticfields, 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 intricaciesthat arise in actual realizations of speech acts, they can be useful tools in categorizinghuman language, as long as these cultural variations are carefully considered Manyresearchers explored the actual forms and their functions of different speech acts indifferent languages in cross-cultural study They found that speech acts were constrained

by politeness principle at different degrees depending on different cultures Thus, it isessential 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 generalprinciples 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 inthe society at large There will be a more narrowly specified type of politeness In order todescribe it, the concept of face should be clarified According to Yule (1996), “face meansthe public self-image of a person It refers to that emotional and social sense of self thateveryone 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 showawareness of another person’s face In this sense, politeness can be accomplished insituations 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 otherhand, 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 aphilosophical, formalist approach to human language by proposing a series of terms thathave become mainstays in the field of linguistics and in other areas One of the mostimportant ideas posed is that of conversational implicatures, which are ideas implied inconversation, and are “cooperative efforts, and each participant recognizes in them, tosome extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least mutually accepteddirectives” (p 307) From these implicatures arises the ground-breaking cooperativeprinciple, or the idea that the main goal of any conversation is communication, and theparticipants 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 ofthe talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p 307).

Grice then divided this principle into four basic maxims which go towards making aspeaker’s contribution “cooperative”: Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner Each ofthese maxims is understood to be obeyed by participants when successful communicationoccurs 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 maximwithout violating another), or “flouting,” which Grice defined as to “blatantly fail tofulfill” a maxim (p 310)

Grice’s work on conversational implicatures formed a general theory for humancommunication 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’smaxims and since their introduction, many authors have felt that he ignored a culturalcomponent which makes its application to certain non-Western languages and culturesdifficult, 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 missinglink 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 inconveying what they mean; and 2) what is the relationship between sense and force Leechemphasized 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 ModestyMaxim, the Agreement Maxim and the Sympathy Maxim

Leech’s PP may be formulated in a general way from two aspects: to minimize (otherthings being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs and maximize (other things beingequal) the expression of polite beliefs Leech’s maxims of politeness principle tend to go inpair 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 generallaw 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, approbationmaxim 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 Forexample, Gu (1990) suggested to revise the first two maxims: Tact maxim and Generositymaxim 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 acrosscultures 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 byothers 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 bytelling them what to do, which implies you have rights over them, or by showing youdisagree 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 oldercouple are trying to sleep One of them, in [1], proposes an FTA and the other suggests anFSA

[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, inwhich faces of the interlocutors tend to be threatened in language interaction For example,compliments may themselves threaten the addresser’s negative face, and complimentresponses may threaten the speaker’s positive face (Holmes, 1988b) In conversations,people take rational actions to preserve both positive and negative faces for themselves andthe 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 strategythat addresses the hearer’s positive face It signals the complimenter’s noticing andattending to the complimentee’s interests and needs People in the West will respond toothers’ 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”, sinceappearance is an important component in the self-image of females almost all over theworld Still, as far as compliments are concerned, sometimes, the complimentee will feeltheir positive face being threatened Under this situation, they will try to be indifferent oravoid 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 orsomething; 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 implicitlyattributes 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 andthe hearer” (p 446)

It can be seen from the above definitions that firstly, a compliment is a polite speech act Itcan be direct or indirect, which means it could have an explicit meaning that people canrecognize 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 implicitmeaning 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 oftopics found in some research, the majority of compliments are restricted to only a fewgeneral 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 onsuch 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 topicscan 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 byexpressing appreciation or approval” (Manes & Wolfson, 1981, p 130) Specifically, thefunctions 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, orrequests (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1988b, and Wolfson, 1983, 1989).(5) To open or sustain conversations as a politeness strategy allowing meaningfulsocial 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 whichone initiation utterance is expecting a conventionalized response However, acomplimenter is usually expecting the compliment recipient to respond with a differentsecond 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 awell-designed compliment response categorization.

Table 1-2: Herbert’s CR types (1989)

Agreement (1) Appreciation

Token

A verbal or nonverbalacceptance of thecompliment, acceptancenot being tied to thespecific semantics of thestimulus

(1) Thanks/ Thank you/ [nod/ smile].

(2) Comment Acceptance

Addressee accepts thecomplimentary force andoffers 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 assertsthat the complement force

is insufficient

(3) F: I like that

shirt you’rewearing

M: You’re not the first and you’re not the last.

(4) Comment History

Addressee offers acomment (or series ofcomments) on the objectcomplimented; thesecomments differ from (2)

(4) F1: I love that

outfit

F2: I got it for the trip to Arizona.

in that the latter areimpersonal, that is, theyshift the force of thecompliment from theaddressee.

(5) Reassignment Addressee agrees with the

compliment assertion, butthe complimentary force istransferred to some thirdperson 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 (orreturned) to the

first speaker

(6) F: You’refunny

M: You’re a good audience.

Non-agreement

(7) Scale Down Addressee disagrees with

the complimentary force,pointing to some flaw inthe object or claiming thatthe 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 notworthy of praise: the firstspeaker’s assertion is inerror

(8) F1: Yourhaircut looks good

F2: It’s too short.

(9) Qualification Weaker than (8): addressee

merely qualifies theoriginal assertion, usually

with though, but, well, etc.

(9) F1: Yourportfolio turned outgreat

F2: It’s alright, but

I want to retake some pictures.

(10) Question/

Question Response

Addressee questions thesincerity or theappropriateness of thecompliment

(10) M1: Nicesweater!

M2: You like it?

(11) No Acknowledgement

Addressee gives noindication of having heardthe compliment: Theaddressee either (a)responds with an irrelevantcomment (i.e., Topic shift)

(12) Request

Interpretation

Addressee, consciously ornot, interprets thecompliments as a requestrather than a simplecompliment Suchresponses are notcompliment responses per

se as the addressee doesnot perceive the previousspeech act as acompliment

(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, itmay not be able to account for all compliment response data in a certain study, for examplethis one Therefore, it is at times necessary to revise the framework to make it moresuitable 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 personnelwork with intersex and transsexual patients Since then, the term gender has beenincreasingly used to distinguish between sex as biologically and gender as socially andculturally 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 andwomen Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, andattributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”

There is no biological reason, for example, why women should mince and men shouldswagger, or why women should have red toenails and men should not But when sex isconsidered as “biological” and gender is regarded as “social”, these above distinctions arenot clear-cut People tend to think of gender as the result of nurture – as social and hencefluid – 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 directlyfrom our bodies” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p 13) The individual’schromosomes, hormones or secondary sex characteristics do not determine occupation, gait

or use of color terminology According to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003), “gender isthe very process of creating a dichotomy by effacing similarity and elaborating ondifference, and even where there are biological differences, these differences areexaggerated and extended in the service of constructing gender” (p 13)

This study focuses on gender as a social construction – as the means by which societyjointly accomplishes the differentiation that constitutes the gender order In particular, itanalyzes the differences between males and females in complimenting and responding tocompliments

1.5.2 Gender-based differences in language use

Several contributors appear to adopt the view that similarities rather than differencescharacterize men and women For instance, Kunkel and Burleson found that “somenoteworthy differences between men and women exist, when both within- and between-gender comparisons are made; the similarities are as important-if not more important-thanthe 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 morethan vice versa They concluded: “In general touch in opposite-gender dyads did notapperar to be strongly asymmetrical” (p 456) Similarly, Hall and Veccia (1990) foundthat, over all ages and body parts, men touched women with the same frequency thatwomen touched men However, even when such similarities are granted, researchers oftenremain 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 strategiesfunction both to hold a share of conversational time and attention for themselves and toprovide 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 strongeststereotypes of women’s speech (Kramer, 1977) Spender (1989) suggested that theperception 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 whoopens her mouth can be accused of being talkative” (1989, p 9) However, when talkoffers the possibility of enhancing the speaker’s status, men tend to talk most Men talkmore than a ‘fair share’ of talk time in a variety of settings: classrooms from elementaryschool 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 thewomen 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 orientatedtalk.” Each gender may be contributing more in the situation in which they are mostcomfortable Holmes (1995) also stated that, “women may experience formal publiccontexts as more face threatening than men do, while men, perhaps, find private andintimate contexts less comfortable” (p 37) Each gender contributes least in the situationthey find most uncomfortable

1.5.2.3 Tag questions

Lakoff’s studies were among the first widely influential ones on language-use features Inher seminal publications, Lakoff (1972, 1973, and 1975) stated that the differential use oflanguage needed to be explained in large part on the basis of women’s subordinate socialstatus 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 researchwas 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, herclaim was oversimplified In fact, in their study, men produced more tag-questions thanwomen 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 thequestion: “Women use more tag-questions than men” Less than 41% agreed with thisstatement while 17.2% disagreed and 41% were undecided

Additional properties of tag-questions continued to be revealed by further analyses Inaddition to expressing uncertainty, insecurity and the wish to be accepted (1), tag-questionsalso 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,

Andrew, a chance to pick up on the topic suggested by the speaker and get into aconversation with Frank.

(1) Showing insecurity: I graduated last year, didn’t I?

(2) Facilitating conversation: Andrew, this is our new neighbor, Frank Andrew has just

changed jobs, haven’t you?

(Holmes, 1992, p 318)Regarding the different functions of the tag-question, Holmes (1992, p 319) presented thefollowing results:

Table 1-3: Functions of tag-questions between women and men (Holmes, 1992)

(3) Showing solidarity: His portraits are quite static by comparison, aren’t they?

(4) Indicating uncertainty: You were missing last week, weren’t you?

(Coates & Cameron, 1989, p 82)With the total of a 45,000-word corpus of the “Survey of English” at University College,London, Coates and Cameron’s study showed similar results to Holmes’ study Women

used more affective-facilitative tags while men use more modal ones In contrast to

Holmes, no softening tags were found With respect to the function of uncertainty andinsecurity, a further differention should be considered Coates and Cameron assumed anuncertainty on the part of the speaker for the modal function However, as the contrast with(1) demonstrates, the uncertainty in (4) concerns the information, not the speaker

Table 1-4: Functions of tag-questions between women and men (Coates & Cameron,

The above studies show that women and men behave differently in a speech situation Thisdifference manifests itself, for instance, in linguistic behavior by the differential use ofquestion tags

1.5.2.4 Interruption

In a conversation, the participants use a number of strategies to achieve theirconversational goals One of these goals may be to dominate other participants of thespeech situation The use of interruptions is an obvious strategy Their use is generallyexplained by the relative power of the participants which derives from their social status.The higher incidence of interruptions, thus, is seen in the relatively high social andeconomic status of men Women, on the other hand, are powerless regarding their social

position This is reflected in fewer interruptions in cross-gender conversations.Zimmerman and West (1975) reported the following results:

Table 1-5: Interruptions in cross-gender conversations (Zimmerman & West, 1975)

Cross-gender conversations Male Female TotalInterruptions 46 2 48

Similarly, as Lakoff (1975), Trudgill (1978) and others have pointed out, low social status

is often characterized by passivity and low vitality This in turn results in the wish to beaccepted by the dominating group However, high achieved status does not necessarilyprotect women against being interrupted: female physicians are frequently interrupted bymale patients (West, 1984)

1.5.2.5 Use of silence

“Silence can be used as a device for controlling interaction” (Crawford, 1995, p 42).Fishman (1978) noted that women gave many minimal responses expressing interest (e.g.,

mm-hm) during their husbands’ speaking turns, while husbands’ withholding of minimal

responses to their wives functioned to express lack of interest and to control topicdevelopment In groups, the recognized expert may exert control by saying little, thuswithholding approval and forcing others to attend to subtle nonverbal cues to assess theexpert’s position (Berger, 1985) In DeFrancisco’s (1991) research, men talked less thantheir partners, and their most frequent turn-taking violation was not to respond

1.5.3 Explanations for gender-based differences in language use

A variety of explanations have been proposed for gender differences in language use.Chambers (1992) gave a biological explanation Claiming an innate, albeit small,neurological advantage for women, Chambers assumed that this advantage was realized inthe use of verbal skills and transferred to other behavioral skills Using data from studies inDetroit and Belfast, from Japan and the Middle East, Chambers argued for a sex-basedanalysis of variability Although pointing to the tentative nature of this explanation heclaimed that “female precocity in verbal skills beginning in infancy predisposes them to

apply their verbal skills to all kinds of situations as they grow up” (Chambers, 1992, p.201).

Furthermore, Chambers cited Sherman (1978) in support of his position:

The early female advantage bends the twig toward female preference for verbal

approaches to problem solution This bent is then increased by the verbal

emphasis of the educational system and by aspects of sex roles that do not

encourage girls’ development of visual-spatial skills (p 40)

Other researchers put a great deal of stress on socialization as an explanatory factor (e.g.Maltz & Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1987) In many societies, girls and boys experiencedifferent patterns of socialization and this, it is suggested, leads to different ways of usingand interpreting language (Holmes, 1995) In modern societies, most girls and boys operate

in single-sex peer groups through an influential period of their childhood, during whichthey acquire and develop different styles of interaction The boys’ interaction tends to bemore competitive and control-orientated, while the girls interact more cooperatively andfocus on relative closeness Holmes (1995) stated that “gender differences in patterns oflanguage use can be explained by the fact that girls and boys are socialized into differentcultures Each group learns appropriate ways of interacting from their same sex peers –including ways of interacting verbally” (p 7)

Besides, for decades, many researchers have argued that the differences attributed togender can be accounted for by differences in social roles and social status (Henley, 1973-

1974, 1977; Kramarae, 1981; Spender, 1980; Thorne & Henley, 1975; Unger, 1976, 1979).Despite the profound social change that has occurred in American society in the past 25years, men and women are still positioned differently in society According to Aries(1996), “men hold more power and status than women Women have indeed entered thelabor force in greater numbers, but they are still paid less for the same work and on averagehold jobs with lower status than men” (as cited in Canary & Dindia, 1998, p 72) A greatdeal of evidence demonstrates that the dominance and leadership attributed to man isdisplayed more often by high-status than low-status individuals; when status is controlledfor, gender differences are diminished For instance, in a study of dominance displayed at

work, dominance was predicted by participants’ social roles Less dominance wasdisplayed toward coworkers and supervisors than toward people being supervised(Moskowitz, Jung Suh, & Desaulniers, 1994) However, dominance was not predicted bythe gender of participant High-status and powerful individuals have been found tointerrupt more than low-status, less powerful individuals (B Eakins & G Eakins, 1983;Greif, 1980; West & Zimmerman, 1977; Woods, 1988) In discussion among intimateheterosexual couples, speaking time was related to the amount of power each person held

in the relationship in decision making The more powerful person spoke more indiscussions When men and women enjoy equal power, men do not speak significantlymore than their female partners in discussions (Kollock, Blumstein & Schwartz, 1985).When men and women are placed in equal status position, gender differences are reduced.When dominance and leadership are legitimized for women in organizational settings, thebehavior of male and female leaders is quite similar (Eagly & Johnson, 1990)

Nevertheless, the differences between men and women in language are not permanent.With the development of society and the changes of cultural values, the differences maydecrease

Most people appear to believe that men and women are fundamentally different Mustin and Marecek (1988) argued that people who assume pervasive gender differences

Hare-in social behavior have an “alpha bias” or “the exaggeration of differences” (p 457) AsTannen (1994) recently indicated,

Entering the arena of research on gender is like stepping into a maelstrom What

it means to be female or male, what it’s like to talk to someone of the other (or

the same) [sex], are questions whose answers touch people where they live, and

when a nerve is touched, people howl (p 3)

In a similar manner, one cannot escape one’s ideological frame of reference whenresearching how sex differences might affect communication between people Crawford(1995) put it this way:

Sex differences findings can never enter the scientific discourse neutrally.

Rather, they are interpreted within the context of deeply held beliefs about

women’s [and men’s] natures In accounting for their results, researchers cannot

avoid being influenced by the sociocultural discourse of gender, because “facts”

about sex differences have no meaning outside that discourse What “counts” as

an interesting or important result, and what “makes sense” as an interpretation,

are always ideological matters (p 32)

1.6 Gender and politeness

Brown, in her work on the analysis of politeness among a Mayan community, argued thatwomen, in general, are more polite than men (Brown, 1980, 1983) According to her, “inmost cultures, women among women may have a tendency to use more elaborated positivepoliteness strategies than men do among men” (1980, p 251) She also discussed the waythat many linguists have concluded that women’s language tends to be more hypercorrectthan men’s and hence more formal (Brown, 1980) This can be because women tend togain prestige through appearance and linguistic behavior, since they cannot gain statusthrough their job or income (Trudgill, 1972)

Brown saw politeness as being concerned with questions of social standing and this shesaw as being of great importance for women For her, since relationships in general werebeing fairly stable, politeness levels were also fairly predictable If there is a shift in thelevel or type of politeness used, then we are to assume that there has been a change inrespect, an increase in social distance of a change of a face threatening nature She arguedthat therefore most fluctuations in politeness levels are due to the mitigation of an FTA

In her analysis of strengthening and weakening particles in Tenajapa, she asserted that inthis Mayan community, which is very clearly gender-differentiated, women used morestrengthening particles when speaking to women (and to men) and they also used moreweakening particles when speaking to men Women speaking to women used moreparticles in general than men used to men This is an important finding, since Brownshowed that she was aware that women do not have a simple general style which all ofthem use in all circumstances; rather, their choice in terms of the use of these particlesdepends on the assessment of context and audience (Mills, 2003) Later, Holmes (1995)commented on Brown’s analysis of these particles:

The particles she examined tend to occur most frequently in speech expressing

feelings and attitudes, and … in her data women spent more time talking about

feelings and attitudes towards events than men It seems possible that the

association of particular linguistic devices with women’s speech may reflect the

fact that they occur more often in discourse types favored by women (p 110)

In general, even though there were several cases where Brown’s hypothesis was not provenwhen tested against her data, she still asserted the women and men’s speech differsignificantly in relation to politeness use

A similar finding can be seen in Smith-Hefner’s (1988) analysis of the use of polite forms

in Java, where she noted that different cultures had different definitions of what counts aspolite; she argued that in Java polite forms were associated with high status and withlinguistic control and skill Thus, although Javanese women were expected to be morepolite than men within the family and this use signaled their subservience (an assertionwhich seems to support Brown’s assertion about Tenejapan women), outside the familywithin the public domain politeness was associated with males

Holmes (1995) argued that in general women were more polite than men as they are moreconcerned with the affective rather than the referential aspect of utterances since

“politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others” (p 4) She suggested thatwomen were more likely to use positive politeness than men; thus for her, “women’sutterances show evidence of concern for the feelings of the people they are talking to moreoften and more explicitly than men’s do” (p 6) Positive politeness is here seen to besynonymous with friendliness, and seems part of a general stereotype about the way thatwomen should behave However, she recognized that distinguishing between positive andnegative politeness is difficult: “in fact, there are few speech acts which are intrinsicallynegative politeness speech acts Linguistically expressed negative politeness generallytakes the form of expressions or strategies which reduce the effect of face threateningspeech acts” (p 154)

In brief, many researchers have asserted a global difference between men’s and women’suse of politeness However, the generalizations are not always true in different cultures AsMills (2003) put it:

Because gender and other factors impact upon the context and because gender is

indeed something which participants perform and interpret in the context of

hypothesized gendered stereotypes within a community of practice, its is

essential to analyze gender at both the local and the structural level, especially

in its relation to the production and interpretation of politeness (p 235)

Studies of compliments have focused on the following areas: compliment formulas,functions, topics, compliment responses, and compliment as a gender-preferential strategy

in one culture or across cultures

The most extensive study on American compliments was conducted by Wolfson andManes, who collected over 1,000 compliments in a wide range of situations The resultsshowed that approximately 80% of American compliments fall into the three syntacticpatterns: NP is/looks (intensifier) ADJ (e.g., Your sweater is (really) nice), I (intensifier)like/love NP (e.g., I (really) like your car), and PRO is (intensifier) (a) ADJ NP (e.g.,That’s a (really) good question.) (Manes, 1983; Wolfson, 1983; Wolfson & Manes, 1980).Following Wolfson and Manes’ investigation, there were other studies, which confirmedtheir finding of the formulas in other varieties of English, for example, Holmes (1988a),Herbert (1990), etc

Ye (1995)’s study showed that Chinese compliments were formulaic with a limited range

of positive semantic carriers Ye stated that, due to the nature of the language structure, themost frequently used positive semantic carriers were Adjectives, Verbs and Adverbs.Jia (1997) studied that Chinese adverbs often occurred with most of the positive adjectivesand verbs The most popular syntactic patters are:

1 (Your) NP (ADV) ADJ (e.g (Your) This sweater is really nice.)

2 (You) V NP (ADV) ADJ (e.g (You) wear this coat really beautiful.)

3 NP (You V) (ADV) ADJ (e.g This job you did really good.)

He also noted that Chinese compliments rarely used the speaker’s perspective, “I”

The findings concerning compliment formulas indicate that compliments are readilyrecognizable items of discourse They reduce the possibility of misunderstanding betweenthe speaker and hearer

Investigating the different ways in which Vietnamese compliments are expressed, Q.Nguyễn (1998, p 183-185) suggested a range of lexico-modal markers commonlydeployed by Vietnamese speakers in giving compliments:

(i) vừa, vừa mới, đơn giản là, có lẽ, có thể, có khả năng, phải chăng, ở mức độ

nào đó thì, nói khí không phải chứ, …

(ii) một chút, một tẹo, một tẹo teo, tí chút, đôi chút, tàm tạm, đại loại, kiểu, kiểu

như là,…

(iii) vô cùng, thực sự, thật là, thật, rất, rất chi là, quả là, rất là, lắm, thế, đấy, hẳn

ra, ra, lên, …

In American culture, a compliment is often used for maintaining social harmony and forsustaining social interaction (Celce-Murcia, 1991) It can show gratitude, open or close aconversation (Wolfson, 1983), soften a criticism or request (Brown & Levinson, 1987),establish and reinforce solidarity between the speaker and the addressee (Herbert, 1989;Manes, 1983; Wolfson ,1983), and serve as expression of praise and admiration (Herbert,1990) A wrong use of compliments may cause embarrassment and offense (Dunham,

1992; Holmes & Brown, 1987) For this reason, compliments have become clearly markedfeatures in American English On the other hand, in other cultures, compliments can havemore or less marked values For example, a comparative study between Thai and Americancompliments in English by Cedar (2006) showed that Thai culture values humility andmodesty Thus, complimenting occurs less frequently in the Thai community than in theUnited States A compliment in Thai is a carefully controlled speech act with a much morerestricted purpose than a compliment in American English.

In respect of compliment topics, three major categories have been identified in AmericanEnglish: appearance or possessions, abilities or accomplishments, and personality traits ofthe interlocutors (Knapp, Hopper & Bell, 1984; Nelson, El Bakary & Al Batal, 1993).Compliment topics reflect what is culturally considered admirable in society Positiveremarks are offered regarding some attributes that are noticeably different such as newnessand weight loss in mainstream American culture (i.e., “noticings”, Hatch, 1992) Whilecompliments on appearance or possessions can be given relatively freely regardless of thestatus of the interlocutors, those on abilities or accomplishments are more restricted in theirdistribution It is generally supposed that speakers in higher positions are capable ofevaluating the performance of those of lower status, hence utilizing compliments aspositive reinforcement (Wolfson, 1989)

Research in other speech communities has revealed that complimentable values varyacross cultures Q Nguyễn (1998, p 216) found that the topics which should becompliments in Vietnamese culture were spiritual life, ability, promotion and socialcommunication Appearance and economic conditions were unsafe topics In the Japanesesociety, one’s appearance, which is greatly valued in English speaking communities, is notthe most frequently mentioned topic (Barnlund & Araki, 1985; Daikuhara, 1986) Themost frequently topic is that of one’s ability and achievement In the Korean speechcommunity, Baek (1998) stated that compliments on a person’s personality occur morefrequently in Korean than in English In her study, the highest frequency of words forcomplimenting personality is “good-natured”, “diligent”, and “polite” She claimed thatthese comments were based on a person’s conduct or moral behavior which conforms tosocial norms or his/her role-expectation in the given situation These findings about