Complimenting and Compliment Responses: Patterns in the

Discourse of American Teenagers with a Focus on Gender-based

Differences in Compliment Behavior

Magdalena Dakeva
Language and Gender, Spring 2016

ABSTRACT:
Compliment behavior follows a formulaic structure which has been examined by
various American and internationally conducted studies where culture and gender
have also been put into consideration. Seen as positive speech acts, compliment
exchanges have been linked to solidarity which has been stereotypically described
as a feminine trait. This paper will discusses past and current work in the field of
complimenting and compliment responses and the conclusions made by researchers
and uses the information obtained as a base for a study proposal. The proposed
research focuses on age in addition to gender in order to determine patterns of
compliment behavior in an earlier stage of the development and compare them to
existing work. A minimum of 1000 compliment exchanges among American
teenagers will be gathered and classified according to Herberts taxonomy (1990).
Both ethnology and elicitation are used as methods of collecting the data. Results
will be used as a base and reference for future work which is required in order to
make general claims about teenage discourse trends.

INTRODUCTION:

Complimenting and complimenting responses have been subject to sociolinguistic

research throughout the second half of the 20 th century. Researchers have examined

complimenting behavior cross-culturally and have compared patterns in different

countries. The structure and content have been extensively studied and described
by Joan Manes and Nessa Wolfson (Manes and Wolfson 1980; 1981) and their work
has been further continued by Janet Holmes who analyzed structural and lexical
compliment features as well as factors affecting compliment responses including
topic, status, position in discourse, and cultural context (Holmes 1986).
While Holmes work focuses on the cross-cultural perspective, more recent work has
attempted to explore gender-based differences in complimenting behavior both
among English speakers (Herbert 1990; Miles 1994; Bolton 1994; Riesberg 2000;
Creese 1991) and in other cultures (Al-rousan et al. 2016; Ralarala & Dlali 2007;
Mojica 2002; Ebadi et al. 2015; Sun 2013; Heidari-Shahreza 2011; Miles 1994; Guo
et al. 2012, Cai 2012). The results of the studies differ according to culturally
appropriate norms for compliment giving and receiving; nevertheless, the majority
has discovered significant differences in male and female discourse strategies with
regards to frequency and topics of complimenting as well as responses, and has
suggested that women pay more compliments and tend to use strategies linked to
solidarity when responding to a compliment more than men do.
In this paper, I examine and evaluate previous research and propose a new
research scope, outlining the methodology for data collection and analysis by
referring to previous methods used in the field. The goal of the research is to
determine whether there is gender-based difference in discourse practices with
regards to complimenting and to support or reject the popular gender stereotype
that women compliment and get complimented more often than men do by
providing new empirical data. So far, most studies have focused mainly on adults
(Holmes 1986) and college students as subjects examined (Herbert 1990; Al-rousan
et al. 2016; Mojica 2002; Ebadi et al. 2015), but little work has been done with
middle-school aged children/teenagers (Heidari-Shahreza et al. 2011). Since
complimenting is a social practice, and its norms are learned in the speech
communities throughout a persons early stages of life, and it has been linked to
communicative competence (Coates 1993), it is important to examine how
gendered behavior intersects with it through a developmental perspective as

suggested by Halpern (2012). For this reason, I propose a study of gender

differences in complimenting behavior of middle-school aged children in the US, the
details of which are presented below.

COMPLIMENTS IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH:

Holmes defines a compliment as a speech act which explicitly or implicitly

attributes credit to someone other than the speaker, usually the person addressed,
for some good (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is positively valued by
the speaker and the hearer and their main function is identified as positively
affective speech acts aimed to establish solidarity. Furthermore, Manes and Wolfson
(1981) have discovered certain repeatedly occurring patterns in complimenting
behavior which suggest its formulaic nature and give a basis for their examination.
In her research of New Zealand English Holmes compiled 517 compliments and
compliment responses produced by adults using the ethnographic approach
suggested by Wolfson and Manes (1980) and analyzed them in order to identify
syntactic and semantic patterns. The ethnographic data collection is a method in
which researchers observe and record authentic discourse with the use of items
such as tape recorders, videotape, or notebooks, where the researcher might have
an active or passive role (an observer) (Riesberg 2000). Wolfson and Manes list 9
syntactic patterns observed in compliment giving:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

NP is/looks ADJ. Your hair is pretty.

I (intensifier) like/love NP. - I like your boots.
PRO a (intensifier) ADJ NP. Thats a nice purse.
You V a (intensifier) ADJ NP. You did a great job.
You V (NP) (intensifier) ADV. You did wonderfully.
You have a (intensifier) ADJ NP. You have a pretty smile.
What a ADJ NP. What a pretty necklace.
ADJ NP. Cool earrings.
Isnt NP ADJ? Isnt that dress beautiful?

The first three in this list were identified as most frequently encountered patterns in
American English (Manes and Wolfson 1981) which are also discussed by Herbert
(1990). In comparison, Holmes identified 1, 2, 3, and 8 as most commonly used in
New Zealand English.
Among the lexical patterns described, Holmes found a predominant use of
adjectives (65%) when complimenting which was in agreement with the American
data (80%) (Wolfson 1984). The most commonly used by New Zealanders were
nice, good, lovely, beautiful, great, and neat, which slightly differed from the ones
in Wolfons results who identified nice, good, beautiful, pretty and great as most
frequently occurring. ()
As far as topics are considered, Holmes lists 5 main groups which have also been
referred to in future research (Ralarala & Dlali 2007; Creese 1991):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Appearance
Ability/performance
Possessions
Personality/friendship
Other

Reevaluating her results from a gender-based perspective (Holmes 1988) divided

the data in 4 groups based on the gender of the participants (complimenterrecipient) in the interaction:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Male-Male
Male-Female
Female-Female
Female-Male

Note: This taxonomy was later used in other research focused on gender differences
in compliment strategies.
Based on the data she found that:
(a) women give and receive significantly more compliments than men do;
(b) females have preference for syntactic pattern 7 (as listed above) as
compared to males;
(c) men use the minimal pattern 8 significantly more;

(d) the slight preference of females to use pattern 2 over pattern 3,

compared to the males tendency to use each about equally discovered is not
statistically significant;
(e) the majority of compliments given and taken by women were based on
their appearance;
(f) males prefer complimenting males rather than females on possessions;
(g) men would compliment women on ability and skill as much as on
appearance (44% vs 47%)
Holmes data argues the claim that womens speech style tends to be personalized,
social and interaction-oriented rather than impersonal, instrumental and contentoriented. The personal focus of the complimenting speech act was also considered
by Herbert (1990).
In his research, Robert Herbert examined sex-based differences in a total of 1062
compliment events at the State University of New York at Binghamton using the
ethnographic approach within the student community (Herbert 1990). He divided
the interactions in the same 4 groups based on participants and discovered that
impersonal compliments are used more often in male rather than in female speech.
Additionally, his data supported Holmes results about womens preference for
syntactic pattern 2 and suggested females tendency to use the intensified I love X
which is absent from mens speech.
The same semantic and lexical patterns as well as topic preference have also been
noted by other research focusing on English (Miles 1994; Riesberg 2000). In British
English, however, ability has been found to be the most common topic rather than
appearance (Creese 1991) but no gender analysis has been provided. Peggy Miles
(1994), on the other hand, provided data to support the gender claims made by
Holmes in American English discourse.
As suggested by Holmes (1986), however, a cross-cultural examination of
complimenting behavior should also be performed. For this reason, various studies
have looked at other countries strategies of paying compliments and discussed the

role of gender in these speech events (Ralarala and Dlali 2007; Mojica 2002; Sun
2013; Miles 1994).
For example, a study of Xhosa speakers compliment discourse practices in
contemporary South Africa (Ralarala and Dlali 2007) collected data for 20 different
types of compliments and 200 compliment responses by educators and senior
learners at Kayamandi and Ikaya public schools as well as regular residents in
Stellenbosch. The gender distribution was equal among males and females and 3
types of compliments were considered: appearance, ability, and possession. Analysis
of the data aligned with Holmes results in the predominantly male utterances of
possession compliments observed as well as the tendency of ability related
compliments being directed towards men. However, the authors conclusion rejects
the hypothesis that women use more compliments as no significant difference
between Xhosa speaking men and women was reported (the distribution of
compliment usage was 52% vs. 49% for male and female speakers respectively).
Another research by Mojica (2002) examined syntactic patterns in giving
compliments by Filipino college students. 270 compliments were collected from 1623 aged students on the campuses of 6 universities based in Manila, Philippines.
Data was gathered ethnographically by student assistants using a template. The
number syntactic and lexical patterns observed were limited which supported the
formulaic structure of a compliment suggested by Wolfson and Manes (1981) and
confirmed by posterior research (Holmes 1986; Herbert 1990). As in previous work,
appearance was identified as the most frequently occurring topic. When gender
differentiation was analyzed, the study found that women tend to give and receive
more compliments than men - out of the 270 compliments, 189 were uttered by
and 177 received by females. However, it should be noted that data in this study
might have been biased or not entirely accurate as (a) the participants in the study
were often interviewers friends and acquaintances, and (b) some of the data was
collected and recorded by the said friends using the template, both of which might
have affected the credibility of the results.
In Mandarin Chinese context (Sun 2002 as cited in Sun 2013) there have been
significant cultural differences found that contradict with the analysis of English

speaking compliment behavior. Firstly, domination of performance rather than

appearance has been observed as topic of the compliment event. Additionally, Suns
data (2002, cited in Sun 2013) supported the null hypothesis in gender-based
differences in compliment giving strategies demonstrating similar behaviors across
genders and providing yet another example of equally uttered compliments by
males and females (also shown by Ralarala & Dlali 2007).
The review of the current work in both English context and cross-culturally suggests
that women tend to utter and receive more compliments in English but this is not
broadly supported by research in other countries. This suggests that general
stereotypical claims for English do not apply in different cultures and that perhaps a
further and more profound examination focusing on gender is needed before making
generalizations about gender-based compliment strategies.

COMPLIMENT RESPONSES IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH:

Another important aspect of compliment behavior that has been thoroughly

examined in previous research is the compliment response (CR). Pomerantz (1978)
has presented one of the earliest analyses of American English CR which has later
been reevaluated and reconsidered by Holmes (1986; 1988), Herbert (1990), and
Creese (1991). She defines the compliment speech event as an action chain
consisting of a compliment utterance and a CR following it. Two patterns of CR
utterance were identified for American English:
1. Acceptance/rejection of compliment
2. Agreement/disagreement with the complimentary assertion
Additionally, two preferences for the responder (two possible constraint systems)
were presented:
1. Evaluation shift: Agreement with complimenter.
2. Referent shift: Avoidance of self-praise.

Since these two options are seen as potentially conflicting with each other as
discussed by Pomeranz, Holmes (1986) and Herbert (1990) suggest two more
detailed taxonomy systems of categorize the CRs which have since become the base
reference for future work on this topic both in examining cross-cultural and gender
differences in response strategy preference. The classification is presented in the
tables below:
TABLE 1. Holmes (1988)
Response type
A. ACCEPT

1. Appreciation/agreement
token
2. Agreeing utterance
3. Downgrading/qualifying

B. REJECT

4.
1.
2.
3.

utterance
Return compliment
Disagreeing utterance
Question accuracy
Challenge sincerity

Example
Thanks/yes
I really like it too
It is no problem
You did great too
Im afraid I dont like
it much
Really?

C. DEFLECT/EVAD
E

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Shift credit
Informative comment
Ignore
Legitimate evasion
Request
reassurance/repetition

Stop lying
My mother knitted it
I bought it at (store
name)
I think its time to
go, isnt it?
Context-based
Do you really think
so?

TABLE 2. Herbert (1990)

Response type
A. AGREEMENT
1. Acceptance

2. Nonacceptanc

Example
1. Appreciation token
2. Comment acceptance
3. Praise upgrade
1. Comment history

Thank you
Its my favorite too
It really fits me well,

2. Reassignment
3. Return

doesnt it?
I bought it last year
in Paris
My mother made it
Your hair looks nice

B. NONAGREEMENT

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Scale down
Question
Disagreement
Qualification
No acknowledgement

too
Ive had it forever
Do you really think
so?
I dont like it
Yeah, but Ive had
better
Topic shift/no

C. OTHER
INTERPRETATION

1. Request

response
Do you want to
borrow it?

There are similarities and differences in these taxonomy and different classification
has been preferred by different researchers which is why it is important to consider
them both.
Pomerantz has suggested that the proper (prescribed) and preferred compliment
response in American culture is acceptance with appreciation token, however, she
does not support that claim with quantitative results. Analyzing her New Zealand
data, Holmes discovered that the majority of New Zealanders tend to accept
compliments (61%) with only about 10% using rejection strategies. Split by gender,
the data suggested no statistically significant difference among gender in the
likelihood of replying with a particular CR in the three main categories. On a micro
level, however, she noticed the preference of men (19.3%) to ignore or legitimately
evade a compliment as compared to women (11.2%), categorizing it as the second
most used CR strategy by males. Furthermore, a tendency for significantly higher
disagreeing utterance responses by women has been found within the REJECT
category. Although further examination of gender difference in CR is suggested,

Holmes provides data that contradicts with the general stereotypical assumption
that women are more prone to accepting compliments and interpreting them as
positive speech acts and in fact, suggests increased rejection strategy preference.
Herberts (1990) analysis compiles data from his study in 1989 (Herbert and
Straight 1989) and compares the frequencies of American and South African English
compliment responses. What the results demonstrated is that only one-third
(36.4%) of the American responses are recognized as acceptance strategies which
rejects Pomerantzs claim of this response being the correct and most preferred
one. In contrast, while they tend to compliment more rarely, the majority of South
Africans adopt this response type with comment acceptance used by 43% of the
participants. Both groups of speakers showed low preference of disagreement
responses (4.5% for Americans and 6.3% for South Africans).
An even more interesting trend commented on by Herbert was the significant
gender-based differentiation. He argues that the factor influencing the likelihood of
compliment response is the gender of the person offering the compliment rather
than the addressee. What he found is that male-uttered compliments are more
likely to be accepted than female-uttered ones (55% vs 20%). Additionally,
agreement was more likely in male-female interactions than in any other type. In
contrast to Holmes study, Herberts research demonstrated lower likelihood of
compliment acceptance by Americans and supported the hypothesis of gender
playing a role in compliment response. Comparison of their analyses on a gender
base, however, is difficult and might not be entirely appropriate as (a) they used
different taxonomy systems to classify CRs, and (b) it is important to note that
unlike Holmes, Herbert emphasized explicitly the addressers gender whereas
Holmes looked primarily at the responder.
Other studies on English discourse have also made conflicting conclusions. Creeses
data (1991) collected through interviews of 12 American and British teachers and
analyzed through Holmes model showed a preference by Americans to respond via
acceptance strategies (54%). British English speakers, on the other hand, accepted
and deflected compliments with almost equal distribution (45.9% vs 40.6%)
demonstrating a clear cultural differentiation. Nevertheless, there are significant

limitations of the study such as using a non-random sample (all white speakers) and
small sample size (12 speakers) which might have affected the accuracy of these
results.
Miless research in Santa Cruz (1994) used ethnographical (natural observation)
approach in addition to interviews of 6 individuals to collect 398 compliments and
462 compliment responses. The CR analysis supported the previous claims that the
majority of Americans tend to accept compliments and indicated high self-praise
avoidance utterances. With regards to gender differences, Miles found women are
more likely than men to use the comment history and return compliment response
strategies, while males tend to provide no response more frequently. In her
conclusion, she claims that this trend is due to womens inclination towards
sensitivity and connection with the others in contrast to males independence and
control seeking. This statement aligns with Holmes remarks stated earlier and links
solidarity to femininity.
Considering compliment responses cross-culturally is more complex and presents a
different picture as Pomerantzs principles of responding to a compliment do not
always apply to the particular cultural norms of discourse. Studies across cultures
have demonstrated conflicting results:
In Mojicas study (2002) which used Herberts model of classification of CRs femalefemale compliment speech events were found to have the highest frequency
unlike in Herberts data where this group had the lowest acceptance rate. Similar to
Herbert (1990) and Creese (1991), Mojica observed about 47% acceptance rate
indicating that the non-acceptance and non-agreement CRs were still prevalent.
Among Filipino students, no significant gender differences were reported in terms of
compliment behavior when receiving compliments which rejects the hypothesis of
womens more frequent solidarity expression.
In Chinese context, Guo et al. (2012) collected 1190 compliment exchanges in
Shanghai using the observational method over a ten-month period. Comparing their
data to that of previous research (Chen 1993; Loh 1993; Yuan 2002; Yu 2004; Tang
and Zhang 2009; Chen and Tang 2009 as cited in Guo et al. 2012) they found a
rising trend in acceptance strategies with about one-third of the responses using

that type (38%) which was linked to politeness norms of the Chinese community.
On the other hand, the still higher self-praise avoidance complement responses
were ascribed to the modesty maxim valued in the culture.
While this study made no claims about gender, another research by Ying Cai (2012)
among Chinese college students in Dalian University of Technology which collected
and analyzed 738 responses looked at compliment discourse both in terms of
culture and gender. The culturally-based analysis observed the same results as the
Guo et al. study with the additional commentary of the speakers tendency to
occasionally adopt multiple strategies. The gendered distribution demonstrated only
slight differences in female and male discourse suggesting again the validity of the
null hypothesis (women and men respond to compliments in the same way).
In a study among Jordanian university students (Al-rousan et al. 2016) 611
compliment responses were collected from 36 participants (18 male and 18 female)
and analyzed with Herberts taxonomy paying particular attention to gender
differences. The majority (69%) of CRs expressed acceptance which is higher even
than Holmes results and is found to be due to the perception of compliment nonacceptance/non-agreement by the Jordan community as a shameful act. When
considering gender, females were found to (a) compliment more, and (b) accept a
compliment more often than men (71% vs 66%). Thus, the authors concluded that
Jordanian female subjects practice the act of politeness more than male
supporting the stereotypical claims.
Among Persian speakers, a research by Ebadi et al. (2015) elicited data from 50 (25
male and 25 female) undergraduate students ranging from 19 to 26 in age in the
Razi University in Kermanshah, Iran. The researchers used a questionnaire, the
results of which were then classified using Herberts taxonomy with the addition of a
formulaic expression category which was modeled by Yousefvands study of 540
Persian speakers CRs (Yousefvand 2010). The formulaic expression is the situation
where the addressee shows his or her modesty by using a set of prefabricated
utterances. The 2015 study confirmed Yousefvands results with similar numbers
(the more significant numbers are included):
2010 study

2015 Study

Formulaic expression preference

30.74%

37.25%

all
Agreement strategy all
Formulaic expression female
Formulaic expression male
Agreement female
Agreement male

43.49%
24.44%
37.03%
52.70%
34.49%

42.25%
29.0%
41.0%
45.5%
39.0%

The high usage of formulaic expression was ascribed to Persians modesty which
indicates the importance of cultural norms of appropriation in conversation style and
discourse under which is the complimenting behavior. Additionally, agreement was
the most preferred method still, however, the number is not as extreme as in other
studies such as the case with the Jordan data. Broken down by gender, the data
indicated womens preference of agreement responses as compared to mens
tendency to use more formulaic expressions than women. These studies both
concluded gender affects the compliment responses in the case of native Persian
speakers and reported both culturally-based and gender-based differences.
Finally, as an example of a study that incorporated not only the cross-cultural and
gender approaches but also examined teenage participants, I am going to discuss
the work of Heidari-Shahreza, Dastjerdi and Marvi (2011). Again with native Persian
speakers, their study analyzed 60 (30 female, 30 male) teenagers (average age 15)
using DCTs (Discourse Completion Tests) and classified them according to Holmes
taxonomy. A high rate of Accept strategies was recorded with 71% for the males
and 65% for females. Surprisingly, however, women were found to reject
compliments a lot more than their male counterparts (13% vs 5% accordingly)
which was found to contradict with previous research results. The study suggests
the importance of age in addition to all other factors (especially gender) in the
compliment speech act.
The research discussed above exhibits contradicting results when considering the
claim of females accepting compliments more often than men which has been linked
to solidarity as a feminine feature. This indicates that no generalizations can be
made with regards to compliment responses without taking into consideration all
significant variables, including the culturally determined norms of behavior and

suggests that gender-related discourse stereotypes are inaccurate and thus should
be eliminated.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

1. DESCRIPTION:
With this paper, I would like to propose a sociolinguistic study to investigate
discourse variation within the compliment speech act by looking at both compliment
giving patterns and compliment response strategies among American teenagers. It
has been demonstrated that both aspects of the compliment event are formulaic in
nature which means they could be easily analyzed by classification based on
reoccurring patterns. This study will adopt similar methodology strategies as used in
previous work but will differ in that it will focus not only on gender but on age as a
significant variable that causes variation within the discourse strategies in
compliment behavior adopted by the speakers. The age aspect has been included as
a focus of interest due to the implications of the theoretical work of Coates (1993)
and Halpern (2012) who have argued for the significance of social interactions
during the childhood and adolescence in forming the linguistic competence including
learning norms for gender appropriate behavior.

2. OBJECTIVES:
The research questions the study will aim to provide an answer to are:
(a) Which ones are the preferred/most common compliment giving and receiving
strategies in American teenage subjects and is there a difference between
adolescent and adult (college students and adults studied in previous
research) compliment behavior?
(b) Are there gender differences in discourse with regards to complimenting and
compliment responses among American teenagers?

3. PARTICIPANTS:
The participants will be school-aged children (10-16) in a three to four different
public American schools (preferably in different states). 50 to 100 subjects will be
studied and at least 1000 compliment exchanges will be collected (including
compliment utterances and compliment responses). All students will be native
American English speakers. The distribution of gender will be about equal to allow a
better data analysis of gender differences. Since this particular research aims to
examine American discourse, only no cross-cultural aspects will be considered.

4. METHODOLOGY:
Previous studies examining compliment behavior have employed 2 methods of data
collection (as discussed by Riesberg 2000):
(a) Ethnographical approach (natural observation) recording naturally occurring
compliment utterances via videotapes, tape recorders, notes
(b) Elicitation (interview/questionnaire/DCT (Discourse Completion Test))
gathering data by prompting subjects to provide responses to created
contexts on a template
Ethnographically obtained data has the merits of collecting authentic responses and
provides more accurate data. However, it is often unpredictable and could be
influenced by the researcher (both by his or her role as an observer and by his or
her biased interpretation in recording the data). Elicitation, on the other hand, has
the advantage of providing a faster way of gathering data and allowing for a large
amount of data to be collected with equal and controlled conditions for all
participants. But there are also drawbacks to this method the possible choices are
limited by the situations given and the spontaneity of the speech act is violated.
Given the advantages of both methods, the study proposed will adopt both
approaches in order to provide a better interpretation of compliment behavior
patterns among participants. The data will be collected in the following way:

(a) Ethnographically: The researcher will observe subjects behaviors in the

hallways, cafeteria and school court during the school day. Additionally,
teachers will be asked to record compliment utterances among students. The
data will be gathered using the following template (adapted from Mojica
2002):

Compliment

Compliment

Compliment

Complime

Complime

Contex

er:
age

ee:
age

er-

nt

nt

t and

Response

Locatio

Compliment
ee: genders

n:

(M-M, M-F,
F-M, F-F)

(b) DCT questionnaire: The complimenting act is always a spontaneous action.

Thus, while the ethnographical method could be employed for recording
compliment giving, I believe a DCT will not provide accurate data. However,
there are benefits to using it in order to gather CR data such as limitation of
the observers influence and faster data collection. A DCT will be distributed
to students by their teachers after the participants consent and subjects will
be asked to provide a response to hypothetical situations in which they have
received a compliment in an open-answer form. The first 4 topics listed by
Holmes (1986) will be used to create 4 compliment situations.
Below is the DCT that will be used (adapted from Heidari-Shahreza et al.
2011):

Situation 1 (Appearance):
Youve dressed up for a friends birthday party. As you arrive at the party,
one of your friends says: You look great! Youre really handsome/ beautiful
today.
Response:

Situation 2 (Ability/performance):
After you have completed a presentation, your classmate says: Wow, thats
brilliant! Well done!
Response:
Situation 3 (Possessions):
You have bought a new mobile phone that just came out on the market. After
seeing your new phone, your friend says: It is amazing it has so many
great new features!
Response:
Situation 4 (Personality/friendship):
You help a stranger old lady get on the bus. Your friend, seeing your action,
says: You are such a kind person!
Response:

5. ANALYSIS:
The data will be classified using Wolfsons model for syntactic and lexical patterns
and Herberts taxonomy for compliment responses (see Table 2).
First, an overall analysis will be performed, without taking into consideration the
gender of the participants in the speech event. The results will then be compared to
previous American studies (Herbert 1990; Miles 1994; Bolton 1994; Riesberg 2000;
Creese 1991) in order to provide an answer to the first research question and
determine the role of age as a factor in complimenting. The data collected using the
ethnographical approach will be used to identify patterns in compliment giving
(which will also give insight of how to interpret the DCT data) as well as analyze
CRs. DCT-obtained results will be considered both separately and in combination
with the observational data.
As a second step, data will be separated into 4 groups (as listed by Holmes 1986)
based on the participants gender and reevaluated in a similar manner. When
considering gender, a comparison will be performed not only with American studies

but also with the Persian study which targets the same age group in order to control
both the cultural and the age factor.

6. LIMITATIONS:
Some limitations of the study include:
(a) Relatively small sample size which does not allow generalizations to the whole
speech community
(b) Non-random samples even though more than one different schools will be
selected and participants will be picked randomly, schools in the US usually
accommodate students of similar background (socio-economic status,
parents education, etc.) which might influence the data
(c) The data collected will provide no insight on cross-cultural differences which
have been shown to be significant by various researchers in previous work
however, this is not the focus of this particular study as it aims to examine
American behavior in the compliment speech act
Although there are limitations to the proposed study, I believe it can provide
accurate and valuable data on teenage compliment behavior and serve as a base for
future research.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK:

Gender has been considered a major factor among sociolinguists which influences
the socialization practices and discourse style of speakers. Various researchers have
examined its role in linguistic behavior since many stereotypical claims exist based
on gender which are often not supported by any empirical data.
As a social action, complimenting with its functions has been an interest for many
sociolinguists and has thus been broadly studied throughout the second half of the

previous century with work continuing in the present day. It has been found that
both complimenting and compliment response follow a formula of syntactic,
semantic and lexical patterns which has allowed the comparison and analysis of
data. Researchers have been interested in two main factors when examining
compliment behavior: culture and gender. The conflicting conclusions that have
been reached suggest that generalizations are inappropriate out of the specific
context. Differing strategies have been found across cultures based on the cultural
norms. Regarding gender, the stereotypical claims that women compliment and
receive compliments more than men and that females tend to accept/agree more as
a sign of solidarity have been center of attention with contradicting results
demonstrated by different studies including among the same culture.
Regardless, there have been very few research papers that have examined the role
of age as a factor affecting complimenting behavior. Age is an important aspect to
be considered as gendered behavior has been found to be learned during different
stages in the development of the child. For this reason, the proposed study would
provide a valuable insight on whether school-aged children behave differently in
terms of compliment paying and receiving as compared to college students and
adults. In addition, gender differences will be examined in order to reject or accept
the hypothesis stated above.
Further studies could expand on the data collected in this research by adding more
empirical proofs as well as looking at different age groups in order to make more
general claims and conclusions. The cultural aspect could also be examined in a
similar fashion to the adult studies in order to track cross-cultural differences among
adolescents.

References

Al-rousan, M. Y., Awal, N. M.,& Salehuddin, K. (2016). Compliment Responses among Male
and Female Jordanian University Students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies.
Bolton, S. (1994). Influence of gender on compliment exchange in American English.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. (1978). Universals of language usage: politeness phenomena.
In ed. Goody Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, pp.
56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cai, Ying (2012), A Study on Compliment Response Strategies by Chinese College
Students, Journal of Language Teaching and Research.
Coates, Jennifer (1993), Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account
of Gender Differences in Language, 2nd ed., Longman Publishing: New York.
Creese, A. (1991). Speech act variation in British and American English. PENN
Working Papers
Ebadi, S. Beigzadeh, M. Sabzevari, S. (2015). A Cross-Cultural Study of Compliment
Response Patterns Across Gender in Persian and English. Modern
Journal of Language Teaching Methods
Guo, H., Zhou, Q., & Chow, D. (2012). A variationist study of compliment responses in
Chinese. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. United Kingdom: Psychology
Press.

Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2011). Discoursal variation and gender: The case of compliment

responses among male and female Persian speakers. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences.
Herbert, R. K., & Straight, H. S. (1989). Compliment-rejection vs. compliment-avoidance.
Language and Communication.
Herbert, R. K. (1990) Sex-Based Differences in Compliment Behavior,
Language in Society.
Hobbs, P. (2003). The medium is the message: Politeness strategies in mens and womens
voice mail messages. Journal of Pragmatics
Holmes, J. (1986) Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand.
Anthropological Linguistics.
Holmes, J. (1988), Paying Compliments: A Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy,
Journal of Pragmatics.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A Meta-Analytic review of gender variations in adults
language use: Talkativeness, Affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and
Social Psychology Review
Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.),
Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and
Prepatterned Speech (pp. 116-132). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
Miles, P. (1994). Compliments and gender. University of Hawaii Occasional Papers Series.
Mojica, L. A. (2002). Compliment-giving among Filipino College Students: An Exploratory
Study. Asia Pacific Education Review
Pomerantz, Anne (1978), Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation
of Multiple Constraints, in J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of
Conversational Interaction, New York: Academic.
Ralarala, K. M., & Dlali, M. (2007). Paying compliments in Xhosa: A favoured gender-based
conversational strategy. South African Journal of African languages.
Riesberg, C. B. (2000). Compliments in the classroom: gender and status differences in
Midwestern American English. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations.
Sun, N. (2013) Gender-based differences in complimenting behaviour: A literature review.
ANU Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol 5.
Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics.
Yousefvand, Z. (2010). Study of compliment speech act realization patterns across gender in
Persian. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching.

Yu, M. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and
American English speakers: A mirror of cultural value. Language and Speech.