Sunteți pe pagina 1din 33

Running head: CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

Compliment Responses in English: A Thai and American Study


Krista M. Boddy and Karanrat Ritthirat
Colorado State University

Author Note
Krista M. Boddy, Department of English, Colorado State University
Karanrat Ritthirat, Department of English, Colorado State University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Krista M. Boddy or Karanrat
Ritthirat, Department of English, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Contact: Krista_Boddy@hotmail.com or Karanrat.rit@gmail.com

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

Abstract
This paper investigates the speech act of compliment response (CR). It particularly compares
various strategies that native speakers (NS) of American English and NS of Thai use in an
English language environment. Recent studies in English CR primarily focus on English
language proficiency and pragmatic transfer (Phoocharoensil, 2012; Chen and Boonkongsaen,
2012; Cedar, 2006; Falasi, 2007), rather than the amount of time an international student has
lived within the L2 environment. Students who have lived in an English environment for a
shorter period of time may transmit their cultures pragmatic response to compliments, whereas
students who are more culturally assimilated within the L2 culture for a longer period may
resemble the L2 cultures CR. This current study compared CR between Thai university students
who have lived over two years in the U.S. with Thai university students who have lived in the
U.S. less than one year. A third group of native speakers of American English (NAE) is
compared to the two Thai groups for contrast. Research questions analyzed whether there was a
difference in CR between Thai and American university students, whether pragmatic transfer
from Thai to American culture influenced those living in the L2 culture for a longer period,
whether gender affects CR, and if there is a connection between English proficiency and CR
strategies. Researchers evaluated CR strategies based on an acceptance-denial continuum
borrowed from Chen and Boonkongsaen (2012) and Cedar (2006).
Keywords: compliment response strategies, pragmatic transfer

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

Compliment Responses in English: A Thai and American Study


People from different cultures respond in numerous ways to compliments. There have
been many recent studies about this particular speech act, which compares and contrasts how
various cultures respond to compliments. In a study of Thai and American English CR, Cedar
(2006) explains Thai culture values modesty and humility, whereas American culture values
social harmony through praise and admiration. She believes that Thais are more restrictive with
compliments than Americans due to these values. Research from such studies highlights the
effects of pragmatic transfer from one culture to another. Falasi (2007) explains that pragmatic
transfer can be either positive (sociocultural and pragmatic universality among languages) or
negative (inappropriate transfer of sociolinguistic norms from L1 to L2). Negative pragmatic
transfer can include translating formulaic expressions and phrases from the L1 to the L2, which
may cause miscommunication (Falasi, 2007). One significant influence of pragmatic transfer
depends on the amount of time an ESL student has lived within the culture of their L2. Thais
who have lived in an English speaking society for a shorter period of time may transmit their
pragmatic response from Thai culture by rejecting or downgrading compliments, whereas Thais
who are more culturally and linguistically assimilated within English speaking society for a
longer period of time may resemble native English speakers CR of acceptance or thank you.
This current study is designed to specifically compare the pragmatic transfer of CR between Thai
university students who have lived longer than two years in the U.S. with Thai university
students who have lived less than one year in the U.S. A third group of university students who
are native speakers of American English (NAE) will be compared to the two Thai speaking
groups for contrast.

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

Literature Review
The following studies discussed in this literature review include compliment response
(CR) in English by EFLs as well as first languages other than English. We have reviewed diverse
language backgrounds such as Chinese (Tang and Zhang, 2009; Chen and Boonkongsaen, 2012;
Tang and Zhang, 2009; Chen, 1993), Thai (Phoocharoensil, 2012; Chen and Boonkongsaen,
2012; Cedar, 2006), Spanish (Lorenzo-Dus, 2001), German (Golato, 2001), and Arabic (Falasi,
2007). The studies are organized by different data collection methods, including DCT (Discourse
Completion Task), corpus based, and authentic data collection in the moment during recorded
interviews.
The first five studies are organized by a data collection method using a DCT (Discourse
Completion Task). This method provides a questionnaire of hypothetical situations in which the
participant must respond to specific types of compliments. Most of the studies about CR use this
methodology. Tang and Zhang (2009) investigated compliment responses among Australian
English and Mandarin Chinese speakers in their first languages. It aimed to identify differences
in CR through comparing macro and micro strategies with respect to four situational settings
(appearance, character, ability, and possession). The authors hypothesized that there was no
global standard in the use of CR between the two groups mentioned above. A DCT was used to
collect the data from 30 Mandarin Chinese native speakers and 30 Australian English native
speakers who were students at Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia. Each
group consisted of 15 male and 15 female participants, aged from 18 to 35. The DCT was
analyzed to see which CR strategies were used by the participants. The strategies consisted of
three macro strategies and ten micro strategies as follows: Accept (appreciation token, agreeing
utterance, downgrading utterance, and return compliment), Reject (disagreeing utterance,

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

question accuracy, and challenge sincerity), and Evade (Shift credit, informative comment, and
request reassurance). The findings showed that in general, both groups prefer Accept the most
and Reject the least; however, the Chinese showed the use of Accept less than the Australians. In
addition, the Australians used more Accept for all four settings, while the Chinese showed more
use of Evade in the character and possession settings, and more use of Accept in appearance and
ability settings. At the micro level, it showed that the Chinese used more Request reassurance,
while the Australians used more Appreciation token. These findings speculate that Mandarin
Chinese speakers value modesty and self-praise avoidance. This study also highlights that each
culture has different expectations and follows different linguistic and cultural protocols. One
problematic issue in this study is that the length of time Chinese speakers lived in the English
environment was not taken into consideration.
A study conducted by Chen (1993) investigated the politeness strategies in CR used by
American English speakers and Chinese speakers. The study aimed to 1) discover similarities
and differences of politeness strategies between American English speakers and Chinese
speakers, 2) provide empirical evidence for or against existing theories of linguistic politeness,
and 3) reveal differences of social values between the two cultures. Participants were 50
Missouri Valley College Students and 50 Chinese college students at Xi'an Foreign Languages
University in China. They were required to answer four questions from a DCT regarding four
different conversational situations having to do with appearance, clothes, achievement, and
possession. They were asked to write down as many responses they thought were socially
appropriate to the compliment. For Chinese participants, the questions were translated into
Chinese. The results showed that the American English speakers employed a total of ten
politeness strategies, which included: Thanking, Agreeing, Expressing gladness, Joking,

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

Returning compliment, Offering object of compliment, Encouraging, Explaining, Doubting, and


Rejecting. They were categorized in four macro strategies: Accepting, Returning, Deflecting, and
Rejecting. In contrast, the Chinese speakers employed a total of five strategies, which included:
Disagreeing and Denigrating, Expressing Embarrassment, Explaining, Thanking and
Denigrating, and Thanking (only). They were categorized in three macro strategies: Rejecting,
Thanking and Denigrating, and Accepting. The findings showed that Americans used more
Accepting strategies than Chinese speakers, while Chinese speakers used more Rejecting
strategies than Americans. The authors suggest that Americans receive compliments
gracefully, in contrast with Chinese society which values modesty.
A study by Phoocharoensil (2012) explored the differences between Thai and American
responses to compliments, the correlation between Thai L2 proficiency and compliment
response, and how much pragmatic transfer from L1 occurred for Thai EFL learners when
responding to compliments. The researcher's hypotheses included: 1. Thais will respond towards
the denial continuum, and Americans will respond on the acceptance continuum. 2. There is a
correlation between Thai EFL proficiency and their response to compliments, and that highproficiency learners will respond similarly to Americans. 3. Thai EFL learners with lowproficiency pragmatically transfer more from their native language when responding to
compliments. The study included four groups of participants: native speakers of American
English, native speakers of Thai, high-proficient Thai EFL learners, and low-proficient Thai EFL
learners. The high-proficient Thai EFLs were recruited randomly from English-major students at
Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. The low-proficient Thai EFL learners were
non-English majors. Both groups had learned English as an EFL in Thailand for twelve years.
The instrument used was a DCT, which consisted of ten items of compliments and blanks for

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

responses. The group of native Thai speakers had a DCT that was translated into Thai. The items
were hypothetical situations posited to the participants rather than actual compliments. The
acceptance-denial continuum is the following: compliment upgrade-agreement-appreciation
token-return-explanation/comment history reassignment-(doubting) question-compliment
downgrade-disagreement (adapted from Tran, 2007). The results showed that Americans
accepted compliments more than the Thais. Americans responded with compliment upgrades,
agreements, and appreciation (71% of acceptance), whereas Thais responded to compliments
with only 48% of acceptance. Thais responded with 19% of denial (doubting question,
compliment downgrade, while only 7% of Americans responded this way. It was clear that Thais
were more likely to disagree with compliments to avoid self-praise than Americans did. The
high-proficient Thai EFLs responded similarly to Americans (75% of acceptance). Lowproficiency Thai EFLs responded very differently with only 46% accepting compliments
compared to 71% of American acceptances. Only 9% of low-proficient EFLs used compliment
upgrades compared to 14% of Americans. The results show a spectrum of pragmatic transfer,
with low-proficiency learners responses being less like typical NSs of English and high
proficiency learners responses being closely related to CR of NSs of English (acceptance end).
This study highlights the possible relationship between proficiency and pragmatic transfer. Those
participants with lower English proficiency transferred L1 Thai pragmatic norms in their
response to compliments in English, whereas participants with higher English proficiency
transferred L2 American pragmatic norms. One problematic issue with this study, is how
researchers recruited and labeled high-proficient Thai EFL students as being English majors
and low-proficient students as non-English majors. This system of organizing participants is
very unreliable as it generalizes EFLs based on major and not actual English proficiency. The

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

DCT is also not an authentic way to elicit CR from participants. By using hypothetical situations,
the data is not spontaneous and genuine. Verbal responses, rather than a DCT, might have been
elicited from the participants to provide more authentic data.
Falasi (2007) surveyed pragmatic transfer of compliment responses from Arabic nonnative speakers (NNSs) of English into English as an L2. The researcher used a DCT and
interviews to gather data on female NSs and Emirati female NNSs of English. The author chose
females specifically because she believes they tend to use politeness strategies more than men
do, based on research (Guodong & Jing, 2005). The results of her research showed that Arabic
(L1) expressions and strategies were sometimes transferred to English (L2), including pragmatic
norms, because they are perceived as universal by her Arabic participants. For example, some
Arabic (L1) speakers translated Arabic formulaic expressions used in compliment responses into
English, which caused communication breakdown. In the culture of the Arabic participants it is
not customary to accept compliments from men outside ones family. This is quite unique to this
culture when compared to NSs who often accept compliments from male non-relatives. The
author believed that language proficiency did not play a role in producing more target-like
compliment responses, as both English majors and non-English majors produced the same
responses. This last point is problematic due to the fact that English majors and non-English
majors is not a sufficient measurement of proficiency. The study would have been more reliable
if it had used an English TOEFL score to more precisely measure participants level of English
proficiency.
A unique study conducted by Chen and Boonkongsaen (2012) investigated the
similarities and differences of English compliment response strategies employed by Thai and
Chinese EFL teachers. The participants were 30 Chinese and 30 Thai teachers of English. The

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

data was collected through a DCT in English including compliments on appearance, character,
ability, and possession. Then the data was analyzed based on three macro strategies and ten
micro-strategies: Accept (appreciation token, agreeing utterance, downgrading utterance, return
compliment), Reject (disagreeing utterance, question accuracy, challenge sincerity), and Evade
(shift credit, informative comment, request reassurance). The results showed that in compliment
responses for appearance, Thai EFL teachers showed more use of Reject and Evade strategies
than Chinese. The researchers concluded that most Thais refrain from showing their pleasure
explicitly and tend to be modest in this setting. With regard to CR for character, Thai and
Chinese EFL teachers showed more use of Evade strategies than the other two strategies,
indicating that character compliments are considered praises for Chinese and Thais. When both
groups received the compliments on ability, they preferred Accept strategies the most. Chen and
Boonkongsaen (2012) believed that the compliment strategies employed by the two groups in
this setting was almost the same as the strategies used by English native speakers. When
comparing the compliment responses for possession between Thai and Chinese EFL teachers, the
findings showed that the two groups considered possession compliments as face-threatening acts
because of the judgment on the persons belongings.
The next two studies involved a data collection method that used a corpus for
determining CR strategies. Golato (2001) compared German and American responses to
compliments from familiar individuals through a Conversational Analysis (CA) methodology.
This study primarily focused on CR between family members and friends. The data was gathered
from a corpus of 25 hours of non-elicited videotaped dinner-table conversations and 6 hours of
audiotaped telephone conversations between friends and family members. Some of the
videotaped activities included dinners, barbecues, get-togethers over drinks or coffee and cake,

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

10

and card games. The speakers ranged in age from 2370 years, with the majority being in their
late twenties or early thirties. They all spoke standard German and came from various regions in
Germany. A total of 50 compliment sequences were produced by 27 speakers. One major
difference between American and German responses to compliments is that none of the German
speakers ever accepted a compliment by using an appreciation marker. In other words, there are
no thank yous in the data. A German way of expressing an appreciation of a compliment is by
providing an assessment of the compliment. The German corpus revealed fewer rejections and
disagreements than compliment agreements and acceptances (32 of the 50 compliment sequences
were accepted). Some ideas for further research could include when and where in a conversation
that compliments are placed in German and English, and what types of things each culture
compliment others on. The use of a Conversation Analysis methodology is unique to the
previous studies examined in this review. CA can provide more background knowledge and
authentic evidence to studies pertaining to CR.
Lorenzo-Dus (2001) examined compliment responses between British and Spanish
university students. This study used a corpus of more than a thousand compliment responses by
British and Spanish male and female undergraduates. The data for the study was collected via
DCT. A Spanish and an English version of a nine-item DCT were conducted with students from
Valencia and Cardiff universities. The participants in both the Spanish and the British corpus
were representative of their respective universities' population in terms of gender (59.3% and
56% female, respectively) and age (between 20 and 24 years old). Spanish respondents were
randomly sampled on the Valencia campus, while 60 British DCTs were collected via mail. The
compliments in the DCT involved the following topics: outward appearance, personality,
skill/work and possessions. The results show the existence of cross-cultural and cross-gender

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

11

similarities as well as differences between the four groups. For example, Spanish males tended to
upgrade compliments ironically (an absent compliment response for the British) more frequently
than their female counterparts. The British participants exhibited a greater tendency than their
Spanish counterparts to question the truth value of the compliment and the relational solidarity of
their complimenter. Humorous compliment responses were used on a regular basis by all four
groups. The British respondents combined irony/humor with various types of agreeing
(especially comment acceptance, history and return), whereas their Spanish counterparts,
particularly male respondents, generally opted for ironic/ humorous upgrades. A common pattern
amongst Spanish participants involved a request for repetition and an expansion of the
compliment. This pattern was atypical in the British corpus. Both cultures tended to avoid selfpraise on topics such as natural talent and intelligence. One limitation of this study included the
DCT method of data collection, as it cannot capture authentic or spontaneous compliment
responses.
The final study we have included is the one we simulated the most. The methodology
used by Cedar (2006) was unique in that it collected data from live interviews with participants
in which compliments were stated in authentic ways. The interviews were recorded and later
examined for differences between Thai and American cultures in terms of responding to English
compliments. Cedar (2006) investigated similarities and differences between 74 compliment
responses given by twelve American native speakers (six males and six females) and 68
responses given by Thai adult EFL students (six males and six females), studying in an intensive
English program at Boston University. The research questions are as follows: 1) What are the
differences between compliment responses of Thai speaking learners of English and those of
native speakers of American English? 2) Does gender difference affect the compliment response

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

12

patterns of Thais and Americans? The data was collected from individual interviews by an
American English native speaker. The interviewer consistently put forth compliments during an
interview, expressing approval of something about the subject, which would supposedly elicit a
positive feeling. The interviews were tape-recorded. The researcher (a Thai native speaker), on
the other hand, took notes on non-verbal behavior as a response to a compliment during the
interviews. The data was analyzed in seven categories: Acceptance, Positive elaboration, Neutral
Elaboration, Negative Elaboration, Denial, Smiling (laughing), and No Response. The results
showed that "smiling (laughing)" and "no response" were used by the Thai participants in this
study but they did not exist in American participants' responses. Regarding gender difference, it
was found that American females use acceptance as a response type far more often than
American males. In contrast, Thai males used acceptance responses slightly more frequently than
Thai females. Overall, this research was different from other studies in its data collection method
of providing authentic compliments rather than the DCT. This method may be more reliable in
obtaining genuine and spontaneous responses to compliments.
One major gap in all of these studies is the fact that the data collection method typically
used is the DCT (one exception was Cedar, 2006). This method does not capture spontaneous
compliment responses, as participants are expected to think about a hypothetical situation in
which they would respond to a compliment. There are many factors that influence responses to
compliments and the DCT method does not allow the natural responses to be collected. A
further gap in the research is the study of how length of time spent in an L2 environment affects
EFL pragmatic transfer of CR. Amount of time living in an L2 environment should have a
significant impact on pragmatic transfer from the L1 to the L2 in compliment response and other
similar speech acts. To date, such studies have not been captured. Some additional factors

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

13

omitted in previous studies include, age, gender, social status, and language proficiency (which
is often based on whether subjects are majors in English rather than based on reliable test
scores).
The current study takes all of these factors into consideration. Some of these include:
gender, age, proficiency (self-assessment and TOEFL), major, length of English study, level of
education, length of living in L2 environment, amount of time spent with NS of English
compared to Thai speakers, and a methodology in which CR is collected spontaneously and
authentically via interviews. This study analyzed two groups of Thai speakers; one group having
lived in the U.S. over two years, and the other having lived in the U.S. for less than one year.
These two groups responses to compliments were compared with NS of American English all at
the same university. Like the Cedar (2006) study mentioned above, data was elicited through live
interviews in which three compliments were inserted toward the interviewee. The interviews
were audio recorded and conducted completely in English. The following research questions
were asked in this study: (1) Is there a difference in how Thai and American university students
respond to compliments? (2) Does pragmatic transfer from Thai culture and language appear to
influence students who have spent less time in the L2 environment compared to students who
have spent more time in L2 environment? (3) Does gender from both culture groups affect
compliment response? (4) Does English proficiency play a role in CR? Our hypotheses to these
research questions include: (1) There will be minimal differences in how Thais and American
university students respond to compliments, for example, smiling will be a common non-verbal
response, and verbal acceptance will be the most common CR for both cultures. (2) Thais who
have lived over two years in the U.S. will have assimilated linguistically into American forms of
CR (e.g., acceptance, return, history), whereas Thais who have lived less than a year in the U.S.

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

14

will pragmatically transfer typical Thai CR (e.g., smile, no response, or downgrade). (3) Males
from both cultures will show either no response or non-verbal response (e.g., smile), whereas,
females from both cultures will either accept, thank, or return compliments. Our assumption is
due to the fact that females will be more comfortable with the researchers as they are both
females. (4) English proficiency will not have a significant effect on CR from Thai participants,
because language proficiency does not necessarily translate to pragmatic knowledge.
Research Methodology
Target Structure
The target structure in this study involves the speech act of compliment response (CR).
There are many studies in pragmatics that analyze how varying cultures express positive
evaluations (compliments). Cultures use compliments for a variety of purposes. For example,
compliments are often used in American culture to begin a conversation or create unity and
solidarity. Compliment topics may relate to personal appearance (I like your smile), possessions
(I like your scarf), skills (You must be very smart to study engineering), accomplishments (Great
job on earning your degree), and personal character (You are an honest person), and most often
occur between people of equal or higher status. This study particularly analyzes compliment
response strategies used by NAE speakers and Thai speakers. Common CR strategies include
acceptance (Thank you), evade (seeks confirmation-Really?), and rejection (no, I dont agree).
Participants
Participants include six Thai NS university students (three males and three females) who
have been studying in the U.S. more than two years, six Thai NS university students (three males
and three females) who have been studying in the U.S. less than a year, and six American
English NS university students (three males and three females). All participants are either

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

15

undergraduate or graduate students at a large public university in the U.S. aged 18-34. The Thai
NS have TOEFL scores of 70-100 in English proficiency, and are studying in their second
language (English) at the undergraduate or graduate level. Native speakers of American English
were recruited at random on the university campus in student public meeting places, such as
coffee shops or dining areas. Native Thai speaking participants were recruited by Thai researcher
from International Housing apartments. All participants had never met the researcher giving
compliments prior to the interviews.
Materials
Data collection materials were all in English and included: a background information
questionnaire to discern first language, age, length of stay in the U.S., major, length of English
study, current level of education, English proficiency (self-assessed and TOEFL score), and
whether the participant spends most of their time around Thai speakers or English speakers (See
Appendix A). Two copies of a signed permission statement was provided to participants for their
consent in participating in the study (one for researchers and one for participant), as well as a
debrief statement to conclude the interview by explaining that the target speech act was CR. The
second instrument included six interview questions about the university and the college town,
which were created to elicit information from participants for forming authentic compliments
(See Appendix B). A list of pre-planned compliments were organized by gender and whether
participant was a Thai or NAE speaker (See Appendix C). For example, Thai participants were
often complimented on their English speaking ability (You speak English very well). A data
collection sheet was designed for the researchers to record each individuals CR strategies during
and after the interview (see Appendix D). The specific strategies examined in the current study
include non-verbal responses, such as smiling and laughing, as well as verbal responses from

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

16

three macro categories of acceptance, evasion and rejection and twelve micro categories which
fall under one of the three macro categories.
Procedure
Participants were asked to sign a consent for data collection, yet were not told the exact
purpose of study until interview ended. They were debriefed about the target structure (CR) after
the data was collected. Interviews took place in public places (e.g., campus coffee/dining areas,
International house meeting room) on or near the university campus over a period from midMarch until mid-April, 2015. Participants were interviewed in a single session which lasted
approximately 5-10 minutes and was audio recorded on researchers smartphone. Each
interview was conducted in English by two researchers; one a NS of English, and one a NS of
Thai. The interaction began with researcher introductions, an explanation of the current studys
focus on speech responses and the reading/signing of the consent. Next, the participant filled out
the background information questionnaire separated for NS of Thai and NAE speakers. NAE
speakers were asked for their name, birthplace, age, major, and current level of education. In
addition to these prompts, NS of Thai were asked for their country of origin, length of stay living
in the U.S., length of total English study, English proficiency (self-assessed and TOEFL score),
and whether the participant spends most of their time around Thai speakers or English speakers.
Next, the native Thai researcher asked each participant six interview questions about their
experiences studying at the university and living in the college town. As this occurred, the native
English speaking researcher inserted three compliments consisting of either character,
possession, skill, or appearance towards the participant during logical places in the conversation
(e.g., a compliment about English skills was made immediately after a Thai participant answered
how long they have studied English). A list of pre-planned compliments were provided to NS of

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

17

English researcher, but most compliments were based on what seemed authentic or natural based
upon interview responses.
Example compliment for NAE speaker: Your major sounds very interesting!
Example compliment for Thai NS: You must be very intelligent to get into the Vet-Tech
program!
Interviews ended after three compliments covering a mixture of the four themes of
possession, skills, character and appearance were stated. At this point, participants were
debriefed about the true purpose of the study (comparing CR between groups of Thai NS and
English NS) and thanked for their involvement.
Data Analysis
The researchers evaluated CR strategies based on observations, notes and audio
recordings, including verbal and non-verbal responses to compliments. CR strategies were
categorized into an acceptance-denial continuum borrowed from Chen and Boonkongsaens
(2012), but adapted further by the researchers in this particular study. These categories include
three macro strategies (acceptance, evasion and rejection) and twelve micro strategies, as well as
four non-verbal strategies (smiling, laughing, talking + smiling, and no response) adapted from
Cedar (2006). Five micro strategies fell under acceptance, including thank you, agreement, return
compliment, account (I got it in Hawaii), and history (Red is my favorite color). Under the macro
strategy of evasion, there were four micro strategies including: downgrade (Im not that smart),
seeking confirmation (really?), shifting credit (My father helped me practice), and notes need for
improvement (I need more practice). The final macro strategy of rejection included three micro

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

18

strategies of disagreement, questioning accuracy (I dont think you are correct), and challenging
sincerity (You are kidding). See Appendix D for actual data collection method.
Each researcher evaluated the data by listening to recorded interviews individually and
reviewed notes taken on data collection sheets for each participant. All CR were categorized by a
macro and its accompanying micro strategy and placed into a spreadsheet like the ones listed
under Tables 1, 2 and 3 below. The tables are divided by NAE, Thai Group 1 (less than one year
living in L2 environment) and Thai Group 2 (more than two years living in L2 environment). All
three CR are listed for each participant.
Native speakers of American English tended to select agreement strategies far more
frequently than native speakers of Thai. One unexpected result was that some participants
responded with two different strategies for one compliment (e.g., accept, then evade). In this
situation, the first strategy was selected, so data could be more easily organized.
Table 1
Compliment Responses (CR) from Native American English (NAE) Participants
Gender Age
F
20

CR 1
Accept-Thank you

CR 2
Laugh

CR 3
Accept-Thank you

21

Accept-Thank you

Accept-Agree

Accept-Agree

18

Accept-Thank you

Accept-Agree

Accept-Thank you/account

22

Accept-Thank you

Accept-Agree

Accept-Thank you

26

Accept-Agree

Accept-Thank
you/Account

Accept-Thank you

21

Accept-Account

Accept-Agree

Accept-Thank you

Mean

21.3

SD

2.66

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

19

Table 2
Compliment Responses from Thai Group 1 (NS of Thai living in U.S. less than 1 year)
Gender

Age

TOEFL
score

24

Years
of
English
study
15

Peers
CR 1
most
interacted
with
Thai
AcceptThank you

CR 2

CR 3

AcceptThank you

AcceptThank you

24

15

78

Thai

RejectDisagree

EvadeDowngradeAccount

AcceptThank youAccount

24

18

93

Thai

Evade-Seeks
confirmation

RejectDisagree

RejectDisagree

26

20

70

Thai

AcceptEvadeDowngrade

AcceptAgree
Evade-Notes
need for
improvement

AcceptThank you

23

17

92

Thai

Account

AcceptAgree

AcceptThank you

32

15

74

Thai

Smile

Evade-Seeks
confirmation

Accept-OK

Mean

25.5

16.7

80.8

SD

3.33

2.1

9.5

78

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

20

Table 3
Compliment Responses from Thai Group 2 (NS of Thai living in U.S. for more than 2 years)
Gender

Age

Years
of
English
study

TOEFL
score

Peers
most
interacted
with

CR 1

CR 2

CR 3

28

21

100

Thai

RejectEvadeDowngrade Account
-Thank you

27

24

91

Americans AcceptAccountThank you

EvadeAccount

AcceptThank you

24

20

___

Thai

RejectDisagree

RejectDisagree

Smile

28

12

94

Thai

RejectDisagree

RejectLaugh +
Disagree- Smile
Account

34

29

92

Thai

RejectDisagreeAccount

AcceptAgree

AcceptThank you

26

10

___

Intl
students

RejectDisagreeAccount

RejectDisagree

RejectDisagreeDowngradeAccount

Mean

27.8

19.3

94.3

SD

3.37

7.2

4.0

AcceptThank youAccount

Results and Findings


Overall, some of our hypotheses were consistent with our actual results. The first
hypothesis related to whether there was a difference between how Thai and American university
students respond to compliments. We believed there would be slight differences in verbal
strategies, and that acceptance would be the most common CR for both cultures. However, our
research shows significant difference in how NAE speakers chose acceptance strategies (94%)

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

21

compared to Thai NS from both groups (39% acceptance CR), who chose more of a mixture of
acceptance, evasion and rejection strategies (See Table 4).
Table 4
Research Question 1 Results Comparing NAE Speakers with Thai Speakers
Participant groups
NAE
Thai NS

Accept
17
14

Evade
0
7

Reject
0
12

Our second hypothesis dealt with the role of pragmatic transfer comparing Thais who
have lived over two years in the U.S. with Thais who have lived less than one year in the U.S.
Our assumption was that Thais who have lived in the L2 environment longer will have
assimilated linguistically into common American forms of CR (e.g., acceptance, return, history),
whereas Thais who have lived for less time in the U.S. will pragmatically transfer typical Thai
CR (e.g., smile, no response, or downgrade). The actual results surprised us, as the opposite
occurred. Thais from Group 1, which have lived for less time in the U.S. exhibited more
acceptance strategies than Thais from Group 2, which have lived longer in the L2 culture, and
chose primarily rejection strategies (See Table 5).
Table 5
Research Question 2 Results Comparing Pragmatic Transfer From L1 to L2 Culture
Participant groups
Thai Group 1
Thai Group 2

Accept
9
5

Evade
5
2

Reject
3
9

Our third hypothesis compared gender from both cultures and assumed men from both
cultures would choose mostly no response or non-verbal responses more than females would,
who would select more acceptance strategies. Actual data showed minimal differences in how
both genders from each group responded (See Table 6).

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

22

Table 6
Research Question 3 Results Comparing Gender Difference From All Groups
Participant groups
Males
Females

Accept
16
15

Evade
3
4

Reject
6
6

Our final hypothesis involved the role of English proficiency for Thai NS participants in
selecting CR strategies. We theorized that English proficiency does not translate into pragmatic
knowledge and therefore would have minimal influence. Our data showed this hypothesis as true
(See Table 7). Surprisingly, students with high TOEFL scores (94.3 average) often chose nonacceptance strategies, whereas those with low TOEFL scores (80.8 average) chose more
acceptance strategies. This shows that there is not a significant relationship between English
proficiency and pragmatic transfer in this study.
Table 7
Research Question 4 Results Comparing English Proficiency for Both Thai Groups
Participant groups
Thai Group 1
Thai Group 2

Mean Years of English Study


16.7
19.3

Mean TOEFL Score


80.8
94.3

Discussion
To summarize some unexpected findings in this study, the researchers were surprised that
NAE speakers almost exclusively (17/18 CR) selected acceptance strategies, in contrast with
both Thai groups (14/36 were acceptance CR). Phoocharoensils (2012) study revealed a similar
pattern of 71% of Americans accepting compliments compared to 48% of Thais selecting
acceptance strategies, which closely resembles our studys results of 94% acceptance CR (NAE
speakers) in contrast to 39% acceptance CR (Thai speakers). These results are similar to Tang
and Zhangs (2009) study, in which native speakers of Australian English chose acceptance

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

23

strategies more frequently than the native Chinese speakers. Further evidence of this occurrence
was noted in Chens (1993) study which revealed American English speakers used more
acceptance strategies than Chinese speakers, while Chinese speakers used more rejection
strategies than Americans.
It was unexpected that the Thai group which had lived for a longer period of time in the
English language community (Group 2) showed fewer acceptance strategies than Group 1, which
had been living in the L2 community for less than one year. This reveals that length of time
living in an L2 environment may have little significance in the pragmatic transfer of EFL/ESL
students. One factor collected in our data, revealed that most of the Thai participants from both
groups spent much of their free time with NS of Thai (only 2 exceptions). This greatly minimizes
use of English outside of the classroom and therefore allows for less opportunities to practice the
speech act of responding to compliments in English. One possible reason for the unexpected
result listed above could have to do with self-identity. Thai students, regardless of how long they
have lived in American society, may sustain connections to their first culture by responding in
opposite behavior patterns from the new culture to more strongly identify themselves with their
first culture. This could be conscious or unconscious.
It is noteworthy that gender did not seem to affect participants choice of CR strategy, as
groups selected from the three macro strategies equally. This is unlike Cedars (2006) results,
which showed that American females used acceptance strategies far more often than American
males. In contrast, Thai males used acceptance strategies slightly more frequently than Thai
females in Cedars (2006) study.
As mentioned above, there does not seem to be a significant link between English
proficiency and pragmatic transfer in this study. Falasi (2007) believed that language proficiency

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

24

did not play a role in producing more target-like compliment responses in her study, as both
groups of participants produced the same responses. However, Phoocharoensils (2012) study
found that Thai students with high proficiency tended to mirror American norms of acceptance
strategies. In the current study, the high English proficiency group (mean TOEFL= 94.3) actually
chose more rejection and evasion strategies than the low English proficiency group (mean
TOEFL=80.8), which chose more acceptance strategies (only three rejection strategies). The
pedagogical implications of this evidence is significant in reflecting that English proficiency may
have minor influence on CR strategies.
There are important pragmatic implications that this study highlights. The fact that NAE
speakers selected acceptance strategies much more frequently than both Thai speaking groups,
shows cross-cultural differences in how Thais and Americans react to compliments. Previous
researchers highlight Thai culture as valuing modesty and humility, whereas American culture
values social harmony through praise and admiration (Cedar, 2006). This may make Thais more
selective in CR strategies compared to Americans. Phoocharoensils (2012) study revealed that
Thais were more likely to disagree with compliments to avoid self-praise than Americans did. It
seems that Thais, like Mandarin Chinese speakers, value modesty and self-praise avoidance as
was theorized in Tang and Zhangs (2009) study. Chen (1993) also speculated that Chinese
society values modesty, while American society values receiving compliments gracefully.
Chen and Boonkongsaen (2012) agree with this line of thought and concluded that most Thais
refrain from showing their pleasure explicitly and tend to be modest in this setting. All of this
research implies that there are strong cultural differences based upon cultural value systems
when comparing Asian and Western cultures. These values have great influence on how
individuals respond to compliments.

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

25

One methodological implication from this study has to do with the unique data collection
method, which used live interviews that involved the researcher inserting compliments to a
participant rather than the DCT method. Like the Cedar (2006) study, we feel our data comes
from genuine, authentic and spontaneous responses to compliments. It would have been useful to
have asked participants follow-up questions about whether they believed the compliments given
seemed natural or authentic. It may be worth investigating if the compliments surprised
participants or made them uneasy. Such follow-up questions may provide a more complete
picture as to whether this method is useful or accurate.
A further methodological implication from this study includes the fact that the location of
the study and type of participants may have had an impact on the results. The study took place in
a mid-sized (152,000 pop.) college town and tourist destination, which is known to have an open
and friendly population. The participants were all university students (aged 18-34), which are
typically friendly and responsive to strangers. These factors may have made our results more of
the exception than the norm as far as the frequency of acceptance strategies. If this study was
conducted in a larger city, such as NYC, the results may be quite different.
One limitation to this study is the fact that many of the compliments given to the Thai
participants focused on English language skills. Thai speakers tended to select rejection or
evasion strategies to these particular compliments. Complimenting someones second language
skills may receive a universally non-acceptance CR strategy, as people are more inclined to feel
a need for improvement in their second language ability. If we had complimented the Thai
participants on other skill-sets unrelated to English skills, the results may be different. For
example, Chen and Boonkongsaens (2012) found that when Thais were complimented on
ability, they preferred acceptance strategies the most. However, in the current study,

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

26

compliments that were based on appearance and possession seemed to get more acceptance
strategies from Thai participants. These findings are in opposition to Chen and Boonkongsaens
(2012) study, which found that Thai EFL teachers used rejection and evade strategies more often
in their responses to compliments regarding appearance. Interestingly, Chen and Boonkongsaen
(2012) considered possession compliments as face-threatening acts because of the judgment on
the persons belongings. However, most of the possession compliments in the current study were
received with acceptance (thank you) by Thai participants.
Another limitation in this study is the small number of participants (18 total), and the
gender of the person giving compliments. Though our results showed that gender of the
participants did not seem to affect CR strategies, the gender of the complimenter may alter the
data. Males may accept compliments from other males more frequently or females may accept
compliments from males more often. It would be worth switching the role of complimenter to
discern if gender of the person giving compliments is influential.
Conclusion
This paper examines compliment response strategies used buy NAE speakers and NS of
Thai in English as an L2. The focus of the current study specifically compared CR strategies
between two groups of Thai university students with NAE speaking university students. The two
Thai groups were divided by amount of time having lived in the L2 English environment to
discern if those Thai speakers who had lived over two years in the U.S. mimicked typical NAE
strategies of acceptance. Some of the research questions from this study were answered in regard
to the differences in CR strategies use by both Thai and NAE speakers and whether gender
affects CR. However, the research question regarding pragmatic transfer from Thai to American
culture was not proven to have an influence on Thai students who had lived in the L2 culture for

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

27

a longer period of time. There was also no connection found between English proficiency and
CR strategies in this study. The authors recommend that further research be done in the area of
pragmatic transfer, especially with participants who have lived for longer periods of time in the
L2 environment. The data collection method of recording live CR from participants during
interviews should also be replicated, as the responses are genuine and authentic compared to the
hypothetical situations listed in a DCT; however, follow-up questions with participants would be
useful in discovering it this method is efficient and reliable. This study did not investigate the
differences of CR in relation to social distance, power, and status between speaker and listener.
These factors may greatly impact CR strategies. English language teachers should be aware of
the various cultural values of their students and may want to avoid expecting similar CR
strategies to their own culture from students who come from different cultural values of modesty
and self-praise avoidance. Instructors must also be aware of the miscommunication that may
occur in speech acts like responding to compliments, making requests, refusals, and greetings. It
is extremely useful to teach pragmatics alongside language in ESL/EFL classrooms. The more
information that instructors can provide to their students about politeness and impoliteness
strategies, the fewer the chances for intercultural miscommunication to occur.

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

28

References
Al Falasi, H. (2007). Just say Thank you: A study of compliment responses. The Linguistics
Journal, 2(1), 28-42. Retrieved on Feb. 11, 2015 from: http://www.linguisticsjournal.com/2007-index/14-index/2007/103-just-say-thank-you-a-study-of-complimentresponses
Cedar, P. (2006). Thais and Americans responses to compliments in English. The Linguistics
Journal, 2. Retrieved on Feb. 11, 2015 from: http://www.linguistics-journal.com/authorindex/15-index/2006/117- thai-and-american-responses-to-compliments-in-english
Chen, J., & Boonkongsaen, N. (2012). Compliment response strategies by Thai and Chinese EFL
teachers: A contrastive study. Theory and Practice in Language Study, 2(9), 1860-1867.
doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.9.1860-1867
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies
between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75. doi:
10.1016//0378-2166(93)90106-Y
Golato, A. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 547-571.
doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6
Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). Compliment responses among British and Spanish university students:
A contrastive study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 107-127.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.05.019
Phoocharoensil, S. (2012). L2 English compliment responses: An investigation of pragmatic
transfer. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(6), 276287. doi: 10.7575/ijalel.v.ln,6p.276

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY


Tang, C., & Zhang, G. Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among
Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 325345. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.05.019

29

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

30

Appendices
Appendix A
Background Information Questionnaire
For Thai NSs:
Name:

Age:

Country of origin:

Years of English study:

Major:
Current level of education:

Bachelors

Masters

Ph.D.

TOEFL score (if known):


Self-Assessment of English speaking/listening skills:
1

5 (Basic (1) -------- Advanced (5))

How long have you lived in the U.S.?


I mostly spend time with: Thai or American friends

For NS of English:
Name:

Age:

Birth place:
Major:
Current level of education:

Bachelors

Masters

Ph.D.

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY


Appendix B
Interview Questions
Questions for Thai NSs:
1)

What made you choose to come to CSU?

2)

How long have you studied English?

3)

What is your favorite thing about Fort Collins?

4)

What has been difficult about studying at CSU?

5)

Did you experience culture shock in moving to Fort Collins?

6)

Do you like your classes? Why?/Why not?

Questions for native speakers of English:


1)

What made you choose to come to CSU?

2)

What is your favorite thing about Fort Collins?

3)

What has been difficult about studying at CSU?

4)

Did you have a hard time settling in Fort Collins?

5)

What is the most challenging thing you have experienced at CSU?

6)

Do you like your classes? Why?/ Why not?

31

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

32

Appendix C
Compliments based on character, appearance, possession, and ability/skills, and are organized
by Male/Female (M/F) appropriateness.
For Thai NSs:

Your English is very good. (M/F)

You have very good pronunciation. (M/F)

I like your outfit (shirt/ shoes/ hair)./You have good taste (F)

I like your smile/ You have a nice smile. (M/F)

I like your field of study. (M/F)

I think you are brave for coming to a foreign country to study. (M/F)

For English NSs:

I like your outfit (shirt/ shoes/ hair). (F)

I like your smile/ You have a nice smile. (M/F)

You have beautiful eyes. (F)

I like your field of study./Your major is very interesting. (M/F)

You must be really smart to study that field (M/F)

You have overcome many challenges to come to this school (M/F).

CR IN ENGLISH: A THAI AND AMERICAN STUDY

33

Appendix D
Data Collection Sheet
First Complement:
Non-verbal S

T/S

NR

Acceptance thank you, agreement, return compliment, account (I


bought it at Macys), history (red is my favorite color)
Evade downgrade, seeks confirmation (really?, Do you think
so?), shifts credit, notes need for improvement,
Reject disagree, question accuracy, challenge sincerity
Second Compliment:
Non-verbal S

T/S

NR

Acceptance thank you, agreement, return compliment, account (I


bought it at Macys), history (red is my favorite color)
Evade downgrade, seeks confirmation (really?, Do you think
so?), shifts credit, notes need for improvement
Reject disagree, question accuracy, challenge sincerity
Third Compliment:
Non-verbal S

T/S

NR

Acceptance thank you, agreement, return compliment, account (I


bought it at Macys), history (red is my favorite color)
Evade downgrade, seeks confirmation (really?, Do you think
so?), shifts credit, notes need for improvement,
Reject disagree, question accuracy, challenge sincerity

S-ar putea să vă placă și