CHAPTER 1

Speech Act Theory and Politeness

1.1 History of Speech Act Theory

A branch of pragmatics called speech act theory examines how words are used to perform
activities in addition to conveying information. According to the philosophy of language and
linguistics, a speech act is anything that is expressed by a person who does both a presentation of
information and an activity1 (J. L. Austin, 1975:1911-1960). For instance, the sentence "I would
like the kimchi; could you please give it to me?" is seen as a speech act since it both requests that
someone pass the kimchi to the speaker and conveys their desire to have it.
"Almost each speech act is essentially the performance of numerous acts at once," claims
Kent Bach. "There is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting
or promising, and how one is aiming to effect one's audience." 2 (W. Ingber, K. Bench, R.
Harnish, 1982:134)
The origin of the term's modern usage may be traced to J. L. Austin, who developed the
concept of performative utterances and proposed the theories of locutionary, illocutionary, and
perlocutionary actions. As soon as something is uttered or transmitted, a speech act serves its
purpose. These are often understood to encompass actions like saying you're sorry, promising,
commanding, responding, asking for something, grumbling, warning, inviting, denying, and
celebrating. 3( The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA))
Speech acts are actions that can be performed orally but are not always required to be. The
phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of an utterance are ways to
determine if the speaker is making a promise, a prediction, a declaration, or a threat. According
to many, speech acts are the fundamental units of communication. Some speech actions are

1
Austin, J. L.,  How to do things with words. Urmson, J. O., Sbisà, Marina, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1975, pp. 1911-1960. 
2
Ingber, Warren; Bach, Kent; Harnish, Robert M., "Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts". The
Philosophical Review.,1982, p. 134.
3
"The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA): Pragmatics and Speech
Acts". carla.umn.edu. Retrieved 2019-02-20.
1
significant because the relevant authorities can use them to, for example, declare war or
imprison a person4. (www.oxord.com)
Speech acts are words that carry out deeds. The impression a speaker wants to produce on
his or her environment-the illocutionary effect-is typically more important to speakers than the
truthfulness of their statements. Initially, performative speech actions like placing a bet, naming
a ship (or a person), or announcing two people to be married were the focus of the study of
speech acts (Flowerdew, 2013). No utterance, however, lives in a vacuum, and it may be said
that every speech has illocutionary repercussions. As a result, the study of speech acts has
expanded to cover almost all utterance types as well as the interpersonal features of whole texts.
The concept of speech acts was first introduced in the 1950s by J. L. Austin (1975) 5 in his
philosophy of ordinary language, and it was most prominently developed by John Searle. The
debate that follows examines its influence on literary studies up to 1990. This effect came about
immediately and with great force. In fact, Quentin Skinner was able to underline the
importance of speech act theory by 1975, highlighting the crucial impact of Austin and Searle
on the two new 'orthodoxies' that opposed formalism by highlighting the necessity of both
purpose and context for understanding.
With the advent of "Speech actions theory," which fundamentally derives from Austin
Austin's groundbreaking and ground-breaking work, pragmatic reflections have truly taken off
in the philosophical world (1911-1960). He believes that the Logical Positivist's truthconditional
account of language use is flawed because of a "descriptive illusion" that makes one believe that
language's primary goal is to convey a specific "content" or piece of information about
something (the world or the speaker's thought about it).
Typically, speech acts are broken down into two separate parts: a content dimension (which
corresponds to what is being said) and a force dimension (corresponding to how what is being
said is being expressed). The grammatical mood of the sentence employed in a speech act
conveys the force of the speech act being delivered, although it does not exclusively determine
4
https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-
9780199384655-e-200
5
Austin, J. L., How to Do Things With Words, 2nd edn., ed. Urmson, J. O. and Sbisa, Marina, Cambridge,
MA, 1975.
2
it. The performative is a unique kind of speaking act that makes the impact of the statement
clear.
Speech acts are words that carry out deeds. The impression a speaker wants to produce on
his or her environment-the illocutionary effect-is typically more important to speakers than the
truthfulness of their statements. Initially, performative speech actions like placing a bet, naming
a ship (or a person), or announcing two people to be married were the focus of the study of
speech acts (Flowerdew, 2013). No utterance, however, lives in a vacuum, and it may be said
that every speech has illocutionary repercussions. As a result, the study of speech actions has
expanded to encompass almost all forms of speaking as well as the interpersonal purposes of
whole texts. Based on their illocutionary consequences, speech actions may be categorized using
a number of different techniques.
The communicative environment, which may influence the interpretation of even the most
fundamental statements, can lead to misconceptions in intercultural communication when
certain situations occur (Bowe 2007: 9). Aspects of this issue can be recognized and understood
thanks to Austin's (1962) and Searle's (1969) creation of the Speech Act Theory.
How to Do Things with Words, Austin's 1962 book on communicative purpose, makes an
effort to differentiate between what a speaker says, what the speaker means, and what the
hearer believes the speaker means. According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), non-literal
utterances involve three different types of acts: the locutionary act, which refers to the act of
producing an utterance; the illocutionary act, which refers to the act performed in saying
something; and the perlocutionary act, which refers to the act that results from saying
something.
Five kinds of illocutionary actions are initially proposed by Austin (1962), which are later
criticized by Searle (1976). Searle then builds on Austin's concepts by proposing the following
alternative taxonomy of illocutionary acts:
 Acts that bind the speaker to the proposition's veracity are known as assertions.
 Directives: actions taken by a speaker to compel a response from the listener,
 Commissives are actions that obligate the speaker to do further action.

3
  Expressives are actions that communicate to the listener the speaker's opinion
regarding a proposition.
 Acts that establish correspondence between the propositional content and reality are
known as declarations (Searle 1976: 10-16; 1979)
Declaratives, which include acts like naming, appointing, and christening, are made up of
assertive statements like "stating," "claiming," and "reporting," directives like "ordering,"
"commanding," and "suggesting," commissives like "promising," "offering," and "recommending,"
and expressives like "thanking," and "apologies."
The practice of literary criticism has been impacted by speech act theory since 1970. It
offers a systematic framework for identifying the unstated assumptions, implications, and effects
of speech acts, which skilled readers and critics have always taken into account, subtly though
unsystematically, when applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a
literary work.
However, a more radical application of speech act theory has been utilized to reframe the
literature theory-and particularly the idea of prose narratives. The narration provided by the
author of a fictional work-or alternatively, by the author's imagined narrator-is considered to be
a "pretended" collection of statements, free from the speaker's usual commitment to the veracity
of what is asserted.
However, within the framework of the fictitious world that the story thus creates, the
fictional characters' utterances-whether they be claims, pledges, or marriage vows-are
considered to be accountable to customary illocutionary commitments 6 (Abrams and Galt
Harpham 2005).
The functional parts of pragmatics have been greatly influenced by Searle's idea of speech
actions, although it has also come under heavy fire.
Some claim that Austin and Searle's work was mostly based on their intuitions and that
they only considered statements in isolation from possible contexts. The fact that the

6
Abrams, Meyer Howard, and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 8th ed., Wadsworth Cengage
Learning, 2005
4
illocutionary power of a physical speech act cannot assume the shape of a sentence as Searle
viewed it is one of the primary difficulties to Searle's proposed typology.
"According to speech act theory, the hearer assumes a passive role. When considering an
utterance's linguistic form and the fulfillment of the requisite felicity requirements, including
those pertaining to the speaker's ideas and sentiments, the illocutionary force of the speech is
assessed. As a result, interactional features are ignored.
Nevertheless, a conversation is more than just a series of unrelated illocutionary forces;
rather, speech actions are connected to one another within a larger discourse framework.
Speech act theory is insufficient to explain what really occurs in conversation because it ignores
the role that utterances play in advancing the discourse "7(Barron 2003).
Instead, scholars propose that a speech act involves a communicative role apart from this
and that a sentence is a grammatical unit inside the formal system of language.
1.2 Estimation of Politeness Level
People utilize politeness as a communication tactic to build and sustain relationships. The
two primary purposes of politeness are convivial aims (offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, and
applauding) and competitive goals (requesting, ordering, demanding, and begging). Goals that
are competitive are primarily pleasant and impolite (Leech, 1983). Since demands by their very
nature are impolite, politeness is a significant concern.

Politeness in requests is a communication technique that the speaker utilizes to get what
they want and, if the speaker and hearer are in a long-term relationship, to keep them together.
Depending on how much the listener will perceive the relative imposition to be, the speaker
will decide on the appropriate level of politeness. Speaker will make an effort to be as courteous
as possible. Insufficient courtesy from the speaker may cause the listener to feel forced upon and
embarrassment. If the speaker is excessively courteous, the listener may interpret the statement
as mocking.

7
Barron, Anne. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study
Abroad Context. J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 2003..

5
 People communicate or arrange things in a way that lessens the threat in the
conversation when they are considerate of the sentiments of the other person. To put it another
way, they are nice. According to the idea of politeness, the utilization of these three variables-
distance, power, and threat-increases with coordinate increases in each (known also as risk of
imposition or extremity)8 (Brown P., Levinson S., 1978:60-89).

Positive and negative politeness are the two categories that Brown and Levinson (1978)
separate. Positive manners are utilized to fulfill the desires of the speaker for belonging and
approbation (maximizing positive face). Solidarity is expressed via good manners. Negative
courtesy reduces the burden by acting politely (negative face). When the request is more
substantial, both forms of politeness rise.

In interactions between supervisors and teachers, distance is the degree of social and
horizontal acquaintance between the parties. With each other, familiars typically act more
amiably and casually. If a teacher and their supervisor were once team instructors or good
neighbors, there may be less space between them. Aspects of emotion, or like, and interaction
intimacy can also be included in distance9. (Brown R., Gilman A., 1989:159-212)

The two people's positions, status, or social station are referred to as their power. We
would anticipate that the instructor has more motive to be courteous and the supervisor less
because the teacher effectively has a lower social, or at least hierarchical, position than the
supervisor. However, this may be overturned if the instructor believes that, due to experience or
other factors, she "holds rank" above a brand-new, inexperienced supervisor or supervisor-in-
training. Threats often focus on the magnitude of the request being made (or implicitly
suggested as a call for action) by the speaker, the supervisor. Additionally, a threat or intrusion is
perceived if the hearer (teacher) feels an obstruction of his or her right to self-determination or
a lack of approbation; known as a danger to positive or negative face, this necessitates the

8
Brown P., Lewinson S., Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena in Ouestions and Politeness:
Stratecaes in Spcial_Interaction ed. E. Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1978), pp. 60-89.
9
Roger Brown and Albert Gilman, "Politeness Theory and Shakespeare's Four Major Tragedies," Language in
Society, 18 (June 1989): 159-212.
6
supervisor paying closer attention to the teacher's emotions (see below). A teacher faces a larger
threat when they perform so poorly that they require considerable help with fundamental
teaching techniques than when they only need to hone one simple regular teaching technique.
If the instructor is unable to evaluate his or her methods and choose an acceptable course of
action for themselves, it would appear that the danger is increased. (P. Grimmett and E. Patricia
10
Crehan, 1990:214-235)

So, given the increased "weightiness" or riskiness of the FTA, a supervisor who demands
that an experienced but accustomed instructor make a big and challenging adjustment in their
teaching style would presumably use a higher level of politeness. The supervisor will often make
a quick judgment on the appropriate amount or technique of politeness based on their
estimation or calculation of contextual factors such as proximity, influence, and threat—all of
which are culturally complex-in the situation (Brown and Lewinson,1987).

In her research on online communication, Stirling (2014) disproved the idea that older
persons are more diligent than younger ones. According to her research, those under 30 are
more cautious to correct themselves, use lengthier terms to be courteous, and utilize broader
language to convey their messages more precisely. Lakoff (1973) said that adults should follow
the norms and maxims of politeness, and Bates (1973) supported his assertion by conducting
research showing that toddlers as young as three are aware of the concept of relative linguistic
politeness.
Numerous studies have been done on the polite register used while making requests in
connection to the participants' sex as well as the status of the interlocutor (e.g. Grosby &
Nyquist, 1977). The level of politeness in a man's or woman's speech is a sign of social standing
within a particular encounter (Baroni & D'Urso, 1984). Developmental scholars generally
concur that two variables influence how well polite register is produced and understood.
Knowledge of the language structure of polite requests comes first. Knowledge of pragmatic
request guidelines in a particular social and situational setting comes second (Ervin-Tripp,1977).

10
Peter Grimmett and E. Patricia Crehan, "Barry: A Case Study of Teacher Reflection in Clinical Supervision,"
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 5 (Spring 1990): 214-235;
7
1.3 Politeness and Sociopragmatics
Sociopragmatics, like pragmalinguistics, is a branch of pragmatics. According to Leech
(1983:10), sociopragmatic aspect is an abstract topic that deals with the more particular local
conditions on. Using language. It is culturally distinct. Sociolinguistics is alternatively
characterized as the study that is "primarily concerned with the manner in which social
interactions, statuses, patterns, and networks interact with language structure and usage"
(Verschueren, 1999: 7).
Rover (2001: 1) emphasizes the social component even further, stating that knowledge of
social conditions, such as sense of relative power, social distance, and degree of imposition, as
well as awareness of shared rights, taboos, and customary practices, influences language usage.
Sociopragmatics stresses "the socially grounded judgment, attitudes, and interactional
principles that drive people's choice of methods," according to Schmitt (2002: 80). For instance,
someone trying to get at the sugar may ask, "Would you mind passing the sugar?" or "Please
have the sugar." A sociopragmatic viewpoint is concerned with the social judgements that
underlie these possibilities, such as the nature of the interlocutors' connection (equal or unequal,
near or distant), as well as the level of the request's social acceptability.
According to Leech (2003: 104) politeness belongs to the sociopragmatics discipline because
that research aims to "understand communication behavior." Sociopragmatics, according to
Culpeper (2011: 5), is the ideal field for impoliteness investigations. There are two causes for
this. First, since this area has yielded the greatest research on politeness, it is sense that its
apparent opponent would also be found here. Second, it adheres to sociopragmatics' study
agenda.
In conclusion, sociopragmatics is the study of how pragmatics and social environment
interact. For instance, a speaker has to be aware of the proper context for making a request as
well as the form that would be suitable given the social context of the interlocutors.
The Face Threatening Act (FTA), which is the fundamental component of Brown and
Levinson's (1987) paradigm, is obviously consistent with speech act theory. Just as one or more
"speech actions" might be attributed to an utterance, FTAs concern "what is meant to be done by

8
a verbal or non-verbal communication" (1987, p. 65). Their concept is fundamentally based on
the idea that "some kinds of activities naturally threaten face" (1987, p. 65). The type of face
threatened (positive or negative) and whether the threat is directed towards the listener's or the
speaker's face are used to categorize intrinsic FTAs (1987, p. 65-68). Requests, for instance,
threaten the listener's negative face; critiques, the listener's positive face; gratitude, the speaker's
negative face (as a debt is recognized); and so on. Brown and Levinson's detractors frequently
overlook the fact that they discuss activities that "primarily" (1987, p. 65, 67) or "mostly" (1987,
p. 68) are performed in response to threats (e.g., O'Driscoll 2007).
According to Nurjamily (2015), the fields of sociology and pragmatics are the origins of
sociopragmatics. Sociology aims to investigate how people interact in groups and in
communities. Contrarily, pragmatics examines how people's words are used in a given setting
and their impact. Sociopragmatic is a pragmatics research that employs a conventional
methodology. Kasper and Rose define sociopragmatics as the interaction between sociology and
pragmatics. The social perception that underlies how people understand and carry out
communicative behaviors is what is meant by this.
Sociopragmatics, according to Mirzaei, Roohani, and Esmaeli (2012), includes understanding
of the connections between communicative activities and power, social inequality, and
imposition. It includes social norms and the effects of what you say, do, and do to whom. Using
sociopragmatics, which considers socio-cultural elements as the determinant of the statement
that the speaker has said, it is possible to study the speaker's utterances and structure from the
outside.
The speaker's ability to effectively communicate is referred to as pragmatics. The principles
guiding language usage in certain social circumstances are the focus of the linguistic study
known as pragmatics. Additionally, it discusses "what to say," "how to say it," "when to say it,"
and how others may interpret the words we choose. In other words, it includes the speaker's
social skills. Pragmatism and the idea of civility have a very tight connection.
According to the aforementioned assertions, it may be inferred that being courteous requires
abiding by the norms that are relevant to each social relationship. If the speaker disobeys the

9
rules that apply, it is considered disrespectful. Saying anything pertinent to the public in a nice
manner. Both the real and false aspects of a person's attitude, as determined by regulations, are
strongly tied to the idea of politeness.
The six interpersonal maxims that Leech (1983) identifies as the tenets of politeness are tact,
generosity, approval, humility, agreement, and compassion. Brown, P., & Levinson (1987)
explained this hypothesis, which is connected to the idea of a face. According to experts, this
behavior is considered politeness since it takes into account the sentiments of others, who are
attentive to a true glance, the desire to be acknowledged and unfavorable faces, and the hope
that the load won't be lifted.
1.4 Theorizing Politeness
Politeness, according to the politeness theory (P. Brown & S. Levinson, 1987), both reflects
and controls social distance. It was hypothesized that politeness would be correlated with
abstract construal, temporal distance, and spatial distance based on this idea and construal level
theory (N. Liberman & Y. Trope, 2008; N. Liberman, Y. Trope, & E. Stephan, 2007). This
prediction was supported by eight researches. When the addressees were understood abstractly,
distant in time, and distant in space, politeness rose.
The term "polite" has several definitions in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. "Marked by an
appearance of attention, tact, reverence, or civility" is one definition. Although tact and
diplomacy are not directly synonymous with politeness, they are undoubtedly connected. As a
result, since our research focuses on diplomatic and tactful communication, we will give the
notion of politeness a lot of attention and discuss many academic perspectives on it.
We start our investigation of politeness with a widely accepted idea referred to as "politeness
theory." It was created and proposed in the 1970s and 1980s by two Stanford University
scholars. They significantly referenced face theory, pushing it in the direction of civility and
with a concentration on it. They extended on Goffman's theory in this attempt, paying
particular emphasis to politeness, and went further into the concepts of face advanced by
Goffman in the 1950s.

10
 Politeness presupposes that everyone has a face and that everyone has needs and wants.
Furthermore, there are many face-threatening behaviors, and the faces that are threatened
might sometimes be directed at the speaker and other times towards the hearer. When taking
into account a face-threatening deed, which these researchers refer to as weight, sociological
factors come into play. Three factors-power, distance, and rank-are combined to establish the
weight of a face-threatening conduct. The perceived power dynamic between the speaker and
the hearer is referred to as power.
According to the notion of politeness, a person's decision to use a certain politeness tactic
depends on the social context of the speaking act. That is, who are you speaking to, how do you
know them on a personal level, and what is the subject? Part of the basis for politeness theory is
the notion that there are two types of faces: positive faces and negative faces. A person's urge for
their wishes and aspirations to be respected in a social setting is shown in their positive facial
expression. This is the upkeep of a constant and good perception of oneself. Negative facial
expressions signify a person's desire for independence in thought, action, and decision-making.
Additionally, it was discovered that an increase in politeness led to abstract interpretations, a
wider time separation, and a wider spatial separation. These results support the notion that the
aspects of psychological distance are interconnected and give information on how politeness
functions in many cultures and languages. Every human community recognizes the importance
of politeness in daily life. Every time we address someone, we get to pick how courteous to be,
from formal forms like "dear Professor Friedman" to more informal ones like "hello, Ron." In
addition to reflecting how near or far we feel to someone, our choice of manners also
contributes to whether we feel close or distant.
Symbolic interactionism, a theory developed by Goffman in 1959, analyzes the various ways
in which individuals construct and uphold social positions. According to this view, social
positions are characterized by social distance, and politeness controls social distance. Politeness,
according to more contemporary interpretations of it (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987), both
signifies and fosters social distance. In light of this supposition, we investigate any patterns in
people's politeness use that may arise from the relationship between politeness and social

11
distance. We specifically contend that social distance is a sort of psychological distance that is
connected to other distances and to level of construal utilizing the framework of construal level
theory (CLT; Liberman & Trope, 2008; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007; Trope & Liberman,
2003). Therefore, we expect that higher levels of construal and greater temporal and
geographical distances are related to enhanced politeness.
According to P. Brown and Levinson (1987), three aspects of interpersonal interactions:
a) the relative power of the addressee over the speaker,
b) the level of imposition of the to-be-performed act, and
c) the social distance between the speaker and the addressee-are invariably related to
politeness.
When asking for a large favor as opposed to a minor favor, when addressing strangers as
opposed to known people, and when addressing persons of high rank as opposed to those of
equal or low status, according to Brown and Levinson, speakers employ more polite language.
The hypothesized impacts on politeness of authority, imposition (e.g., R. Brown & Gilman,
1989; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992), and social distance have all received substantial scientific
support (e.g., Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Wood & Kroger, 1991). For instance, Ambady, Koo, Lee,
and Rosenthal (1996) investigated the connections between politeness techniques and
oppression. Participants communicated more imposing or less imposing news to hypothetical
real-life targets of varying authority (a supervisor, a subordinate, or a peer from their
employment). Using P. Brown and Levinson's (1987) typology of politeness strategies (e.g., less
polite strategies, such as seeking agreement, joking, and expressing optimism vs. more polite
strategies, such as being apologetic or respectful), these communications were videotaped and
coded by judges for politeness.
A study by Holtgraves and Yang (1992) that looked at how politeness was impacted by social
distance, authority, and imposition is particularly pertinent to the current investigation.
Participants from Korea and the United States pictured themselves making requests of varied
magnitude (e.g., asking for the time vs requesting someone to call) and social distance (e.g., to a
professor versus a high school student) (a stranger vs. a well-known target).

12
 The replies from the participants were categorized using P. Brown and Levinson's (1987)
politeness methods. Address forms were specifically marked as informal (e.g., first name), formal
(e.g., title), or not include the address. The act of making a request was coded as the least polite
(bald) strategy if an imperative was used, the least polite (positive) strategy if optimism or slang
was used, the most polite (negative) strategy if the addressee's willingness or ability to perform
the act was questioned, the very polite (off record) strategy if an indirect form was used, and the
most polite (no request) strategy if none was made.
According to the principle of politeness, courtesy increases with request size, addressee rank,
and social distance. In addition, substantial interactions among power, request size, and distance
were discovered, albeit being quite tiny in comparison to the primary impacts. These
interactions revealed that the impacts of power and social distance increased with less obtrusive
demands. According to the theory of politeness, if power and imposition are maintained
constant, politeness will change according to social distance. According to Holtgraves and
Yang's (1992) findings, politeness and social distance would be particularly prominent in low-
imposition exchanges.
In closing, the field of politeness research holds a few twists and turns, as most research areas
do. On what constitutes civility and impoliteness, researchers differ. Regardless of how we
choose to define civility, we all agree that it is important in real life. A little research into the
theoretical underpinnings of politeness can shed some light on the complexities surrounding
politeness categories and usages in a discussion about speaking with diplomacy and tact.

Chapter 2
Compliments and Compliment Reasons in Social Media
2.1 Definitions and Functions of Compliments

13
 Various theories attempt to encapsulate the qualities, elements, and functions of the
phenomena of complementing. From a variety of angles, linguists define the speech act of
compliment.
It has been determined that the character, form, and style of communication depend
significantly on the early minutes, and occasionally even seconds, of communication, as A.P.
Sadokhin properly notes. There are several fairly straightforward tools available that make it
possible to facilitate communication from the beginning of a process, which influences the
entire path of the process moving forward. A complement is one of these tools (Sadokhin, 2010,
p. 139).
Holmes was the first to highlight the necessity to define the compliment from a linguistic
perspective, stressing that it is crucial to have a precise definition to determine what qualifies
and what does not qualify as a compliment while gathering and evaluating samples of a certain
speech act. A speaking act that overtly or indirectly gives credit to someone other than the
speaker, often the person being addressed, for some "good" (possession, quality, talent, etc.) that
is positively regarded by the speaker and the hearer is referred to as a compliment, according to
Holmes (Holmes 1988).
Some researchers interpret compliment from a cultural perspective. This idea compares a
complement to a window through which a society as a whole or a specific person may observe,
or, to put it another way, what is valued by the relevant culture. Manes claims that compliments
are "mirrors of societal ideals." (Manes 1983: 97)
A compliment, in Searle's view, is an expressive speech act since it indicates the speaker's
response to a circumstance in which the hearer participates actively or passively. (1976 Searle)
It is clear from a number of sociopragmatic research that there are cultural and
sociolinguistic variances in speech acts (Blum-Kulka 1989). In this paradigm, sociolinguistic
factors including age, gender, status, and others are used to study compliments.
The subjects, structure, linguistic choices, functions, response kinds, distribution, and
purposes of praising behavior all exhibit particular cross-cultural differences, according to
studies. According to Wolfson, the choice of the kind of compliment deemed suitable in the

14
circumstance is highly influenced by the tone, or the social rank and connection between the
speaker and the addressee. (1983 Wolfson)
A complement might be true and flattering, strong and ambiguous, suitable or incorrect, etc.
There are various prerequisites for praise in rhetoric. I. Gorelov and K. Sedov write the
following in this regard: "Compliment is a "little type" of epideictic eloquence that dates back to
the speech culture of the Middle Ages, to the tradition of extolling by the knight of his lovely
woman. A genuine attempt to communicate must be made by the speaker, and speaking with an
aesthetic and creative focus is necessary. It should go without saying that different linguistic
personalities employ various speech techniques while producing a complement, and the choice
of these techniques is influenced by the diverse personal communication preferences of the
speakers. However, as evidenced by studies of commonplace discourse, a significant factor in the
decision of intragenre techniques is the kind of language personality of the speech addressee. It
is no accident that the primary rhetorical advice for this genre emphasizes "loving attention to
the addressee and polish."
In fact, the desire to win over the speaker is what leads to a praise. And one must be aware
of a man's unique characteristics, including the quirks of his language personality, in order to
arouse pleasant feelings in him. Because of this, the main criteria for a compliment are harmony
(compliments are given to people in different ways depending on their age, the speaker's level of
closeness to them, etc.), and the appropriate circumstance (in some cases, the speaker can praise
the recipient's appearance, in other cases the speaker can praise the recipient's intellect, etc.). In
addition, a complement must be genuine and substantial, which is in line with the conventions
of cooperative communication. (Gorelov & Sedov, 2005, pp. 180-181)
There are several justifications for praise. First and foremost, it is a useful tool for "achieving
the addressee's devotion and laying the foundations of long-lasting and successful
communication" (Sadokhin, 2010, p. 139). Additionally, compliments are given out of courtesy.
On the other hand, compliments are frequently given in hopes of receiving one in return: “You
scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Regarding the reciprocal nature of a compliment, F.
Laroshfuko said: “As a rule, we praise other people just to hear words of praise addressed to

15
ourselves”. There are also other reasons: “We sometimes extol the valour of one person to
humiliate another person” (Laroshfuko, 1990).
Finally, two motives that stand out among flattery and self-interest are praise making and
personal gain.
Regarding the effect on the recipient and the value of compliments generally, it is necessary
to note that, first and foremost, compliments meet the psychological need for good emotions
that is the most important for a person, and they also have educational value. Additionally,
being able to see our own positive traits in others allows us to do the same for ourselves (Soon
http://lifecouachesblog.com).
Words of appreciation have been described by Victor Hugo as a kiss through a veil.
Consequently, the significance of complementing one another lies in making the other person
happy. Therefore, the value of complimenting as a verbal activity lies in the fact that it
establishes the basis for effective communication, fosters positive relationships with the
addressee, influences him in the addresser's favor, puts him in the right mood, has educational
significance, and increases both the addresser's and addressee's estimation and self-estimation.
Let us now consider the functions of compliments. What function does complimenting
serve in interpersonal communication?
Given that praises can serve a variety of purposes at various times, it is clear that there is no
one correct response to this issue. Their pragmatic and sociolinguistic characteristics imply that
they perform a variety of functions in interaction. They may be used to strengthen the bond of
friendship between the speaker and the recipient, to make conversation easier, and to bridge
social gaps between interlocutors. Additionally, they can be employed in place of or in addition
to other speech act formulations. In this part, we'll try to look at each of these roles to
demonstrate the potential value of compliments in casual conversation.
Increase and consolidation of interlocutor solidarity is one of the most noticeable effects of
praise. Holmes (1988) asserts that compliments are often seen as favorably affective speech
actions directed at the addressee and operate as a potent tool for camaraderie and support. As a
result, they are employed as a tool to establish and strengthen positive social bonds, which in

16
turn affirms human solidarity and compassion in a variety of circumstances. Here is an example
that demonstrates this function in detail:
Context: two women, good friends, meeting in the lift at their work place.
C. Hi how are you. Youre looking just terrific.
R. Thanks. Im pretty good.
(Holmes, 1988:447)
Additionally, compliments can be used to facilitate conversation. Especially when they are
not too intimate, people typically utilize them as a simple way of communication. Additionally,
it's well acknowledged that compliments are a great way to strike up a discussion, connect with
someone, and improve communication between parties. Additionally, compliments provide
speakers a boost of confidence, which motivates them to be more productive in their
communication. By doing this, compliments serve as effective tools that assist to bridge the
social gap between individuals, which in turn helps them feel more at ease engaging with one
another.
As noted by wolfson (1983b), middle-class American English speakers frequently utilize
praises to amplify or even replace other speech act formulae. For instance, compliments are
frequently used in place of or in addition to expressions of gratitude, regret, and greeting. In
fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which compliments might serve as a suitable form of
expression of gratitude. They are typically conveyed in this way as a reaction to the delivery of a
service. According to Wolfson (1983b:88),
In most traditional American families, for example, it is expected that the wife will prepare
meals and therefore it is inappropriate for the husband or children to thank her for this service.
The appropriate expression of appreciation in this situation is a compliment on the tastiness of
the food.
Regarding apologies, there are several instances in which praises are given in addition to or
instead of apologies. Although this kind of conduct is commonly utilized when status is uneven,
it is also highly common in encounters with intimates: Even more intriguingly, praises can be a
useful tool for muting criticism. This is especially useful when the interactants are in a

17
relationship that is expected to last and when it is preferable to maintain harmony. This pairing
is prevalent in conversations that take place at work as well as in conversations between close
friends, when a candid assessment is frequently followed by a complement.
Conversely, compliments may cause discomfort in the recipients since they may reflect
certain components of jealously on the part of the complimenter and her/his desire to own
something that belongs to the recipient. This is seen in a variety of countries, but it is more
pronounced in some cultural situations, as that of the Samoans, where expressing appreciation
for an item makes the addressee obligated to give it to the complimenter. The following example
is given by Holmes (1988:449) to demonstrate this phenomenon:
Context: Pekeha (i.e New Zealander of European origin) to Samoan friend whom she is
visiting.
C. What an unusual necklace. It’s beautiful.
R. Please take it.
It is important to distinguish between the concept of a complement and generic favorable
assessments when defining one.
The distinction is in the function carried out: whereas a complement "indirectly attributes
credit to the recipient," a broad favorable review serves the purpose of providing judgment.
(Holmes, 1995:117)
A variety of terms that relate to compliments are available in language, including accolade,
cajole, eulogize, flatter, pay-tribute, praise, and sweet-talk, albeit they are not all completely
semantically similar. It is sufficient to compare the ideas of compliment and flattery in order to
determine the difference. While the former conveys a speaker's favorable attitude toward the
listener, the latter may suggest something entirely different (envy, jealousy and even hostile
attitude). The variation in their use also relies on the occasion, location, and even socioeconomic
standing of the parties involved in a complementing scenario. A distinct separation between the
ideas is required to enable accuracy in the analysis of compliments.
Most times, compliments are given using predetermined patterns or formulaic terms. Lack of
originality was identified as a key characteristic by Manes and Wolfson, who conducted the first

18
and most significant study on compliments that served as the foundation for numerous future
works. Given this widespread belief regarding compliments, Manes and Wolfson revealed and
systematized a large number of formulaic compliment patterns. (1981, Manes & Wolfson)
According to Schegloff and Sacks (1973), the act of complimenting is considered an
adjacency pair (turn-taking) activity and consists of two parts: the complement and the
compliment response.
-Oh, you must admit that she’s got a lovely voice.
-She certainly has. (Holmes 1988: 447).
The two have each been examined separately in the majority of speech act literature. For
instance, Herbert (1986) and Pomerantz (1978) looked at complement responses while Wolfson
and Manes (1981) looked at the format and substance of American compliments. Although
linguists have examined the first and second pair elements separately, complimenting and
responding to compliments are two closely related activities that both serve as a means of
negotiating unity.
2.2 Functions of Compliments Keeping Social Ties and Solidarity
Key speech actions that are utilized in everyday settings to express appreciation and
congratulations to others or to respond to their praise and compliments are compliments and
compliment responses11 (Holmes, 1986:485-508). They are especially significant because they
represent cultural values and are seen as evaluations and statements of admiration for the work
of others (Nelson, Bakary, & Al-Batal, 1996:109-128)12. To communicate praises and
complement answers, speakers employ a variety of terminology and linguistic devices. The
frequency with which compliments and complement answers are used by speakers also varies 13
(Golato, 2003).

11
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics,
28(4), 485-508.
12
Nelson, G., Bakary, W. & Al-Batal, M. (1996). Egyptian and American compliments: Focus on second language
learners. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges To Communication In A Second
Language (pp. 109-128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
13
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring
talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90-121.
19
 The social environment in which compliments are given, as well as the participants' gender
and social position, determine how often they occur.
A variety of societal purposes are served by compliments (Leech, 1983). Between what is
stated and what is meant, there may be a chasm. The participants' gender, socioeconomic class,
and cultural identity are only a few of the many factors that might affect the character of an
expression (Ruhi, 2006). To preserve harmony in a relationship, maintain one's appearance,
follow accepted social conventions, or as part of an interactional strategy, one may congratulate
another.
The various language forms that speakers employ to convey praises are explained by the
variation in reasons. To congratulate someone on their achievement, for instance, you may say
"Congratulations!" "I am really glad for you," or "That is amazing!"
There are several purposes served by compliments. To keep social relationships and links
strong is one of their key responsibilities (Holmes, 1988). Acts of flattery are primarily attempts
to strengthen social ties between the speaker and the recipient. It has been said that
compliments are similar to the "social lubricants" that help individuals get to know one another
(Wolfson, 1983, p. 89). When examining the purposes of compliments, Holmes and Brown
(1987) found that they are given to highlight a person's positive traits in order to build social
bonds and foster social solidarity. Holmes (1986) asserted that the purpose of compliments is to
emphasize unity and close any gaps that may have been created by offenses.
In general, compliments are meant to make other people feel at ease and content. A
complement carries an emotional value, according to Schmidt and Richards (1980). This
demonstrates how a compliment is a speech act that, depending on how it is delivered, may
either help or damage the listener's sentiments. Compliments may be a helpful politeness tactic
that is intended to strengthen interpersonal bonds (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
According to Billmyer (1990) and Zhan (2010), praises frequently serve a variety of socio-
cultural purposes. The usage of compliments serves a variety of social functions, such as
demonstrating reverence and respect or demonstrating closeness and unity (Watts, 2003). The

20
complimenter tries to strengthen social relationships by making others feel good about
themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193988/
https://www.universalclass.com/articles/business/communication-studies/politeness-theory.htm

21