Sophia Junior College Faculty Journal
Vol. 31, 2011, 35-50

Compliment Responses and Study Abroad1
Emi Fukasawa
Abstract
This study revealed the changes of compliment responses of seven Japanese university students after five months study abroad. Bi-weekly questionnaire exchange displayed a variety of activities and attitudes during the stay. After the stay, compliment
responses of students who had short amounts of outside classroom communication in
English became directly expressed their self-assessment in English. However, some stillretained the influence of Japanese. On the other hand, students who had long hours ofmeeting with native speakers of English outside classroom explained more details toverify their self-assessment of the topic of compliment.

1. Introduction
Recently in Japan, there are many schools offering study abroad programs. It
seems useful for students, but some questions came up to my mind. Is it really effective
if students just go to English-speaking countries? During the study abroad, what
do students actually do after class? And what kind of activities can foster students’pragmatic competence? These questions are the motive of this study.
This study analyzed the change of compliment responses and outside classroom
interaction during study abroad from the perspective of Interlanguage pragmatics. There
are two main focuses of the study. One is to look at the change of compliment responses
in English after the study abroad. The other is to show how students spent some freetime during the stay. By combining the two, this study will explore the relationshipbetween the time they spent outside classroom and the development of their pragmaticcompetence.

1 ．The original version of this study was presented at the 18th International Conference on Pragmatics andLanguage Learning held at Kobe University on July 21, 2010. The present paper has been revised reflecting
the comments and suggestions from the participants at the poster presentation. I would like to express mysincere gratitude to them for their helpful suggestions and comments.

─ 35 ─

Emi Fukasawa

2. Previous Studies
2.1. Compliment Responses
Compliment responses are one type of social interaction in everyday life. Whena compliment is given by a speaker, normally a compliment response follows. It is an
ordinary exchange, but also it can be an object of study if we look at it as a cultural
behavior. Although there are plenty of previous studies on compliment responses,
most of them focused on the difference of compliment responses between languages(e.g., Pomerantz, 1978; Herbert, 1986, 1989; Herbert & Straight, 1989; Valdés & Pino,
1981; Saito & Beecken, 1997; Chen, 1993; Han, 1992; Nelson, Al-Batal, & Echols,
1996; Rose, 2000; Shimizu, 2004, 2009; Ruhi, 2006; Yokota, 1986; Terao, 1996; Hirata,
1999; Satoh, 2005; Ohno, 2005; Nakamura, 2008; Matsuura, 2007). To clarify thedifference, the authors categorized compliment responses into several groups. One of
the categorizations was offered by Holmes (1987). She divided compliment responses
into three major categories: acceptance, deflection or evasion, and rejection. Acceptanceis to accept the compliment, and it is the category includes such sentences as “Thankyou”, “I think it’s lovely, too”, while deflection or evasion means to avoid saying either
agreement or disagreement. For example, it can be an explanation of the target of thecompliment, such as “My mother knitted it.” Rejection means to disagree with thecompliment; it would be “I’m afraid I don’t like it much” (Holmes, 1987, p. 492). Dividing
responses in different languages into these categories shows how compliments differ
between languages and cultures. However, aside from this great contribution on studies
of compliment response, most previous studies just focused on cross-sectional aspects.
In other words, developmental aspects have not been fully investigated except for a few
studies (e.g., Rose, 2000; Kasper & Kite, 2002; Ishihara, 2003 for teaching).

2.2. Study Abroad
Previous studies on study abroad have been conducted from a wide range ofperspectives such as focus on development of skills (reading, listening), individual
aspects (motivation, attitude), and comparison with immersion programs. Furthermore,
there are some studies focused on development of pragmatics and study abroad orlearning context (Kondo, 1997; Matsumura, 2003; Kim, 2000; Taguchi, 2008; Regan,
1995, 1998; Hassal, 2006). Matsumura (2003) and Kim (2000) suggested that how theyspent their time outside classrooms could influence on pragmatic development.

─ 36 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

Matsumura attempted to reveal whether the amount of exposure to English during
study abroad in Canada might be an indicator of pragmatic development (p. 467). By
using a multiple choice questionnaire before, in the middle, and after the study abroad,he mentioned that amount of exposure can indicate development of pragmaticcompetence. Also the amount of exposure is influenced by levels of proficiency. Anotherspeech act study was conducted by Kim (2000). Kim examined the correlations ofEnglish informal input and pragmatic ability (apology and request) of Koreans in ESL
context.2 The variables were the amount of input outside the classroom, such as office,roommates, English books, magazines, radio, and TV. As a result, the time spent withEnglish-speaking friends and working in an English environment office gave thecorrelations with performance. This study suggests that the importance of contextual
factors which would exert influence on the learner’s acquiring pragmatic competence
should be considered for further studies (Kasper & Rose, 2001). From these studies, it isassumed that social context might have some influence on learners’ pragmaticcompetence. However, it is still unclear from previous studies what the students actually
do in the outside classroom contacts in order to develop pragmatic competence.

2.3. Research Question
From the literature review, this study aims to clarify the following points:- To show what students do and how long students meet native speakers ofEnglish outside the classrooms during study abroad-T o reveal the pragmatic development (i.e., compliment response) after study
abroadTherefore, the research question is:
Can students who had spent longer times with native speakers outside classrooms
develop their pragmatic competence (i.e., compliment response) more?

3. Methodology
As for the participants, seven university students (sophomores at the time of datacollection) voluntarily took part in this study. Their major was English communication.

2 ．The participants were people who lived in an English-speaking country instead of people who were in a study
abroad program.

─ 37 ─

Emi Fukasawa

The level of English proficiency was in TOEIC score between 400 and 450. Theirassumed names are Aki, Ikuko, Izumi, Orie, Natsu, Hiroko, and Miyuki.

3.1. Program Description
This study abroad program is required as part of the credit by a private women’s
university in Japan. The students stayed in the U.S. for 5 months. The aims of thisprogram are to develop English skill intensely in the second language context and tolearn American culture. During the program, they stayed in a dormitory with Japaneseroommates and took language classes with them. The classes were held at the dormitory
every weekday with teachers who were native speakers of English. Along with them,
there were native English speaking staff at the dormitory, such as the director whoorganizes the stay, a school nurse who checks the students’ health, security guards,
chefs, school bus drivers, and so on. Although students could meet them frequently,
they didn’t live in the dorm with the students. However, there were also RAs (resident
assistants) who help students’ life. They were native speakers of English living in thesame dormitory as students and took care of them. Also, students could meet local people
outside the dormitory. The program offered a conversation partner who is a family or anindividual so that the students could choose either one. The partners are native speakers
of English and they could spend some time together. There were no requirements tomeet, so it was up to the individual negotiation how many times they met. Lastly, allof the students had almost the same amount of formal teaching at their dormitory, notat an American university or college. Therefore, especially for these students, it was
assumed that how they spend their time outside classrooms can differentiate their lives.

3.2. Data Collection
Data 1: Compliment responses
Data collection was held before and after the study abroad to collect theircompliment response by oral discourse completion test (hereafter, ODCT). The
participants were asked to read the descriptions of the situations and replied to what
they had heard (in this case, compliments) from IC recorder. After the participants
listened to the recorded compliment, then they reply to it as if they were in the realsituation. There are three reasons that ODCT was used in this study. First of all,ODCT could control variables of compliment situations. Secondly, the stimulus (i.e.,─ 38 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

compliment) should be the same for every participant. If the compliment is recorded,
it will be deprived of the effects of other audio-related issues, such as the variationof tone of voice or the way of speech of each compliment. Thirdly, writing a response
could be different from speaking in conversation. When writing, the participants canconsider the response before writing it, but this pause is not realistic in the actual
situation. Therefore, the oral version of DCT was used in this study. Eight situationsof complimenting were designed by a combination of three variables (Table 1):complimenter (the person who gives a compliment is higher or equal status: teacher orfriend), topic of compliment (accomplishment or belongings: speech or shoes), and selfevaluation (positive or negative: positive self-evaluation means that the students thinks
the object of compliment is good, and negative self-evaluation means that she thinks
it is not good). These variables were introduced from previous studies of compliments
and were found to be important factors for hearers to determine the response (Holmes,
1988; Matsuura, 2007 for complimentor’s status and topic; Saito & Beecken, 1997;
Shimizu, 2004 for self-evaluation). Since the combinations of these three variables havenot been investigated yet, they will be the object of this study. See below for examples ofsituations.

Examples of situations 3[Situation A: Teacher, Speech, Positive self-evaluation]
You make a speech in your class. You think you did a beautiful speech. After theclass, your teacher comes up to you and says “Your speech was good!” Then what
would you say?
[Situation H: Friend, Shoes, Negative self-evaluation]
You are wearing a pair of shoes that you don’t like. At school, your friend says toyou “I like your shoes!” Then what would you say?

3 ．Situations were written in Japanese for the Japanese participants, but the compliment was given in English.

─ 39 ─

Emi Fukasawa

Table 1. Situations of ODCT.
Situations

Complimenter

Topic of complimentSelf-evaluationA

Teacher

SpeechPositive

B

Teacher

Shoes

Positive

C

FriendSpeechNegative

D

FriendShoes

PositiveE

Teacher

SpeechNegativeF

Teacher

Shoes

Negative

G

FriendSpeechPositive

H

FriendShoes

Negative

To compare the learners’ data with the response of native speakers, the researcher
also collected baseline data. The data were obtained from Americans who were exchange
students in Tokyo at the time of the data collection. They took the same ODCT as
Japanese participants but used an English prompt.
Data 2: Bi-weekly questionnaire and interview
To learn about their outside classroom activities, a questionnaire4 was used. The
questionnaire was based on the Language Contact Profile (LCP) by Freed et al. (2004),
and was modified to fit the case of this study. The questionnaire that is used in thisstudy consists of 16 questions, mainly asking the amount of time that the subjects spent
with native speakers outside class. For example, “how many hours did you spend withRA (teachers, staff, friends, host family, volunteer workers5 , and others)?” There wasalso a free comment section to fill in whatever they would like to write about what kindof activities they did with them. Since the students stayed five months and thequestionnaire was given once in two weeks, ten questionnaires were collected in total.
The language of the questionnaire was Japanese, which was the subjects’ native
language in order to make it easier to write their comments freely without feeling thestress of writing English.
In addition to the questionnaire, interviews were used to support the questionnairedata. The interviews were held twice: before and after the study abroad. After the
ODCT, the researcher asked several questions about the ODCT and impressions on

4 ．The questionnaire was designed after conducting pilot tests to the students who participated in the same
program previously.

5 ．If the students wanted, they could participate in several volunteer programs offered by local institutions.

─ 40 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

study abroad. Allotted time on interview session varied depending on the participants’characteristics. Some were very friendly and some were very shy. The subjects were nottaught the aim of the study except that my interest was in communication in English.

3.3. Analysis
For the analysis, students’ responses which were collected by ODCT weretranscribed and coded using semantic formula analysis (Yokota, 1986; Saito & Beecken,
1997; Shimizu, 2004). In this study, the results will be shown as a comparison of the
responses according to the amount of outside classroom interaction. Students’ responses
were categorized into three groups (long group, middle group, and short group). At thesame time, ten questionnaires were collected in order to know how long and what they
did during the stay after the classes. Their comments from their bi-weekly questionnaire
and interviews before and after the study abroad were also examined to show theirattitude toward the study abroad.

4. Results
4.1. Amount of Outside Classroom Interaction
By collecting questionnaires, we could know how long and with whom the students
met after the classes. Figure 1 is the total amount of outside classroom interaction withnative speakers outside class.
Figure 1. Total amount of outside classroom interaction with native
speakers outside classroom.

─ 41 ─

Emi Fukasawa

As we can see from this graph, RAs and teachers seemed to be popular since all of thestudents had interaction with them. RAs and teachers were the closest native speakers
whom students could contact with. Especially for Orie, who had the lowest amount ofinteraction, more than half of her total hours of meeting with native speakers was spent
with RAs. In other words, she didn’t seek for other opportunities to use English outsideclass even though she was in the second language situation. Aki has the second lowest
amount of interaction, but she participated in various interactions with native speakers.
Ikuko has third lowest amount of interaction and her outside classroom interaction was
mostly with native speaker friends. Hiroko and Izumi had different kind of opportunities
to use English outside classrooms. Hiroko had a problem with her roommate so that sheneeded to consult with several staff members constantly to solve her problem. Izumi
voluntarily participated in the public ESL classes after school. Miyuki and Natsu both
spent a lot of time with their host family. They could meet their host family frequently,
which is why they had long hours to meet them. Natsu’s host family invited her to cometo family gatherings on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Miyuki had good relationship withher host family, especially with her host grandfather.
Also, their attitude almost correlated with the number of hours spent outside theclassrooms. It was shown from the students’ comments, and we could know that thestudents who had positive comments had more variety and spent longer times withnative speakers. There was a tendency that the longer amount of time and wider varietyof occasions they had spent with native speakers, the more positive their attitude was(Fukasawa, 2008b). Also, a positive attitude toward study abroad and target language
may influence the opportunities to have a variety of interactions (Fukasawa, 2009).

4.2. Change of Compliment Responses
The other result is the change of compliment responses. After the study abroad,students’ compliment responses differed in some ways. In this section, the change ofcompliment responses will be shown according to the amount of hours spent outsideclassroom. The students were divided into three groups according to the hours spentoutside classroom: short group (less than 50 hours), middle group (50~100 hours), andlong group (over 100 hours). Orie and Aki belong to short group, Hiroko, Izumi, andIkuko are in the middle group, and Miyuki and Natsu were in the long group. Averages
are 34.5, 85.7, and 177.5 hours respectively. There are several changes of students’compliment responses in each group.

─ 42 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

Short GroupOne of the changes of compliment responses for the short group was explicit
presentation of self-assessment. This means that the students started to say what they
thought about the topic of the compliment explicitly, both positively and negatively
according to the self-evaluation of the situation. The examples are shown below.
(1) Before: Thank you.
After:

Um, thank you. I think so.

[Aki, Situation G](2) Before:	Thank you, but I want, more good, more good, ah I want to better, thannow.
After:	Really? Um I don’t think so. Um I I think uh I did uh do my speech more …
		more … good?

[Orie, Situation C]

In the example (1), Aki just said “Thank you” before the stay and then after the stay,
she added “I think so”. Her response expresses her positive self-assessment. This
direct expression of positive self-evaluation was also found in other participants’ data.
However, the only direct expression of negative self-evaluation as (2) tended to be foundin the short group.
The second characteristic of compliment response of the short group is an influenceof Japanese. The students did the same ODCT in Japanese also, and they sometimes
said “Hokano ga hosii [I want to buy another one]”, or “Kaetai [I want to changeit]”. These responses may imply that the speaker isn’t satisfied with the topic of thecompliment. However, this strategy was found only in Japanese response data; thenative speakers of English never used these kinds of expressions. Below is the exampleof Orie.
(3) Before: Really? I don’t like it. Um…I want to another shoes.
After:

Really? Um I don’t like this shoes. I want to… buy ah… another one.

						

[Orie, Situation H]

If you look at this example of Orie, she said “I want to another shoes” or “I want to buy
another one” even after the stay. Therefore, even after the study abroad, this Japanese
way of response remained.

─ 43 ─

Emi Fukasawa

Middle GroupIn the middle group, the characteristic of compliment response varied depending on
the student. Izumi, for example, had characteristics of both short group and long group.
(4) Before:	Thank you, but I’m not, ah I’m not satisfaction with my speech. So haveto I have to study more hard.
After:

Thank you, but I didn’t like it. I want to to better presentation.

						

[Izumi, Situation C](5) Before:	Thank you, but I don’t like this shoes so much. I want to look for
another one.
After:	Thank you very much, but I don’t like this color. This is because uh thisis my mother’s choice, so I don’t like this.
						

[Izumi, Situation F]

Her response after the study abroad directly expressed her negative self-evaluation
as in (4), while in (5), her response became detailed, in addition to the explicit selfevaluation. Hiroko, the other student in middle group, also responded in the similar way
which contained both characteristics of short group and long group as Izumi’s case. On
the other hand, Ikuko who was also in the middle group, responded in relatively direct,
short responses both before and after the study abroad.

Long GroupThe long group showed more variety. In addition to the strategies used by theshort group, it was found that Miyuki in the long group used indirect expression of selfassessment. Indirect here means without saying her self-assessment but only implying
it. For example, English native speakers would say “Thank you. I think I could havedone a little better though.” This response tells disagreement of the compliment without
saying it directly. However, these indirect ways of negative self-assessment expressions
were rarely found in students’ responses (6).
(6) English native speakers: Thank you. I think I could have done a little better though.
Student / Before:		

After:

I don’t think so.
Thank you very much. I want to do it again.

─ 44 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad						

[Miyuki, Situation E]

Miyuki from the long group said before the stay “I don’t think so.” This response is direct
because it tells disagreement explicitly. Then after the stay, she said “Thank you verymuch. I want to do it again.” In this case, although it is not exactly the same expression
as that of native speakers saying indirect negative self-assessment, it seems that she
tried to tell her disagreement indirectly. Indirect disagreement is considered as a resultof face-redress (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This student, Miyuki, spent a lot of time withher host family. Moreover, she spent a lot of time with self-study too. So these otherfactors might also affect the change of her compliment responses.
The next characteristic of long group was to be able to add detailed explanation
after showing self assessment.
(7) Before:	Thank you but…I I don’t think so. I want to do, more…I want to speak
English more well?
After:

Thank you, but I don’t think so. I…I want to practice my pronunciation more.

						

[Natsu, Situation E]

Natsu said before the stay “Thank you but…I I don’t think so. I want to do, more…I
want to speak English more well.” In this response, firstly she said her self assessment
then after that she just expressed her regret. On the other hand, after the study abroad,she could say what she wanted to improve in her speech as in “Thank you, but I don’t
think so. I…I want to practice my pronunciation more.” In this response, she expressed
not only her self-assessment, but also adding reason or explanation to back it up.
Also we can know that she tries to specify what was insufficient to accept the praise
confidently.
To sum up the results, the way of expressions of compliment response had changed
after the study abroad. The change appeared differently in the responses of students
according to how long they spent outside the classrooms with native speakers.

5. Discussion
As shown in the previous section, the amount of time spent with native speakers
can lead to different uses of expressions of responses. The change found in students
of shorter amount of outside classroom English use was to show their self-evaluation

─ 45 ─

Emi Fukasawa

clearly, especially when they disagreed with the compliment. On the other hand, thestudents who had longer amount of outside classroom interaction added information
to validate the self-evaluation. As a result, students who spent longer time with native
speakers would be able to express their thoughts clearly and gained more variety of ways
to do so. Therefore, from a wider range of expressions of responses, they could choose
more appropriate one that they thought was suitable to the situation. This is becausethat students who had more chances of meeting with native speakers might have moreneeds to adjust distance between the interlocutors by using appropriate expressions inorder to maintain good relationship. To be safer, they might have more chances to use
English at least compared to the students who had shorter amount of time spent withnative speakers of English. Therefore, it would be beneficial for students to have some
opportunities to meet native speakers of English outside classroom to be able to attaina wider variety of expressions of compliment responses. It is important not only to haveopportunities to meet native speakers but also to maintain the relationship because thisstudy showed the certain amount of using English outside classroom made a difference.
For example, Ikuko met with native speaker friends frequently, but the times wereshort and her responses didn’t show many changes. Therefore, when opportunities to use
English outside classroom continue with good relationships, it would be an ideal chance
to learn pragmatic aspect of English.
In terms of the compliment responses, even though the variety of expression had
widened, the expressions were not always similar to the responses of native speakers ofEnglish. Rather, native speakers tended to respond in formulaic expressions and withless variety than the learners in all the situations. In that case, is the change of students’compliment response not the development? If “development” means to be closer to thenative speakers’ norm, because the students’ responses didn’t become the same as thenative speakers’ responses, the students’ pragmatic competence of change of compliment
responses in this study wouldn’t show any development. However, “development”
might mean that it is not necessary to become closer to the native speakers’ use, but itwould be appropriate to mean that to broaden the range of expressions that students
can choose from. Ideally, the variety of expressions that the students can use should be
wide because they can choose the better one according to the situation. The answer tothe research question; can students who had spent longer times with native speakers
outside classrooms develop their pragmatic competence (i.e., compliment response)more? is, from the results presented in this study, the students who had spent longer
outside classrooms could have more variety of expressions to respond to compliments.

─ 46 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

Then the ultimate goal of the attaining pragmatic competence is to be able to choose
the one which the learner thinks it would be appropriate after considering situational
aspects. As Fukasawa (2008a) suggested, there may be two levels of development in the
responses to compliments. One may be expressing what the learner thinks, and the next
may be considering how the interlocutor would take the responses. Therefore, learning asecond language requires going beyond just expressing thoughts, considering situations
and interlocutor.
As for the pedagogical implication, particularly for students in this study abroad
program, keeping a diary was helpful for them to be reflective on their lives. Someof them commented that they could reflect on what they had done so far by doing so.
Therefore, keeping a diary or writing essays can be helpful to be objective during thestay. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, providing opportunities to meet people outsideclassroom could be a beneficial chance to learn pragmatic knowledge.
One of the limitations of this study is the small number of subjects. This study
was a case study but the few subjects could lead to biased results. The further study
needs more data to obtain clear results. Another is uncertainty of the actual chancesof being complimented or seeing compliment responses by native speakers. Even if theparticipants declared their amount of hours of meeting with native speakers outsideclassroom, it didn’t guarantee that they had compliment situations within these hours.
Therefore, for the further studies, the chances of compliment response should be asked
in addition to the amount of the outside classroom interaction.

6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study had attempted to explore the relationship between
development of pragmatic competence and outside classroom interaction with native
speakers during study abroad. Students who had longer and more friendly connections
with native speakers could express their responses in a variety of ways. They will
be used in order to adjust compliment responses according to the situations andrelationships with interlocutor. Therefore, it should be beneficial for study abroad
students to have active participation in the social activities with local people. The
students will ideally engage in social activities continuously to be able to establish more
profound connections. Then the students would realize the need to learn pragmatics.
The basic of learning pragmatics is always to consider the relationship with interlocutor
and to choose the expressions that are appropriate for the situation in order to be polite─ 47 ─

Emi Fukasawa

and maintain relationship. Study abroad is a fruitful experience for learners fromforeign language context because they could be exposed to plenty of opportunities tolearn pragmatic knowledge.

References
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies
between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact
profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349-356.
Fukasawa, E. (2008a). Appreciation tokens used in compliment responses: A casestudy of English learners who had study abroad. Proceedings of Sophia University
Linguistic Society, 23, 2-18.
Fukasawa, E. (2008b). Outside classroom interaction during study abroad. Paper
presented at the 34th annual international conference of the Japan Association for
Language Teaching, Tokyo, Japan.
Fukasawa, E. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward study abroad. Paper presented atthe 35th annual international conference of the Japan Association for Language
Teaching, Shizuoka, Japan.
Han, C. H. (1992). A comparative study of compliment responses: Korean females
in Korean interactions and in English interactions. Penn working papers in
Educational Linguistics, 8, 17-31.
Hassal, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. A.
DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 3158). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Herbert, R. K. (1986). Say ‘thank you’- or something. American Speech, 61 (1), 76-88.
Herbert, R. K. (1989). The ethnography of English compliments and compliment
responses: A contrastive sketch. In W. Olesky (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics. (pp.
3-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herbert, R. K., & Straight, H. S. (1989). Compliment-rejection versus complimentavoidance: Listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies. Language
and Communication, 9, 35-47.
Hirata, M. (1999). Homekotoba eno hento [Responses to compliments]. Yokohama─ 48 ─Compliment Responses and Study Abroad

Kokuritsu Daigaku Ryugakusei Senta Kiyo, 6, 38-47.
Ishihara, N. (2003). Giving and responding to compliments. In K. Bardovi-Harlig and
R. Mahan-Taylor (Eds.), Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English
Language Programs, US Department of State. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://exchanges.state.gov/media/oelp/teaching-pragmatics/giving.pdf.
Kasper, G., & Kite, Y. (2002). Pragmatics in a college-level EFL curriculum. Kansai
Daigaku Foreign Language Education, 3, 53-71.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2003). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Kim, I. O. (2000). Relationship of Onset Age of ESL Acquisition and Extent of Informal
Input to Appropriateness and Nativeness in Performing Four Speech Acts in
English: A Study of Native Korean Adult Speakers of ESL. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, New York University.
Kondo, S. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners ofEnglish: longitudinal study on interlanguage apologies. Sophia Linguistica, 41, 265-284.
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach tosecond-language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635-679.
Matsuura, H. (2007). Compliment response styles most favored by Japanese EFL
students. Fukushima University Journal of Commerce, Economics, and Economic
History, 75 (4), 17-32.
Menking, S. (2004). Enhanced English speaking skills: A short-term study abroad.
Studies in Language and Culture: Memoirs of the Faculty of Law and Literature, 16,
49-64. Shimane University.
Nakamura, K. (2008). Home eno hento sutoratezi no nichidoku taisyo kenkyu : home no
kaisyaku, outou ni miru bunkateki sai [Contrastive study of compliment response
strategies: Cultural differences on interpretation of compliments and compliment
response]. Gogaku Kyouiku Kenkyu Ronso, 25, 219-235.
Nelson, G. L., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment
responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17 (4), 411-432.
Ohno, M. (2005). Home no ito to meue eno otonituite: sinario danwa ni okeru taigu
komyunikesyon to shiteno cyousa kara. [Compliment intention and response toseniors: From investigation as politeness communication in scenario discourse.]
Shakaigengokagaku, 7 (2), 88-96.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple
constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational─ 49 ─

Emi Fukasawa

interaction (pp. 79-112). New York: Academic Press.
Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year
abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed (Ed.) Second language
acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 245-267). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Regan, V. (1998). Sociolinguistic and language learning in a study abroad context.
Frontiers, 4, 61-90.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.
Ruhi, S. (2006). Politeness in compliment responses: A perspective from naturally
occurring exchanges in Turkish. Pragmatics, 16:1, 43-101.
Saito, H., & Beecken, M. (1997). An approach to instruction of pragmatic aspects:
Implications of pragmatic transfer by American learners of Japanese. Modern
Language Journal, 81, 363-377.
Satoh, K. (2005). Japanese compliment response behavior: An aspect of Japanese
facework. The Bulletin of Yokohama City University, Humanities, 57, 49-74.
Shimizu, T. (2004). Interlanguage compliment responses: A bi-directional investigation oflearner’s first and second languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof London.
Shimizu, T. (2009). Influence of learning context on L2 pragmatic realization: A
comparison between JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In N. Taguchi.
(Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 167-198). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic
comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58, 33-71.
Terao, R. (1996). Homekotoba eno hento sutairu [Response styles to compliments].
Nihongogaku, 15, 81-88.
Valdés, G., & Pino, C. (1981). Muy a tus ordenes: Compliment responses among Mexican
American bilinguals. Language in Society, 10, 53-72.
Yokota, J. (1986). Homerareta toki no hento ni okeru bokokugo kara nosyakaigengogakuteki ten’i [Sociolinguistic transfer from the native language inthe responses to compliments]. Nihongo kyoiku [Journal of Japanese Language
Teaching], 58, 203-223.

─ 50 ─