Chapter 3 Methodology
3.3. Classification of Agreement
3.3.2. Agreements with vs. without Contingency
Table 2. Six combinations of agreement by the head act and the supportive move (AM= Agreement Marker, APC= Agreed Propositional Content, EPC= Extra Propositional Content)
Nevertheless, the above classification of the structure of agreement is not enough.
No matter in the head act or the supportive move(s), there are many modifications to adjust the degrees of agreement. Henceforth, it is necessary to make further categorization on these modifications.
3.3.2. Agreements with vs. without Contingency
Pomerantz (1984) proposes that agreements can be divided into upgrading agreement, preserving agreement, and downgrading agreement according to the strength of agreement. In this thesis, these three types of agreement are grouped into agreement without contingency and agreement with contingency (as indicated in Figure 2).
2竹壽司and瞞著爹 are Japanese food restaurants.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 2. Decision tree of agreement
In using the former, the speaker shows complete agreement to the hearer; in using the latter, the speaker yields only partial agreement. In other words, when people agree without any hesitation, they choose upgrading agreement or preserving agreement as the first assessment. When people partially agree with the hearers, they choose downgrading agreements to indicate that their agreement to the hearer is under certain condition and/or to certain degree.
The following examples are used to illustrate the differences among upgrading, preserving, and downgrading agreements.
3.3.2.1. Upgrading Agreement
Upgrading agreement, which is often realized by intensifiers and stronger evaluative terms, occurs when people strengthen the force of agreement (Pomerantz, 1984; Kuo, 1994; Mulkay, 1985; Baym, 1996; Rattai, 2003). Example (2) below is one of the examples of this kind.
Agreements
Without Contingency With Contingency
Upgraded Preserved Downgraded Agreements Agreements Agreements
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(2)
A: ..eh 為什麼這種事情…(0.6)然後..那我如果講你<L2 care L2>嗎 B: …(0.6)是不會很<L2 care L2>可是沒有很想講就是了
T1A: ..不是啊譬如說我..我如果碰到<L2 Febe L2>然後我就丟..eh..那那 個我猜牙套美少女..她就會說<L3 khaupe L3>喔
T2B: (0)她當然會說<L3 khaupe L3>啊
In example (2), Speaker B agrees that the girl about whom they are discussed would become angry when people make fun of her by mentioning her experience of joining in a TV show. Speaker B adds the intensifier “當然” when repeating the assumed reaction in order to strengthen his agreement. Because of the intensifier, Speaker A is assured of Speaker B’s opinion as same as his own. And the second turn (T2) is as an upgrading agreement in this thesis.
3.3.2.2. Preserving Agreement
A preserving agreement, which is often realized by repeating or completing the previous speaker’s turn, is used to express evaluation of equal strength toward the referent (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Coates, 1989). It can be illustrated by example (3).
(3)
T1A: ..反正她超酷的啊
T2B: ..她超..超酷的啊 3
Speaker A and Speaker B talk about a super star named Beyonce. After speaker A describes Beyonce as a cool woman, speaker B agrees with speaker A by repeating his contribution “她超酷的阿” with no other modifiers. By the repetition in T2, the
3 According to phonological evidence of data, the terms “超” in T2 by speaker B is “pure” repetition which is not phonologically intensified.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
agreeing party expresses the same opinion toward the super star. Thus, T2 is a preserving agreement because the degree of agreement is neither strengthened nor weakened.
3.3.2.3. Downgrading Agreement
Downgrading agreement, which is often realized by alleviators or weaker evaluative terms, occurs when the strength of agreement is weakened (Pomerantz, 1984; Baym, 1996; Rattai, 2003). Two kinds of downgrading agreement are found in this thesis. The first one occurs when speakers make agreement under a condition with substantial propositional content. If without this condition, speakers may not agree with the previous speakers. The other kind of downgrading agreement occurs when no condition with substantial propositional content is found. People just make weakened agreement without any reason to show partial agreement. Example (4) is one example of agreement with substantial condition in which many alleviators are applied to perform a downgrading agreement.
(4)
A: (0)可是大家不會怕吧..愛校服務就去愛校服務..反正他也不要..他
也不想睡午覺…(1.2)[他就]覺得[[說]]
B: [對啦]..[[沒有沒有]]
A: ..[[[上課再補回來@@]]]
T1B: [[[可是他..有一個更]]]更猛的是..叫他們禮拜六來愛校服務
T2A: ..喔..那可能就會比較害怕一點
Speaker A originally maintains that students are not afraid of being punished and assigned to do Love-for-school service at midday. Speaker A thinks that the students would be happy to be punished because they do not need to take a nap, which they are not willing to do. Speaker B tries to persuade Speaker A that students will be afraid of being punished if the punishment is to be implemented on Saturdays, days for
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
students to relax and to play. In T2, even though Speaker A makes a concession and agrees on Speaker B’s evaluation, Speaker A modifies T2 with alleviators, “可能,”
“比較,” and “一點” to weaken the agreement force to show partial agreement. In other words, it is because the condition that punishment may be implemented on weekends, Speaker A agrees with Speaker B.
Example (5) is used to illustrate an downgrading agreement without a substantial condition.
(5)
A: (0)她超偏激的
T1B: ..唉唷她長大了啦..有啦她比較[[長大了]]
T2A: [[也是啦]][有啦]
In example (5), Speaker A considers their friend as “super” ultra at first. But after the persuasion from Speaker B in T1, Speaker A concedes and partially admits that the friend grows mature by the term “也是啦” without any other reasons or under any condition.