All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Gender

This priority order means that the subcategory of HA alone (i.e. AM) is the primary choice, two subcategories of SM alone (i.e. APC and EPC) and one of HA+SM (i.e. AM+EPC) are the secondary, and the remained subcategories of HA+SM (i.e. AM+APC) and SM (i.e. APC+EPC) are the tertiary.

Originally, HA alone, compared with SM alone, shows no significant difference in section 4.2.4.1.1. But the priority order above shows that people, in fact, use the subcategory of HA significantly more frequently than the other subcategories of SM.

In other words, Hypothesis A-1 (see this hypothesis in page 2) is verified when subcategories of HA and SM are compared. Obviously, direct and efficient method to show agreement is preferred.

For subcategories of SM, this priority order also indicates that using either APC or EPC alone is much more frequently than using APC+EPC. Like what have been mentioned in 4.2.5, using multiple elements of SMs seems to be redundant.

For subcategories of HA+SM, the priority order means that people apply

AM+EPC significantly more than AM+APC. As what have been discussed in 4.2.6.1, behind an HA, to provide extra information about the discussed referent (by EPC) is less redundant than to repeat the agreed evaluation (by APC).

4.2.7.2. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Gender

This section discusses the distributions of six agreement subcategories by gender.

Table 20 shows the inventory of agreement categories by speaker’s gender, by hearer’s gender, and by both speaker’s and hearer’s genders. After divided into six

AM > >

‧

subcategories of agreement by genders, data in each cell become low in frequency, especially AM+APC and APC+EPC. Additionally, significant differences are hard to found among any two of subcategories which are in low frequency. Therefore, it is difficult to arrange the priority order of these subcategories by gender, and thus, only comparisons between AM and the other five subcategories are discussed below.

Besides, because each subcategory by gender has been discussed in section 4.2.1.2, 4.2.5.2, and 4.2.6.2, those discussions are not repeated here.

Table 20. Inventory of agreement categories by speaker’s gender versus by hearer’s gender

(AM=Agreement Marker; APC=Agreed Propositional Content; EPC=Extra Propositional Content; Numbers in parentheses are frequencies.)

Subcate

4.2.7.2.1. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Speaker’s Gender

Table 21 below shows statistic results of the comparison between AM and five other subcategories of agreement by male speakers and by female speakers,

respectively. Following Table 21, related analyses and discussions are given.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Table 21. Significant differences among categories of agreement by speaker’s gender

(*= P<.05)

Speaker's Gender

Pairs Male Female

AM--APC .007* .026*

AM--EPC .017* .159

AM--AM+APC .009* .006*

AM--AM+EPC .021* .017*

AM--APC+EPC .005* .012*

This table indicates that for male speakers, AM is used significantly more often than the other five subcategories of agreement.

By contrast, women apply both AM and EPC frequently. Like what have been mentioned before, EPCs, such as specifying or extending the discussed evaluation, seem to be an important way how women make agreement. In this way, people show listenership and consensus at the same time.

When AM is compared with the other five subcategories of agreement, male and female speakers share the same pattern in general: AM is the most preferred one. Like what have been discussed above, AM alone is the most direct and simplest type to satisfy hearer’s wants to be agreed with. Thus, men and women do not differentiate from each other on the preference of applying AM.

4.2.7.2.2. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Hearer’s Gender

When hearer’s gender alone is examined, Table 22 below lists statistic results, which are similar to those by speaker’s gender. Related analyses and discussions are given after the presentation of Table 22.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Table 22. Significant differences among categories of agreement by hearer’s gender

(*= P<.05)

Hearer's Gender

Pairs Male Female

AM--APC .017* .012*

AM--EPC .015* .176

AM--AM+APC .010* .006*

AM--AM+EPC .024* .016*

AM--APC+EPC .013* .005*

According to Table 22, male hearers receive significantly more AM than the other five subcategories of agreement.

When speaking to female hearers, AM is also significantly different from other categories of agreement, except from EPC. It means that besides AM, women frequently receive EPC as well. As what have been mentioned many times, one possible reason for frequent occurrences of EPC is that people may think female hearers like to be agreed by building on each other’s contribution to show listenership, intimacy, and agreement at the same time.

Based on the results above, when AM is compared with the other five subcategories of agreement, men and women share the pattern of receiving AM mostly. AM as the efficient and simple way to show agreement may be the reason why both male and female hearers receive them mostly.

4.2.7.2.3. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender

When both speaker’s and hearer’s genders are examined, statistic results between four gender groups’ AM and other five categories of agreement are listed in Table 23 below. Following Table 23, related analyses and discussions are given.

‧

Table 23. Significant differences among categories of agreement by both speaker’s and hearer’s genders

According to Table 23, both MF’s and FM’s AMs are significantly different from other categories of agreement, except FM’s AM from APC. By contrast, no significant difference is located in MM’s and FF’s usage of these six subcategories of agreement.

In other words, in cross-sex conversations, both men and women rely heavily on AM.

It seems that both male and female speakers think that efficiency of information is the first priority when agreeing with the opposite-sex hearers.