Chapter 5 Data Analysis (2): Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement
5.1. Amounts of Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement
5.1.2. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement by Gender
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(4) Based on the results above, strategies in TRS can be classified into three groups:
In the priority order, “EMP” stands for emphasis, “ELA” stands for elaboration,
“ACC” stands for account, and “CLAR” stands for clarification. It means that people’s priority order of applying TRS in agreement is emphasis, followed by elaboration, and which in turn followed by account and clarification.
(5) For IRS, both supporting and concession are frequently applied, which are not significantly different from each other (P=.911).
5.1.2. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement by Gender
This section presents the result on how gender influences pragmatic strategies in agreement, which is rarely examined in the previous studies of agreement (Pomerantz, 1984; Kotthoff, 1993; Kuo, 1994; Mulkay, 1985; Baym, 1996; Rattai, 2003). In the following sections of pragmatic strategies by gender, because account and
clarification are rarely applied, statistic test mainly focuses on the comparison between emphasis versus elaboration in TRS, and on the comparison between supporting and concession in IRS. In Table 41, pragmatic strategies in agreement by gender are presented with statistic results.
{ }
CLAR ACCEMP > ELA >
‧
Table 41. Pragmatic strategies in agreement by gender
(TRS=Textual Rhetoric Strategy; IRS= Interpersonal Rhetoric Strategy;
EMP= Emphasis; ELA=Elaboration; ACC=Account; CLAR=Clarification;
SUP=Supporting; CONC=Concession; Numbers in parentheses are frequencies; -=P>.05; *=P<.05)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.1.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement by Speaker’s Gender
(1) For TRS and IRS by speaker’s gender, statistic results indicate that gender does not significantly influence the usage of any strategy. It means that men use every strategy as frequently as women do.
(2) But when gender by strategies are considered, statistic results indicate the only significant difference occurs on the comparison between male speakers’ emphasis and elaboration (P=.014). Emphasis is often realized by adding intensifiers to strengthen what people agree with. In other words, emphasis can be used to strengthen the force of agreement efficiently. By contrast, elaboration may take people much effort to perform it. And male speakers may think that when agreeing with others, efficiency of information exchange is important, so emphasis is used much more than elaboration by male speakers.
(3) Female speakers frequently apply both emphasis and elaboration, which without significant difference found. Based on the statistic results above, the priority orders of strategies in TRS for male and female speakers are listed below.
For male speakers:
For female speakers:
The priority orders show that for men, TRS can be grouped into three categories;
whereas, TRS can only be grouped into two categories for women. In other words, the priority order of TRS for male and female speakers is different on the order of
elaboration. The reason for women to frequently apply elaboration is probably
{ }
CLAR ACCEMP > ELA >
{ }
EMP >ELA
{ }
CLAR ACC‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
because they think it is also a good way to make agreement by adding related information. In this way, female speakers show politeness because they cost selves more and benefit others who receive extra information, according to the Generosity Maxim and the Tact Maxim of Leech’s politeness principle (1983).
5.1.2.2. Pragmatic Strategy in Agreement by Hearer’s Gender
(1) The result of pragmatic strategies in agreement by hearer’s gender is in accordance with the result by speaker’s gender. When strategies by gender are compared, no significant differences are found in each use of TRS and IRS. It means that men receive every strategy as frequent as women do.
(2) However, when men and women by strategies are compared, significant differences emerges. Similar to the speaker’s perspective, emphasis and
elaboration by male hearers also show significantly difference (P=.027), but not those by female hearers (P=.077). Then, women’s account is significantly different from clarification (P=.049), but not those for men. Based on the statistic results above, the priority orders of TRS for male and female hearers are listed below.
For male hearers:
For female hearers:
The results above suggest that hearer’s gender is an influential factor on people’s performance of elaboration and account. When talking to male hearers, people mostly perform emphasis in agreement. But when talking to female hearers, besides the usage
{ }
CLAR ACCEMP > ELA >
{ }
EMP >ELA ACC > CLAR
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of emphasis, people’s priority order of elaboration and account is advanced. Therefore, gender is a factor influencing hearer’s receipt of TRS. In most cases, the strategies of elaboration and account are used to deal with insufficiency of information. When it comes to the Quantity Maxim in Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), it means that people may think female hearers’ upper bound of Quantity Maxim is higher than male hearers’. Female hearers may prefer to be agreed by the benefit of receiving extra information. Therefore, to fulfill female hearers’ positive face wants, people could make an agreement by extending more about the discussed referents.
5.1.2.3. Pragmatic Strategy in Agreement by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender
(1) For pragmatic strategies by four gender groups, statistic results indicate no significant differences are located in the usage of every strategy. In other words, when four gender groups are compared, no strategy is specifically performed by a certain group. Both speaker’s and hearer’s genders are not significant factors here.
(2) When different strategies are compared, the only significant difference is found between MF’s emphasis and elaboration (P=.016). It means that when talking to female hearers, male speakers rely on emphasis most of time. Emphasis, which is often realized by intensifiers, could be efficiently added in agreement without much effort. Thus, it can be inferred that when making agreement, when agreeing with female hearers, men put emphasis on the efficiency of expression.