Chapter 5 Data Analysis (2): Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement
5.5. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.5. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM (Supportive Moves) In this section, pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of SM are introduced by subjects as a whole, first. Then, how gender influences the performance of pragmatic strategies in these subcategories is investigated. Subcategories of SM include: APC (Agreed Propositional Content), EPC (Extra Propositional Content) and APC+EPC.
5.5.1. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Subjects as a Whole For pragmatic strategies performed in the subcategories of SMs, Table 50 shows the statistic result in details. Because after divided by these subcategories, data become lower in frequency. Hence, statistic results only focus on the comparisons between emphasis and elaboration in TRS. Because no significant difference is found in IRS, they are not discussed below.
‧
Table 50. Pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of supportive moves
(TRS= Textual Rhetoric Strategy; IRS= Interpersonal Rhetoric Strategy;
SM= Supportive Moves; APC= Agreed Propositional Content; EPC= Extra Propositional Content; Numbers in parentheses are frequencies; -=P>.05;
*=P<.05)
(1) For APCs, significant difference is only found in the comparison between emphasis and elaboration (P=.030). To be more specific, emphasis is performed much more frequently than elaboration in APC. As what have been mentioned above, APCs are the repetition of the agreed evaluation. Emphasis, mostly realized by intensifiers, can be used to strengthen the force of agreement. Compared with the original evaluation, the repeated evaluation with emphasis shows speaker’s sincerity to maximize agreement. Hence, emphasis is frequently used in APCs.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(2) For EPCs, significant difference is also located in the comparison between emphasis and elaboration (P=.004). But different from the results of APC, elaboration is the strategy performed much more frequently than emphasis. High percentage of elaboration in EPCs may be caused by EPCs’ nature. Similar to what have been mentioned above, EPCs are mostly made by new but relevant information about the discussed evaluation. And elaboration is the strategy performed by extending the previous speaker’s contribution. Therefore, elaboration frequently occurs in EPCs.
(3) For TRS in APC+EPCs, emphasis (15.1%) and elaboration (12.3%) are the strategies frequently used, which are insignificantly different from each other (P=.164). Because APC+EPCs are synthesis of APCs and EPCs, it is natural that strategies which occur mostly in both would also occur in APC+EPCs. Therefore, emphasis and elaboration are the strategies both perform frequently in
APC+EPCs.
(4) When APC and EPC are compared, a division of pragmatic labor is found:
Emphasis is often performed in APC, while elaboration is often performed in EPC.
5.5.2. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Gender
This section depicts how pragmatic strategies are applied by gender in the subcategories of SMs. Their pragmatic strategies performed in APC, EPC, and APC+EPC are presented below by the influence of speaker’s gender alone, hearer’s gender alone, and both speaker’s and hearer’s genders.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.5.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Speaker’s Gender For the investigation of speaker’s gender in the subcategories of SMs, Table 51 lists the distributions in next page. Related analyses and discussions are given after the presentation of Table 51.
‧
Table 51. Pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of supportive moves by speaker’s gender
(APC= Agreed Propositional Content; EPC= Extra Propositional Content;
-=P>.05; *=P<.05)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(1) For strategies by speaker’s gender, significant differences are only found in APC+EPC. That is, women’s emphasis and elaboration are both performed significantly more frequently than men’s ones (P=.021 and P=.042, respectively).
In other words, speaker’s gender has impact on how people proffer TRS in APC+EPC. One possible reason stems from frequencies of men’s and women’s APC+EPC. According to Table 15 in page 57, female speakers apply much more APC+EPC than male speakers do (P=.009). Correspondingly, the strategies women apply are much more than those men apply in APC+EPC.
(2) For comparisons by strategies, the first significant difference is located in APC.
That is, men’s emphasis is performed much more frequently than their elaboration (P=.030). Additionally, in TRS, emphasis is the only strategies men rely on when making agreement by APC. Emphasis is often realized by intensifiers. Thus, it means that men often make agreement by repeating the agreed evaluation with intensifiers. This pattern may mean that men put emphasis on the efficiency of expressing agreement because adding modifiers to APC may not take much effort.
Another explanation is about the Relevancy Maxim in Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975). To make agreement by repetition of the agreed evaluation with emphasis performed in it does not change the propositional content at all. Thus, men’s frequent application of APC with emphasis may mean that they value the Relevancy Maxim when making agreement. By contrast, in APC, female speakers’
use of emphasis and elaboration has no significant difference.
(3) For comparisons by strategies, another significant difference is located in EPC.
That is, men’s elaboration is performed much more frequently than their emphasis (P=.033). For women, despite of no significant difference found, their elaboration is also performed more frequently than emphasis. For all statistic results
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
mentioned in above sections, it is rare that elaboration is performed more than emphasis. Elaboration, which is often realized by specification or extension, brings new but related information about the discussed referent. Therefore, elaboration is structurally appropriate to occur in EPC.
(4) For IRS in APC, EPC, or in APC+EPC, no significant difference is located between the comparison of supporting and concession.
5.5.2.2. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Hearer’s Gender When hearer’s gender is concerned, distributions of pragmatic strategies occurring in subcategories of SMs are shown in Table 52. After the presentation of Table 52, related analyses are shown.
‧
Table 52. Pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of supportive moves by hearer’s gender
(APC= Agreed Propositional Content; EPC= Extra Propositional Content;
-=P>.05; *=P<.05)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(1) For strategies by gender, no significant difference is located in the use of pragmatic strategies in any subcategories of SM.
(2) Distributions of statistic results indicate that significant difference is only located between the comparison of female hearers’ emphasis and elaboration in EPC. To be more specific, when agreed by EPC, women receive elaboration much more frequently than emphasis. Like what have been discussed above, people may think that for women, elaboration is as a more important strategy than emphasis is. In other words, people may think to make information sufficient is a better way to show politeness and solidarity to women when making agreement by EPC.
5.5.2.3. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender
Table 53 below presents the outcome when both speaker’s and hearer’s genders are considered for pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of SMs. Following Table 53, related analyses and discussions are given.
‧
Table 53. Pragmatic strategies in the subcategories of supportive moves by both speaker’s and hearer’s genders
(TRS= Textual Rhetoric Strategy; IRS= Interpersonal Rhetoric Strategy;
APC= Agreed Propositional Content; EPC= Extra Propositional Content;
-=P>.05; *=P<.05)
Gender Subcategories Orientation
&Prag. Strategies
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(1) According to statistic results, significant differences are only located in EPC when four gender groups are compared. To be more specific, for TRS, only MF’s and FF’s elaborations are significantly different from each other (P=.045). In other words, speaker’s gender is a significant factor influencing female hearers’ receipt of elaboration. Similar to what have been mentioned above, elaboration in
women’s talk is an important strategy. Women who elaborate more about the discussed referent may want to show politeness and solidarity. When it comes to the Generosity Maxim and the Tact Maxim of politeness principle (Leech, 1983), women cost selves and benefit others a lot in the procedure of extra information transmission.
(2) Another significant difference is located on the comparison between MF’s and FF’s supporting (P=.047) when agreement is made by EPC. To be specific, when talking to female hearers, female speakers perform supporting much more than male speakers do. In other words, speaker’s gender has impact on female hearers’
receipt of supporting in IRS. Besides supporting, FF is also the only group who perform concession in EPC, despite of its low frequency. It means that FF is the only group who put emphasis on IRS. Perhaps it is because interlocutors in FF are both women so that they both pay more attention to maintain interpersonal
relationship than the other three groups.