Subcategories of SM (Supportive Moves)

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

think that SM is quite enough to fulfill women’s wants to be agreed with, no need to add HA into it.

3. SM vs. HA+SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender

When both speaker’s and hearer’s genders are considered, no significant difference is found between SM and HA+SM by all of the four gender groups. In other words, four gender groups use SM and HA+SM equally frequently.

4.2.5. Subcategories of SM (Supportive Moves)

In this section, different types of SMs are compared together. After the general discussion of subcategories of SM, the influence of gender is analyzed. Subcategories of SM include: Agreed Propositional Content (APC), Extra Propositional Content (EPC), and Agree Propositional Content with Extra Propositional Content

(APC+EPC).

4.2.5.1. Subcategories of SM by Subjects as a Whole

Table 14 shows comparisons among subcategories of SM. According to this table, the elements of SMs can be single (namely, APCs and EPCs) and multiple (namely, APC+EPCs). Related analyses and discussions are given after the presentation of Table 14.

Table 14. Comparisons among different subcategories of supportive moves

(APC = Agreed Propositional Content; EPC = Extra Propositional Content;

*=P<.05; Numbers in parentheses are frequencies.)

APC EPC APC+EPC Total P

42.6% (23) 40.7% (22) 16.7% (9) 100.0% (54) APC:APC+EPC=.014*

EPC:APC+EPC=.038*

According to Table 14, speakers chose almost equal amounts of APC and EPC (42.6% and 40.7%, respectively). Speakers use APCs, as the repetition of old

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

information, to agree with their interlocutors, and use EPCs, as new information provided to elaborate what the previous speakers contribute, to make agreement.

As for APC+EPC, which scores much lower than the other two subcategories of SMs, the statistic result seems to suggest that, in showing agreement, it is unnecessary to use both old information and new information. Instead, repetition of old

information alone or addition of new information alone would be quite enough.

In addition, statistic results indicate that APC and EPC are both significantly different from APC+EPC (P=.014 and P=.038, respectively), but not significantly different from each other (P=.910).

4.2.5.2. Subcategories of SM by Gender

In this section, the influence of gender is examined for the use of the

subcategories of SMs. The distributions of SM by gender are presented in Table 15.

Following Table 15, related analyses and discussions are given.

‧

Table 15. Subcategories of supportive moves by gender

(SM= Supportive moves; APC= Agreed Propositional Contents; EPC=

Extra Propositional Contents; Numbers in parentheses are frequencies;

*=P<.05; -= no significant difference found in any two subcategories of SM or in any two of four gender groups.)

SM’s

4.2.5.2.1. Subcategories of SM by Speaker’s Gender

(1) According to Table 15, speaker’s gender does not influence their usage of either APC or EPC.

(2) Significant gender difference is shown only when APC is used together with EPC (P=.009). Furthermore, female speakers use APC+EPCs significantly more than men do. The statistic result seems to indicate that women consider using multiple elements in SM (i.e. APC+EPC) to make agreement as appropriate, whereas, for men, it may sound verbose to make agreement by multiple elements in SM. In other words, female speakers show agreement to their interlocutors by flouting the Quantity Maxim of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP), while male speakers choose to conform the Quantity Maxim.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

(3) Another pattern is found in Table 15: Men’s APC and EPC are both significantly different from APC+EPC (P=.014 and P=.020, respectively). It means that when men choose to use SMs to make agreement, they either choose APC or EPC, but rarely APC+EPC. It is likely that, to men, proffering multiple elements in agreement is verbose. For efficiency of information exchange, as long as APC or EPC alone is sufficient to secure the clarity of the message, there is no need to use APC+EPC. By contrast, in women’s group, no significant difference is located between any two of the three subcategories of SMs.

4.2.5.2.2. Subcategories of SM by Hearer’s Gender

(1) As indicated in Table 15, no significant difference by hearer’s gender is found when APC is used with or without EPC. However, significant gender difference is found in the comparison of EPC’s received by male and female hearers (P=.048).

To be specific, female hearers receive more EPCs than male hearers do. It may be because speakers think female hearers prefer to be agreed by EPC which is often constructed by the ways, such as specifying or extending what they have contributed to. In this way, people show listenership and empathy at the same time.

(2) When APC, EPC, and APC+EPC are compared, the only significant gender difference is found on the comparison between EPCs and APC+EPCs when the speakers talk to female hearers (P=.020). To be specific, female hearers receive much more EPCs than APC+EPCs. It means that people like to support female hearers by using EPC alone. After all, using multiple elements in SMs are redundant.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

4.2.5.2.3. Subcategories of SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender

(1) As indicated in Table 15, no significant difference by any two of the four gender groups is found when APC is used with or without EPC. Among the three subcategories of SMs, significant gender difference is only found in the usage of EPC, which is between the comparison of FF and FM (P=.015). According to Table 15, female speakers use EPCs to female hearers more often than to male hearers. In other words, women are significantly influenced by hearer’s gender on the usage of EPCs. EPCs, which build on the previous interlocutor’s turn with further elaboration, are meant to fulfill the functions of politeness, solidarity, and rapport, which, according to Tannen (1990), are highly revered by women.

Therefore, in FF conversation, since both interlocutors are female, EPCs are used more frequently than in other situations.

(2) When APCs, EPCs, and APC+EPCs are compared, significant difference is only located in the comparison between APC and APC+EPC by MF group, with APC overriding APC+EPC (P=.015). It means that when agreeing with others, men put emphasis on efficiency of information, and the addition of EPC is redundant to them.