nc y Ostensible
Genuine
The comparison of ratios supports the hypothesis.
Z
0.05
=1.645
Z
observed
=42.85 42.85>>1.645 therefore
P
1
>P
2
(6) A hedges the invitation to B. A can show that his/her heart is not really in it by
hedging the invitation with such expressions as "?agar saretaan migirad," "?agar
maayel hastid," etc. In the sample, in 61.03% (412) of ostensible invitations A
hedges the invitation to B. However, in only 5.77% (39) of the genuine invitations
does A hedge the invitation to B. Again, the result of the comparison of ratios
supported the hypothesis that:
H 6 (P 1 >P 2 ): There is a meaningful difference in the amount of hedging between ostensible and genuine invitations. Z
0.05
=1.645
Z
observed
=27.81 27.81>>1.645 therefore
P
1
>P
2
Figure 4.1. represents the frequencies and the percentages of hedging formulas
for the ostensible exchanges in the corpus.
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
59
Graph A.5.: Heding strategies 350
29
64
19
9
1
9
20
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Sa
r (
sb
) ge
re
ftan
M
aay
el
bu
da
n
Q
aa
bel
daan
es
tan
Zahm
ati
nabu
da
n
Strategy Fr e qu e nc y Ostensible
Genuine
figure 4.1. Frequencies and percentages of hedging formulas
