View More View Less
  • 1 Huazhong University of Science & Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan, 430074, China
  • | 2 Durham University Elvet Riverside, New Elvet, Durham, DH1 3JT, United Kingdom
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

This paper aims to examine gender differences in hedging in Chinese–English conference interpreting based on a transcribed parallel corpus. The point of departure was to test Holmes’s (1986, 1988a) claims that women do not necessarily employ more hedges than men but that women’s use of hedges tends to focus more on interpersonal relationships while men’s is more on propositional precision. Hyland’s (1996a, 1996b) model in which hedges were categorized into accuracy-oriented, speaker-oriented and audience-oriented, has been adapted for this end. Our finding shows that male interpreters actually employ more hedges than their female counterparts on the whole. In particular, their accuracy-oriented and speaker-oriented hedges exceed those of female interpreters, but not for audience-oriented ones. To find out whether these differences were caused by the source texts per se or by interpreters’ manipulation, we named four types of interpreting approach towards hedge items: direct transfer, indirect transfer, shift and addition. The former two types were identified as source text interference while the latter two as interpreters’ manipulation. The results indicate that male interpreters exceed female interpreters in terms of shift and addition cases in all three types of hedges. The findings of the present study contribute to a more profound understanding of gender difference in language mediation and also have implications for future interpreter training.

  • Andreano, J. M. & Cahill, L. 2009. Sex Influences on the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. Learning and Memory Vol. 16. No. 4. 248266.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Auwera, J. V. D., Schalley, E. & Nuyts, J. 2005. Epistemic Possibility in a Slavonic Parallel Corpus – A Pilot Study. In: Karlik, P. & Hansen, B. (eds) Modality in Slavonic Languages, New Perspectives. München: Sagner. 201217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Crosby, F. & Nyquist, L. 1977. The Female Register: An Empirical Study of Lakoff’s Hypotheses. Language in Society Vol. 6. No. 3. 313322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crystal, D. 2002. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

  • Dixon, J. A. & Foster, D. H. 1997. Gender and Hedging: From Sex Differences to Situated Practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Vol. 26. No. 1. 89107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 4158.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying Illocutionary Force. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 8. No. 3. 345365.

  • Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of You Know in Women’s and Men’s Speech. Language in Society Vol. 15. No. 1. 121.

  • Holmes, J. 1988a. Sort of in New Zealand Women’s and Men’s Speech. Studia Linguistica Vol. 42. No. 2. 85121.

  • Holmes, J. 1988b. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. Applied Linguistics Vol. 9. No. 1. 2144.

  • Holmes, J. 1990. Hedges and Boosters in Women’s and Men’s Speech. Language and Communication Vol. 10. No. 3. 185205.

  • Hosman, L. A. 1989. The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech-styles. Human Communication Research Vol. 15. No. 3. 383406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hu, G. & Cao, F. 2011. Hedging and Boosting in Abstracts of Applied Linguistics Articles: A Comparative Study of English- and Chinese-medium Journals. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 43. No. 11. 27952809.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hu, K. & Tao, Q. 2013. The Chinese–English Conference Interpreting Corpus: Uses and Limitations. Meta Vol. 58. No. 3. 626642.

  • Hübler, A. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks. ESP Vol. 13. No. 3. 239256.

  • Hyland, K. 1996a. Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics Vol. 17. No. 4. 433454.

  • Hyland, K. 1996b. Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication Vol. 13. No. 2. 251281.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

  • Kranich, S. 2009. Epistemic Modality in English Popular Scientific Texts and their German Translations. Trans-kom Vol. 2. No. 1. 2641.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kranich, S. 2011. To Hedge or not to Hedge: The Use of Epistemic Modal Expressions in Popular Science in English Texts, English–German Translations, and German Original Texts. Text & Talk Vol. 31. No. 1. 7799.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic Vol. 2. No. 4. 458508.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper Colophon.

  • Liu, H. 2010. A corpus-based study of terms of address and politeness strategies in interpreted press conference texts. Unpublished PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magnifico, C. & Defrancq, B. forthcoming 2017. Hedges in Conference Interpreting: The Role of Gender. Interpreting Vol. 19. No. 1. Retrieved Oct. 5, 2016 from https://biblio.ugent.be/record/8053743

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. 1997. Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. In: Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. (eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. 318.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meyer, P. G. 1997. Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim. In: Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. (eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. 2141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miettinen, H. & Watson, G. 2013. ‘Sort of’ in British Women’s and Men’s Speech. English Language Teaching Vol. 6. No. 3. 108115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Monacelli, C. 2006. Implications of Translational Shifts in Interpreter-mediated Texts. Pragmatics Vol. 16. No. 4. 457473.

  • Myers, G. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics Vol. 10. No. 1. 135.

  • Namsaraev, V. 1997. Hedging in Russian Academic Writing in Sociological Texts. In: Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. (eds) Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. 6479.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. 2008. Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text Samples. Discourse Processes Vol. 45. No. 3. 211236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O'Barr, W. & Atkins, B. 1980. ‘Women’s language’ or ‘powerless language’? In: McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R. & Furman, N. (eds) Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger. 93110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peterlin, A. P. 2010. Hedging Devices in Slovene–English Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Nordic Journal of English Studies Vol. 9. No. 2. 171193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pinkham, J. 2000. The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

  • Preisler, B. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 13. No. 2. 149171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sergio, F. S. & Falbo, C. 2012. Studying Interpreting Through Corpora: An Introduction. In: Sergio, F. S. & Falbo, C. (eds) Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Bern: Peter Lang. 952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shi, Y. 施燕华. 2009. 外交翻译60 年. [Diplomatic Translation in 60 Years’ Time]. 中国翻译 [Chinese Translators Journal] No. 5. 912.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Speck, O., Ernst, T., Braun, J., Koch, C., Miller, E. & Chang, L. 2000. Gender Differences in the Functional Organization of the Brain for Working Memory. Neuroreport Vol. 11. No. 11. 25812585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, T. 2014. Interpreting China: Interpreters’ Mediation of Government Press Conferences in China. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Varttala, T. 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tampere, Finland.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vinay, J. P. & Darbelnet, J. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yaguchi, M., Iyeiri, Y. & Okabe, H. 2004. Style and Gender Differences in Formal Contexts: An Analysis of Sort of and Kind of Appearing in the Corpus of Spoken Professional American-English. English Corpus Studies No. 11. 6379.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yu, S. 2009. The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jan 2021 14 5 8
Feb 2021 4 4 5
Mar 2021 20 4 7
Apr 2021 16 2 3
May 2021 22 3 4
Jun 2021 9 1 2
Jul 2021 0 0 0