Gender aspect of hedging

Грибанова Т.И., старший преподаватель кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка факультета английского языка Московского государственного лингвистического университета.

For the purpose of the present research a total of 40 samples of authentic informal speech situations, both oral and written, have been subjected to thorough linguistic, contextual, comparative gender analysis. The participants (15 males and 15 females) were British and American expats currently working in Moscow. All of them had degrees of American and European universities above BA. The age of the participants ranged from 27 to 45.

The materials for the research have been obtained from informal emails, telephone conversations and samples of face-to-face communication.

The speech samples are provided by the participants themselves. The emails are taken in the form they were originally written. The oral samples (telephone talks and face-to-face communication) were recorded by the speakers and granted to the authors for analysis. In all cases the participants' permission to use their private information was obtained.

The research questions to be discussed are as follows:

The overall frequency of the hedging devices subjected to analysis is summed up in the pie-chart below (fig. 1).

The distribution of hedges in the two types of informal English, oral and written, proves that they are more common in oral speech:

One of the tasks set for the given research was to identify the role of the context in gender-marked communication, for this reason the hedging devices for the analysis were obtained from two types of contexts: mixed (male-to-female conversation) and non-mixed (male-to-male conversation, female-to-female conversation). The statistics prove that there is no significant difference in the use of hedges between these two types of contexts. Compare the overall distribution of hedges: mixed conversations - 53 %, non-mixed conversations - 47 %.

The analysis shows comparative frequencies of hedging devices in non-mixed oral contexts: 45 % of instances in F-F contexts against 55 % instances in M-M contexts.

Figure 2. Hedge distribution in Non-mixed oral communication

In both contexts the most common are lexical hedges (37 % and 34 % of instances accordingly), whereas the least frequent is that of morphological hedges (15 % and 18 % of instances), e. g.:

• Discussing a friend at a party:

He's as mad as she is but... sort of uncoordinated. His legs're going in different directions (the lexical hedge sort of - in a F-F oral context)

• Calling a father:

Can I skip this sort of family reunion?

(the lexical hedge sort of - in a M-M oral context)

• Calling a sister on a rainy day:

It's absolutely hammering here now - all my lovely sunflowers might be knocked over... (a morphological hedge - a modal verb - in a F-F oral context)

• Talking about a colleague:

How's Fiona? - Oh, she's fine, might get promotion soon (a morphological hedge - a modal verb - in a M-M oral context)

Meta-discursive devices - pauses, hesitations - rank second in F-F oral contexts (26 %) and third in M-M oral contexts (21 %), e. g.:

• Discussing a weekend:

...meant to be a week doing lots of work ... er ... but wake up feeling this ... er ...great. - Too much partying at the weekend? (a meta-discursive hedge - a pause - in a F-F oral context)

• Talking about fishing:

I don't really fish Chesil, so I haven't really had ...er ... problems with spider crabs there and I never had a feeling of this ... er ... stuff (a meta- discursive hedge - a hesitation - in a M-M oral context)

Syntactic means prove to be more common in conversations between males. Compare: M-M - 27 %, F-F - 22 % of instances. E.g.:

• Discussing shopping on line:

I've looked for the old VW repair book on line. - You don't have one? (a syntactic hedge - a declarative used for questioning - in a M-M oral context)

• Discussing booking a hotel:

They charge about two thousand per night. But that's the average there, you know. (the syntactic hedge you know - in a M-M oral context)

• Talking to a roommate:

Where's that cheese we bought? - Fridge, I think.

(the syntactic hedge I think - in a F-F oral context)

The analysis of non-mixed informal written contexts points to the gender-neutral usage of the majority of hedging devices: 57 % of hedges in F-F contexts and 43 % hedges in M-M contexts.

Figure 3. Hedge distribution in Non-mixed written communication

Noticeable gender-related difference in the non-mixed written contexts analyzed is of qualitative character. M-M contexts are characterized by greater variability of syntactic hedging devices, male speakers tend to employ a whole range of hedges, while females tend to use I think, I suppose, and declaratives used for questioning. E. g.:

• Writing to a son:

I'm not sure, son. I could stay for another couple of days if there's no call from the office (a syntactic means - an if-clause - in a M-M context)

• Discussing a new house:

They've nearly finished all the building work, haven't they?

(a syntactic means - a tag-question - in a M-M context)

• Discussing a friend's family problems:

How is he taking the divorce thing? - Okay, I suppose.

(a syntactic means - the structure I suppose - in a M-M context)

• Writing about repair work:

Guys, anyone used this? - Jim, please, explain? (a syntactic means - a declarative used for questioning - in a M-M context)

• During a coffee break:

You all right for coffee, Jen? - Yeah, I'm all right, thanks.

(a syntactic means - a declarative used for questioning - in a F-F context)

As for the use of passive forms for hedging, they are traced in both types of contexts, although their frequency is low: 1 instance in F-F contexts, and 2 instances in M-M contexts. E. g.:

• Discussing a friend:

She just got picked up as a print model (a F-F context)

• Giving sugar to horses on a farm:

I wasn't sure I was allowed to do that when we drove in. - I'm surprised you were allowed to pass him without doing it (a M-M context)

• Booking plane tickets:

This had better get done today, until the cheapest are sold out (a M-M context)

The statistics for the mixed contexts suggest that the frequency of hedging devices used in oral speech - telephone calls and face-to-face communication (75 %) - is three times as high as in written e-mails (25 %).

The analysis of mixed-context oral communication reveals the predominant usage of lexical (44 %) and syntactic (27 %) hedging devices. E. g.:

• Describing a business trip:

M. I was down in ... er ...a place called ... erm ... down in the Urals as well, ... erm ... Katherinburg. It's kind of east of Moscow.

F It's about two thousand km, right? (the lexical hedges - kind of, about)

• Talking about a dog:

F Today's walk was too long for Holly, wasn't it?

M. I guess so. (syntactic devices - a tag-question and I guess)

In the mixed contexts subjected to analysis, unlike the non-mixed ones, morphological hedges (modal verbs) proved to be more common than meta-discursive devices: 19 % and 10 % correspondingly. E. g.:

• Talking about friends:

F Kas said she may be down in the pub later today

M. This might interest Doug. (morphological devices - modal verbs)

Figure 4. Hedge distribution in mixed oral communication

Figure 5. Hedge distribution in mixed written communication

• Talking on the phone:

M. Thanks ever so much. Sorry about the delay.

F. That's okay ... er ...right, where were we?

(meta-discursive devices - pauses)

The mixed written contexts under analysis display a similar distribution of hedging devices compared to mixed oral contexts. The only difference revealed was absence of meta-discursive devices. E. g.:

• An email to a daughter moving to a Northern state:

So these'll be okay in ice and snow and stuff? It's kind of hard sometimes though, isn't it? (the lexical hedge kind of)

• Spouses talking:

Think it might help with the moth problem, right?

(the syntactic hedge right)

• Talking to a male relative:

F. Hope you might listen in, know you'll have questions to ask us.

M. I'll try to tune in, Jenny. (a morphological device - the modal verb)

According to the data obtained, gender-related differences in mixed- context communication can be traced both at the quantitative level (the frequency of hedging devices in oral speech is higher) and at the qualitative level (meta-discursive devices are not found in writing).

Hedges in gender-marked contexts: functional diversity

In the course of the research, a link between gender and the function of the hedge was revealed. gendered hedge communication pattern

The example below is obtained from a conversation between two male clients at a veterinary clinic, e. g.:

Um ... if you take your dying dog to the vet and ask ... ask for sort of supporting medication, let's say a restorative or something like that, you expect an immediate reaction.

This passage contains several communicative clues: pauses, stammering and hesitations. The hedge is found in the mid-position. These features contribute to interpreting sort of as a means of expressing imprecision, which clearly indicates the speaker's struggle for searching an appropriate lexical item.

The next example illustrates the epistemic power of the hedge kind of, ^e. g.:

M-M: Could be free - or kinda free.

The example below demonstrates the affective power of the expression sort of in a discussion about redistributing chores between the male roommates, e. g.:

Why - sort... sort of why do you think that you have the right to decide for us all?

In this case the hedge is used not to indicate uncertainty but to mitigate disagreement, performing the function of face protection [Goffman 1955]. The mitigated proposition allows the speaker to disclaim responsibility for the act of denial.

Kind of can also be used to express affect rather than mitigation, e. g.:

M-F: What? I can't be kind of beast father and a tough grandfather?

The data obtained prove that the affective sort of and kind of are found in communicative situations covering emotional and confrontational topics.

Clear cut gender-related differences were observed in the use of you know. When used epistemically, this hedge signals imprecision, lack of confidence and lack of assurance. It is generally found at the end of utterances and in oral communication bears a rising tone, e. g.:

• Two female friends talking:

I'm such a slow writer, it would be a dismal, you know.

When used affectively, you know appeals to the listener's involvement.

It is found both at the end and at the beginning of the utterance, e. g.:

• A man talking to his wife:

I'm a total noob with tie tying, you know.

• Reproaching a friend:

You know, you should have said it an hour ago.

* Refusing a date:

My next weekend is booked up, you know.

According to the collected data, the epistemic you know is used by both males (46 %) and females (54 %) in mixed and non-mixed contexts.

The affective you know is more typical of males' speech (60 %). When used in females' speech (40 %), the affective you know contributes to building up rapport.

Conclusion

Epistemic hedges are used by males and females in a similar way: they show imprecision, uncertainty and indicate the speakers' non-commitment to what is being discussed. Significant gender-related differences were observed in the use of affective hedges. Females used them to build rapport and express solidarity, whereas males - to express independence and power.