Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Hedging in Iranian English language teachers’ spoken language: Any differential effect for gender?

Leila Tajik / Ameneh Ramezani
Published Online: 2018-08-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0016

Abstract

Despite the importance attached in the literature to the use of hedges, the study of hedging has been shown to target, mainly, the written corpora of various types and so remains neglected in naturally occurring speech. Moreover, the existing discussion predominantly encompass cross-cultural variation in the use of hedging devices and gender as a variable has largely been overlooked. This study was conducted to shed more light on the differences between 4 Iranian male and female English instructors’use of hedging and its different realizations in their actual speech. One teaching session of each instructor was videotaped and the instructors were asked to view their video and to recollect their reasons for resorting to different activities for teaching. Their recollections were recorded and transcribed. Based on Hyland’s classification of hedges, the frequency and realization of hedging in male and female corpus were identified. Results showed considerable differences in the overall distribution of hedges as well as certain types of hedging linguistic devices throughout the male and female corpus.

Keywords: Hedging; gender; spoken language; ELT

References

  • Alajmi, Haya H. 2015. Gender and hedging: Translatibility of difference in Agatha Christie’s third girl. MA thesis. American University of Sharjah.Google Scholar

  • Atai, Mahmoodreza and Lela Sadr. 2006. A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Paper presented at the 10th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope. 1980. How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. Women and Language in Literature and Society, 111-136.Google Scholar

  • Carr, Thomas H. and Tim Curran. 1994. Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences: applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 5-30.Google Scholar

  • Clyne, Michael. 1987. Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications for Anglo-German academic communication in English. In Smith, Larry E. (ed.), Discourse across cultures. Strategies in World Englishes, 73-83. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Coates, Jennifer. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85, 100 - 131.Google Scholar

  • Crismore, Avon and William J. Vande Kopple. 1997. The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes of readers in the United States toward material in a science textbook. In Dusak, Anna (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, 223-247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Crompton, Peter. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dixon, John A. and Don H. Foster. 1997. Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 89-107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Farr, Fiona and Anne O’Keeffe. 2002. Would as a hedging device in an Irish context: An intra-varietal comparison of institutionalised spoken interaction. Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, 9, 25-48.Google Scholar

  • Fortanet, Inmaculada and Tony Dudley-Evans. 1998. Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castello, Spain: Servei de Publicacions-Universitat Jaume I, Castello, Spain.Google Scholar

  • Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. New Approaches to Hedging, 15-34.Google Scholar

  • Hassani, Mohammad Taghi and Motahareh Dastjani Farahani. 2014. A discourse analysis of gender differences in the use of hedging devices in applied linguistics research articles. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 59-73.Google Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet. 1983. Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In Brumfit, Chrostopher (Ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistics perspectives, 100-121. London: CILT.Google Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27(1), 47-62.Google Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet. 2013. Women, men and politeness. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1995. The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 18, 33-42.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1996. Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System 24(4), 477-490.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1998a. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1998b. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Candlin, Chrostopher and Ken Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts: Processes and practices, 99-121. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.Google Scholar

  • Jalilifar, Alireza and Maryam Alavi-Nia. 2011. Power and Politics of Language Use: A Survey of Hedging Devices in Political Interviews. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3(3), 43-66.Google Scholar

  • Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2006. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19-36.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman’s place. Language in society, 2(1), 45-79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lewin, Beverly A. 2005. Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163-178.Google Scholar

  • Makatchev, Maxim and Reid Simmons. 2011. Perception of personality and naturalness through dialogues by native speakers of American English and Arabic. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference, 286-293. Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar

  • Markkanen, Rajja and Hartmut Schroder (Eds.). 1997. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mauranen, Anna. 1997. Hedging in language revisers’ hands. In Markkanen, Rajja and Hartmut Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts 115-133. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Meijer, Paulien C., Nico Verloop and Douwe Beijaard. 2002. Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality and Quantity, 36 (2), 145-167.Google Scholar

  • Montgomery, Martin. 1995. An introduction to language and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Myers, Greg. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nugroho, Aylanda. 2004. The contradiction of certainty and uncertainty in hedging and its implications to language teaching. k@ta, 4(1), 26-34.Google Scholar

  • Poos, Deanna and Rita Simpson. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Reppen, Randi, Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Douglas Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation 3-21. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Prokofieva, Anna and Julia Hirschberg. 2014. Hedging and speaker commitment. In 5th International Workshop on Emotion, Social Signals, Sentiment and Linked Open Data. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

  • Rounds, Patricia. 1982. Hedging in written academic discourse: Precision and flexibility. Mimeo, Michigan: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar

  • Salager-Meyer, Francoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Samaie, Mahmoud, Fereshteh Khosravian and Mahnaz Boghayeri. 2014. The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678-1685.Google Scholar

  • Skelton, John. 1988. The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43.Google Scholar

  • Subon, Frankie. 2013. Gender differences in the use of linguistic forms in the speech of men and women in the Malaysian context. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(3), 67-79.Google Scholar

  • Taweel, Abeer Q., Emad M. Rafayah Saidat, A. Hussein and Ahmad M. Saidat. 2011. Hedging in political discourse. The Linguistic Journal, 5(1), 169-196.Google Scholar

  • Vassileva, Irena. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ventola, Eija. 1997. Modalization: Probability-an exploration into its role in academic writing. In Duszak, Anna (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monograph 104, 157-179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Vold, Eva Thue. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross‐linguistic and cross‐disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning & Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Zuck, Joyce Glimour and Louice V. Zuck. 1986. Hedging in newswriting. In Cornu, Anne Marie, J. Vanparijs and Marieke Delahaye (Eds.) Beads or Bracelets: How Do We Approach LSP? (pp. 172-181). Leuven: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-09

Accepted: 2018-05-29

Published Online: 2018-08-01


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 310–322, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0016.

Export Citation

© 2018 Leila Tajik, Ameneh Ramezani, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in