This paper, part of a project on gender differences in simultaneous interpreting, analyzes possible gender-related trends in the use of hedges by professional interpreters and examines two hypotheses: (1) simultaneous interpretations, because of processing constraints, contain fewer hedges than the original speeches; (2) consistent with gender differences in spontaneous speech, women interpreters use more hedges than men. The research draws on Ghent University’s EPICG corpus of speeches at the European Parliament and their interpretations. Here, French speeches recorded in 2008 were compared with their English and Dutch interpretations in respect of hedging frequency. Statistical comparison was based on the chi-squared test. With regard to the first hypothesis, comparison of normalized frequencies (occurrences per 1000 words) shows that the interpreters in both language combinations used significantly more hedges than the speakers. The second hypothesis was tested by comparing data according to interpreters’ gender, factoring in the frequency of hedges in the source texts: women interpreters hedged more than men in both target languages, significantly so in Dutch. Regarding strategies that might account for the interpreters’ use of hedges (omission, translation, addition), the women interpreters made more additions than the men. Possible reasons for these patterns are discussed.
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J. & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre and writing in formal written texts. Text 23 (3), 321–346.
Aijmer, K., Foolen, A. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 101–114.
Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (Eds.) (2006). Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bachy, S., Dister, A., Francard, M., Geron, G., Giroul, V., Hambye, P., Simon, A.-C. & Wilmet, R. (2007). Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. [URL] (accessed 15 October 2013)
Barik, H. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta 16 (4), 199–210.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men and language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Coates, J. (1996). You know so I mean probably: Hedges and hedging. In J. Coates (Ed.), Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell, 152–173.
Coates, J. (1997). Women’s friendships, women’s talk. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage, 245–262.
Dixon, J. A. & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (1), 89–107.
Erman, B. (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 41, 217–234.
Hartman, M. A. (1976). Descriptive study of the language of men and women born in Maine around 1900 as it reflects the Lakoff hypotheses in "Language and woman's place.". In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 81–90.
Hirschman, L. (1973). Female-male difference in conversational interaction. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Washington, DC: Newbury House, 134.
Hirschman, L. (1974). Analysis of supportive and assertive behavior in conversations. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Linguistic Society of America
, July 1974.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication 10 (3), 185–205.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper Colophon.
Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 141, 41–104.
Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
Meyerhoff, M. (1992). A sort of something-hedging strategies on nouns. Working Papers on Language, Gender, and Sexism 2 (1), 59–73.
Niemegeers, S. (2010). The Dutch modal particle “wel” and its English counterparts: A corpus-based contrastive and translation study. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
Schleef, E. (2004). Gender, power, discipline, and context: On the sociolinguistic variation of okay, right, like, and you know in English academic discourse. In Proceedings of the
Twelfth Annual Symposium about Language and Society–Austin
.
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
Swacker, M. (1979). Women’s verbal behavior at learned and professional conferences. In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 155–160.
Vismans, R. (1994). Modal particles in Dutch directives: A study in functional grammar. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Fu, Rongbo & Jiaqi Tan
2024. Hedges in interpreted and non-interpreted English: A cross-modal, corpus-based study. Interpreting and Society 4:1 ► pp. 44 ff.
Acosta Vicente, Carmen
2023. A Literature Review on Gender in Interpreting: Implications for Healthcare Interpreting. In New Trends in Healthcare Interpreting Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 41 ff.
Dayter, Daria, Miriam A. Locher & Thomas C. Messerli
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14
Fu, Rongbo & Kefei Wang
2022. Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches: a comparative study of Chinese and American political press briefings. Text & Talk 42:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
Hu, Juan
2022. Conclusion. In Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ], ► pp. 111 ff.
Hu, Juan
2022. Literature Review. In Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ], ► pp. 19 ff.
Hu, Juan
2022. Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges. In Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ], ► pp. 35 ff.
Guo, Yijun
2021. Contrastive images of journalists and Chinese premiers in interpreter-mediated press conferences: a case study of Chinese ‘xiexie’. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 507 ff.
2020. Gender and interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation, Feminism and Gender, ► pp. 159 ff.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation/Interpreting Product Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 111 ff.
Cámara Aguilera, Elvira & E. Macarena Pradas Macías
2020. IMPLICACIONES DEL GÉNERO EN EL DISCURSO INTERPRETADO. Entreculturas. Revista de Traducción y Comunicación Intercultural :10 ► pp. 301 ff.
Xiang, Xia, Binghan Zheng & Dezheng Feng
2020. Interpreting impoliteness and over-politeness: An investigation into interpreters' cognitive effort, coping strategies and their effects. Journal of Pragmatics 169 ► pp. 231 ff.
Collard, Camille & Bart Defrancq
2019. Predictors of ear-voice span, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. Perspectives 27:3 ► pp. 431 ff.
Collard, Camille, Heike Przybyl & Bart Defrancq
2019. Interpreting into an SOV Language: Memory and the Position of the Verb. A Corpus-Based Comparative Study of Interpreted and Non-mediated Speech. Meta 63:3 ► pp. 695 ff.
2018. Interpreting Hedges from Korean to English: A Case Study Focusing on an Earnings Conference Call. The Journal of Translation Studies 19:1 ► pp. 247 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.