Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:30:22.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Hedges and Gender in the Inner and Expanding Circle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

Tobias Bernaisch
Affiliation:
Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany
Get access

Summary

Women have often been profiled as prototypical users of hedges, i.e. linguistic devices such as I believe lowering the pragmatic force of a statement to potentially save interlocutors’ faces. Still, empirical investigations of gender-preferential hedging as employed by learners – specifically in postcolonial territories – are not available. This study establishes corpus-linguistically a) whether men or women use more hedges in native-speaker and postcolonial learner contexts, b) what factors determine hedge choice and c) on a theoretical level, the relation between learners and the evolutionary progress of their postcolonial habitat. A total of 1,530 hedges are extracted from texts by British native speakers and by learners (maximally level B1 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) from Hong Kong, the Philippines and Singapore. Males use more hedges in Britain and Singapore, while female learners employ more hedges in Hong Kong and the Philippines, but the concrete hedge chosen is determined by region – with Singapore being notably different from other territories – mode and gender. More generally, the findings suggest that speaker status differences, i.e. whether speakers are second-language or foreign-language users, may be less important in explaining linguistic choices than the evolutionary status of their sociolinguistic habitat.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bautista, Lourdes S. 2008. Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan Th. and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. ‘The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): modelling predictors and predicting prototypes’, English World-Wide 35(1): 731.Google Scholar
Bolton, Kingsley. 2002. Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity. Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Borlongan, Ariane M. 2016. ‘Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model’, Asian Englishes 18: 232–41.Google Scholar
Botha, Werner. 2018. ‘A social network approach to particles in Singapore English’, World Englishes 37(2): 261–81.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah. 2018. Children’s English in Singapore: Acquisition, Properties, and Use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier and Romero-Barranco, Jesús. 2017. ‘Third person present tense markers in some varieties of English’, English World Wide 38(1): 77103.Google Scholar
Cavallaro, Francesco and Chin, Ng B. 2009. ‘Between status and solidarity in Singapore’, World Englishes 28(2): 143–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallaro, Francesco, Chin, Ng B. and Seilhamer, Mark F. 2014. ‘Singapore Colloquial English: issues of prestige and identity’, World Englishes 33(3): 378–97.Google Scholar
Croissant, Yves. 2013. mlogit: Multinomial Logit Model [Software].Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 1999. ‘Modifying pragmatic force: hedges in Early Modern English dialogues’. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd and Lebsanft, Franz, eds. Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293312.Google Scholar
Cummings, Patrick J. and Wolf, Hans-Georg. 2011. Dictionary of Hong Kong English: Words from the Fragrant Harbor. Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Deterding, David. 2007. Singapore English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Stephen. 2014. ‘The evolutionary dynamics of postcolonial Englishes: a Hong Kong case study’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(5): 571603.Google Scholar
Götz, Sandra. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. ‘Introducing ICE’. In Greenbaum, Sidney, ed. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2016. Script exact.matches.2 for R [Software].Google Scholar
Handford, Michael and Matous, Petr. 2011. ‘Lexicogrammar in the international construction industry: a corpus-based case study of Japanese–Hong-Kongese on-site interactions in English’, English for Specific Purposes 30: 87100.Google Scholar
Hansen, Beke. 2017. ‘The ICE metadata and the study of Hong Kong English’, World Englishes 36(3): 471–86.Google Scholar
Hardy, Jack A. and Friginal, Eric. 2012. ‘Filipino and American online communication and linguistic variation’, World Englishes 31(2): 143–61.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet and Wilson, Nick. 2017. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 5th edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten and Zeileis, Achim. 2015. ‘partykit: a modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R’, Journal of Machine Learning Research 16: 3905–9.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt and Zeileis, Achim. 2006. ‘Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework’, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–74.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. ‘Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum’, System 24(4): 477–90.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Milton, John. 1997. ‘Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing’, Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2): 183205.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2013. ‘The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian Learners of English’. In Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro, ed. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World. Kobe, Japan: Kobe University, 91118.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1992. ‘Culture, style, and discourse: expanding noetics of English’. In Kachru, Braj B., ed. The Other Tongue, 2nd edition. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 340–52.Google Scholar
Kamimura, Taeko and Oi, Kyoko. 1998. ‘Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English’, World Englishes 17(3): 307–23.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Andy, Deterding, David and Wong, Jennie. 2008. ‘The international intelligibility of Hong Kong English’, World Englishes 27(3/4): 359–77.Google Scholar
Kojima, Yoshirō. 1988. Nihongo no Imi Eigo no Imi (Japanese and English Meaning). Tokyo: Nanundo.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. ‘Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts’. In Peranteau, Paul M., Levi, Judith N. and Phares, Gloria C., eds. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Il: Chicago Linguistic Society, 183228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 2004. Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Jackie F. K. and Collins, Peter. 2008. ‘Gender voices in Hong Kong English textbooks—some past and current practices’, Sex Roles 59: 127–37.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2013. Singapore English: Structure, Variation, and Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2016. ‘Bah in Singapore English’, World Englishes 35(1): 7897.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa (ed.). 2004. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa (ed.). 2010. English in Singapore: Modernity and Management. Hong Kong University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, Low E. and Deterding, David. 2003. ‘A corpus-based description of particles in spoken Singapore English’. In Deterding, David, Ling, Low E. and Brown, Adam, eds. English in Singapore: Research on Grammar. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill, 5866.Google Scholar
Makalela, Leketi. 2004. ‘Making sense of BSAE for linguistic democracy in South Africa’, World Englishes 23(3): 355–66.Google Scholar
Martin, Isabel P. 2014. ‘Philippine English revisited’, World Englishes 33(1): 50–9.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, Schilk, Marco and Bernaisch, Tobias. 2010. ‘Compiling the Sri Lankan component of ICE: principles, problems, prospects’, ICAME Journal 34: 6477.Google Scholar
Nikula, Tarja. 1996. Pragmatic Force Modifiers: A Study in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, , Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmied, Josef. 2008. ‘Hedges in specialized vs. popular academic interaction: a study of medical texts’, Discourse and Interaction 1: 8598.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stadler, Stefanie. 2018. ‘Conventionalized politeness in Singapore Colloquial English’, World Englishes 37(2): 307–22.Google Scholar
Tarrayo, Veronico N. 2014. ‘Gendered word (or world): sexism in Philippine preschool English language textbooks’, Journal on English Language Teaching 4(2): 2532.Google Scholar
Tawake, Sandra. 1985. ‘Another look at planned and unplanned discourse’, World Englishes 4(3): 343–53.Google Scholar
Unuabonah, Foluke O. and Gut, Ulrike. 2018. ‘Commentary pragmatic markers in Nigerian English’, English World-Wide 39(2): 190213.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus. 2008. ‘A multidimensional analysis of student writing in Black South African English’, English World-Wide 29(3): 268305.Google Scholar
Venables, William N. and Ripley, Brian D. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, Stephanie. 2010. The Realisation and Distribution of Discourse Particles in Colloquial Singapore English: Sociolinguistic and Forensic Implications of a Frequency and Phonetic Study (MA thesis). University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wee, Lionel W. 2010. ‘The particle ya in Colloquial Singapore English’, World Englishes 29(1): 4858.Google Scholar
Wong, Jock. 2004. ‘Reduplication of nominal modifiers in Singapore English: a semantic and cultural interpretation’, World Englishes 23(3): 339354.Google Scholar
Yeung, Alexander S., Lau, Shun and Nie, Youyan. 2011. ‘Primary and secondary students’ motivation in learning English: grade and gender differences’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 36: 246–56.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×