Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gendered Use of the Hedge in Academic Discourse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Language in Cognition and Affect

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

  • 2586 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses the distribution of hedges in academic texts in relation to the gender of the writer. The assumption prior to the analysis concerned possible differences in communicative practices between male and female writers reflected in the hedging of their propositions. The textual material covers 20 research articles, 10 written by male and 10 by female authors, published in the Journal of Linguistics in the years 2001–2010. Metadiscourse as “discourse about discourse” is connected with the communicative, social and personal involvement (Hyland 2000). Hedges, as indicators of the writer’s stance, should reveal characteristics of particular writing styles based on powerful or supportive interaction depending on gender (Coates 2004). The aim of this sample analysis is to discover whether gender is traceable in the ways male and female writers construct their stance through hedging in academic disciplinary writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, G. 2000. Intertextuality. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, V. K. 2002. A generic view of academic discourse. In Academic Discourse, ed. J. Flowerdew, 21–39. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. 2004. Women, Men and Language: A sociolinguistic account of gender in language. (third edition). Edinburgh: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Marco, C. and R. E. Mercer. 2004. Hedging in scientific articles as a means of classifying citations. Working notes of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Spring symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasold, R. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6:322–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1997. Language in a social perspective. In Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook, eds. N. Coupland and A. Jaworski, 31–38. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: writer’s stance in research articles. In Writing, Text, Processes and Practices, eds. C. Candlin and K. Hyland, 99–121. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 2009. Academic Discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges. A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic society Papers, 8:183–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Elhinny, B. 2003. Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In The Handbook of Language and Gender, eds. J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, 21–42. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markkanen, R. and H. Schroeder. 1997. Hedging and Discourse. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. 1989. Interaction in writing: principles and problems. In Writing, Text, Processes and Practices, eds. C. Candlin and K. Hyland, 40–61. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pikor-Niedziałek, M. 2007. Linguistic Politeness versus Impoliteness. The Study of Press Interviews. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F., Frader, J., Bosk, C. 1982. On hedging in physician discourse. In Linguistics and the Professions, ed. R. J. di Pietro, 83–97. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, C. 2005. The Language of Science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13:149–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. 1996. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse as Social Interaction. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vartalla, T. A. 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. PhD dissertation in press. Tampereen Yliopisto. Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardaugh, R. 1998. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (third edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdowson, H. G. 2004. Text, Context, pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Analytical Sources

  • Adger, D. 2006. Combination variability. Journal of Linguistics, 42 (3):503–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, D. 2006. Remarks on Minimalism Feature Theory and Move. Journal of Linguistics, 42 (3):663–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2003. Mechanisms of change in areal diffusion: new morphology and language contact. Journal of Linguistics, 39 (1):1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. 2008. Lenition revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 44 (3):605–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, D. 2004. Ne-cliticisation and split intransitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 40 (2):219–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. 2010. Communication and the representation of thought. The use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (3):575–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics, 36 (3):436–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word based morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 42 (3):531–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J. M. 2009. The *amn’t gap: the view from the West Yorkshire. Journal of Linguistics, 45 (2):251–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatav, G. 2004. Anchoring world and time in biblical Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics, 40 (3):491–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havkins, J. A. 2001. Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics, 37 (1):1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. 2009. A history of the LAGB: The first fifty years. Journal of Linguistics, 45 (1):1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahousse, K. 2009. Specificational sentences and the influence of information structure on anti-connectivity effects. Journal of Linguistics, 45 (1):139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J. 2001. the morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics, 37 (1):67–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. K. 2010. Accounting for the semantic extension of derived action nouns. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (3):711–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. 2010. Neutralization and anti-homophony in Korean. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (2):453–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallerman, M. 2009. Phrase structure vs. dependency: The analysis of Welsh syntactic soft mutation. Journal of Linguistics, 45 (1):167–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. 2001. Temporal dependency and the syntax of subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 37 (2):287–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood, D. 2007. Shared assumptions: Semantic minimalism and Relevance Theory. Journal of Linguistics, 43 (3):647–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelpton, M. 2001. Elucidation of a telic infinitive. Journal of Linguistics, 37 (2):313–337.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Opole University, Opole, Poland

    Jolanta Szymańska

Authors
  1. Jolanta Szymańska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jolanta Szymańska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of English, Opole University, Pl. Kopernika 11, Opole, 45-040, Poland

    Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel

  2. , Institute of English, Opole University, Pl. Kopernika 11, Opole, 45-040, Poland

    Elżbieta Szymańska-Czaplak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szymańska, J. (2013). Gendered Use of the Hedge in Academic Discourse. In: Piechurska-Kuciel, E., Szymańska-Czaplak, E. (eds) Language in Cognition and Affect. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35305-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35305-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35304-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35305-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation