Abstract
In a reanalysis of women's language, Holmes (1995) has argued that women's use of hedges expresses interpersonal warmth and not, as many researchers have maintained, linguistic tentativeness. It is typically men, she suggests, who employ hedges to convey imprecision and incertitude. In this study, we investigated the use of the hedges sort of and you know in a sample of South African students. Holmes's method of analysis was applied to hedging behavior in 52 dyadic conversations. The study consisted of a 2 (Speaker Gender: Male/Female) × 2 (Audience Gender: Male/Female) × 2 (Condition: Competitive/Noncompetitive) between-subjects experimental design. The results showed that contextual influences eclipsed the effects of gender; in fact, no main effects were found for speaker gender. Fewer hedges were deployed in the competitive condition than in the noncompetitive condition. Moreover, perhaps reflecting differences in social status, both sexes used sort of to express tentativeness more frequently when talking to male addressees. When speaking to female addressees, on the other hand, men deployed facilitative you know hedges more readily than women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Baumann, M. (1976). Two features of women's speech? In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women (pp. 32–40). San Antonio, TX: Trinity University.
Bilous, K. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same-and mixed-sex dyads. Language and Communication, 8, 183–194.
Bodine, A. (1975). Sex differentiation in language. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 130–151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Boe, S. K. (1987). Language as an expression of caring in women. Anthropological Linguistics, 29, 271–285.
Brouwer, D. (1982). The influence of addressee's sex on politeness in language use. Linguistics, 20, 697–711.
Brouwer, D., Gerritson, M., & de Haan, D. (1979). Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track? Language in Society, 8, 33–50.
Brown, C. E., Dovido, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1990). Reducing sex differences in visual displays of dominance: Knowledge is power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 358–368.
Brown, P. (1980). How and why women are more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111–136). New York: Praeger.
Brown, P. (1990). Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes, 13, 123–141.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O'Leary, K. (1988). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic function of tag questions. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 74–93). London: Longman Group.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. London: Longman Group.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, 313–322.
de Klerk, V. (1988). An investigation into the use of expletives by males and females in Grahamstown. South African Journal of Linguistics, 6, 1–18.
de Klerk, V. (1991). The myth of the talkative female. South African Journal of Linguistics, 9, 90–95.
Dovido, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between men and women in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1976). The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them do they? Language in Society, 4, 289–294.
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397–406.
Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 127–132). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Reprinted in J. Laver & S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication in face to face interaction (pp. 319–346). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Günthner, S. (1992). The construction of gendered discourse in Chinese-German interactions. Discourse and Society, 3, 167–191.
Hogg, M. A. (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and in groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 99–112.
Holmes, J. (1984a). Women's language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24, 149–178.
Holmes, J. (1984b). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27, 47–62.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society, 15, 1–22.
Holmes, J. (1988). Sort of in New Zealand women's and men's speech. Studia Linguistica, 42, 85–121.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication, 10, 185–205.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kimble, C. E., Yoshikawa, J. C., & Zehr, H. D. (1981). Vocal and verbal assertiveness in same-sex andmixed-sex groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1047–1054.
Kottler, A. E. (1990). Contradictory discourses: An analysis of a male/female conversation. In J. Mouton & D. Joubert (Eds.), Knowledge and method in the human sciences (pp. 331–342). Pretoria, South Africa: Human Science Research Council.
Kraemer, H. C., & Jacklin, C. N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217–224.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.
Mabry, E. (1985). The effects of gender composition and task structure on small group interaction. Small Group Behaviour, 16, 75–96.
Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. (1977). Women's language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1980). Differences in perceptions created by syntactic-semantic productions of male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47, 111–118.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315–335.
O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). ‘“Women's language” or “powerless language”’? In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). New York: Praeger.
Philips, S. (1980). Sex differences and language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 523–544.
Piliavin, J. A., & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of the sex composition of groups on style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.
Pillon, A., Degauquier, C., & Duquesne, F. (1992). Males' and females' conversational behavior in cross-sex dyads: From gender differences to gender similarities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 147–172.
Priesler, B. (1986). Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expression of tentativeness in English. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Putnam, L. L., & McCallister, L. (1984). Situational effects of task and gender on nonverbal dispay. In Communication Yearbook (Vol. 4, pp. 679–697). New Jersey: International Communication Association.
Rakow, L. F. (1986). Rethinking gender research in communication. Journal of Communication, 36, 11–26.
Rosenblum, K. E. (1986) Revelatory or purposive? Making sense of a ‘female register.’ Semiotica, 59, 157–170.
Schultz, K., Briere, J., & Sandler, L. (1984). The use and development of sex-typed language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 327–336.
Swann, J. (1988). Talk control: An illustration from the classroom of problems in analyzing male dominance of conversation. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 122–140). London: Longman.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine.
Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1975). Difference and dominance: An overview of language, gender and society. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and gender: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1983). Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Uchida, A. (1992). When ‘difference’ is ‘dominance’: A critique of the ‘anti power-based’ cultural approach to sex differences. Language in Society, 21, 547–568.
Wiemann, J. M. (1981). Effects of laboratory videotaping procedures on selected conversational behaviors. Human Communication Research, 7, 302–311.
Willis, F. N., & Williams, S. T. (1976). Simultaneous talking in conversation and sex of speakers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1067–1070.
Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dixon, J.A., Foster, D.H. Gender and Hedging: From Sex Differences to Situated Practice. J Psycholinguist Res 26, 89–107 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025064205478
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025064205478