Results and Discussion

  • Lingzi MengEmail author
Part of the Corpora and Intercultural Studies book series (COINST, volume 3)


In this chapter the results of text analysis in terms of the language use of the female and male translators and the gender representation in both translations will be presented; also, the possible factors that influence the linguistic performance of the translators will be discussed. The first part focuses on the translators’ language use along the dimensions of corpus statistics, modality, transitivity and pragmatic features while the second part deals with the gender representation through translator’s mediation and the translations by the two translators of the gendered discourses in the source text.


  1. Ansarin, A.A., and M.S. Bathaie. 2011. Hedging as an index of gender realization in research articles in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies 2: 85–108.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 2: 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, P. 2014. Using Corpora to Analyze Gender. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, P., A. Hardie, and T. McEnery. 2006. A Glossary of Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, L., and W. Bauer. 2002. Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of English Linguistics 3: 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradac, J.J., and A. Mulac. 1984. A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs 51: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradac, J.J., A. Mulac, and S.A. Thompson. 1995. Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem- solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction 2: 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, D. 1990. The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, D. 1997. Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In Gender and Discourse, ed. R. Wodak. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Cochrane, K. 2013. Has Virago changed the publishing world’s attitudes towards women?. The Guardian. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.
  11. Davin, D. 1987. Afterwords. In Leaden Wings, 175–180. Trans. G. Yang. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, J.A., and D.H. Foster. 1997. Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckert, P., and S. McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eder, R. 1989. Chinese lessons. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.
  15. Genette, G. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. J. E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goldblatt, H. 1989. Translator’s preface. In Heavy Wings. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.Google Scholar
  17. Graddy, D. B. 2006. Gender salience and the use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in online course discussions. American Journal of Distance Education 4: 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halliday, M.A.K. 2008. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hatim, B. and I. Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hellinger, M. and H. Bußmann. 2002. Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. In Gender Across Languages: The linguistic Representation of Women and Men, vol. I, eds. M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann, 1–25. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Hermans, T. 1996. The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target 1: 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes, J. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication 3: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmes, J. 2005. Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant? In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. M.M. Lazar, 31–60. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 4: 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyland, K. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 3: 349–382.Google Scholar
  26. Jespersen, O. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Ito, R., and S. Tagliamonte. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 2: 257–279.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  29. Lazar, M. 2005. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis. Hampshire & New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lefevere, A. 2010. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
  31. Maier, C. 1998. Issues in the practice of translating women’s fiction. BHS 75: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez, I. M. P. 2009. “Quite frankly, I’m not quite sure that it is quite the right colour.” A corpus-based study of the syntax and semantics of quite in present-day English. English Studies 2: 180–213.Google Scholar
  33. Mills, S. 2008. Language and Sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Munday, J. 2008. Style and Ideology in Translation. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edn. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  36. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Schmid, H. J. 2003. Do men and women really live in different cultures? Evidence from the BNC. In Corpus Linguistics by the Lune, eds. A. Wilson, R. Rayson and T. McEnery, 185–221. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Sharp, G. 2012. That is so feminine! An investigation of intensifiers as characteristics of female speech through the use of so and really in modern television programming. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 1: 14–20.Google Scholar
  39. Simpson, P. 1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Simpson, P. and A. Mayr. 2010. Language and Power. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Sunderland, J. 2006. Language and Gender: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tagliamonte, S. and C. Roberts. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 3: 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Talbot, M. 1998. Language and Gender. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  44. Ure, J. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation. In Applications of Linguistics, eds. G. Perren and J. L. M. Trim, 443–452. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. von Flotow, L. 1991. Feminist translation: Contexts, practices, theories. TTR 2: 69–84.Google Scholar
  46. Xiao, R. and H. Tao. 2007. A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Sociolinguistic Studies 2: 241–273.Google Scholar
  47. Yang, G. 1987. Translator’s preface. In Leaden Wings. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  48. Liu, Yue-hua, Pan, Wen-yu & Gu, Wei. 2001. A Practical Guide to Modern Chinese Grammar. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations