Gender difference of hedging in interpreting for chinese government press conferences
A corpus-based study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23014459 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Feng Pan (0000-0002-1362-4336, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, corresponding author), Binghan Zheng (0000-0001-5302-4709, Durham University) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 171-193 |
| Publication date | 2017-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Across Languages and Cultures (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1585-1923 • E-ISSN: 1588-2519 |
| Publisher | Akademiai Kiado Zrt. (PUBLISHER • HU) |
| DOI | 10.1556/084.2017.18.2.1 |
| OpenAlex | W2766708589 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 27 |
This paper aims to examine gender differences in hedging in Chinese–English conference interpreting based on a transcribed parallel corpus. The point of departure was to test Holmes’s (1986, 1988a) claims that women do not necessarily employ more hedges than men but that women’s use of hedges tends to focus more on interpersonal relationships while men’s is more on propositional precision. Hyland’s (1996a, 1996b) model in which hedges were categorized into accuracy-oriented, speaker-oriented and audience-oriented, has been adapted for this end. Our finding shows that male interpreters actually employ more hedges than their female counterparts on the whole. In particular, their accuracy-oriented and speaker-oriented hedges exceed those of female interpreters, but not for audience-oriented ones. To find out whether these differences were caused by the source texts per se or by interpreters’ manipulation, we named four types of interpreting approach towards hedge items: direct transfer, indirect transfer, shift and addition. The former two types were identified as source text interference while the latter two as interpreters’ manipulation. The results indicate that male interpreters exceed female interpreters in terms of shift and addition cases in all three types of hedges. The findings of the present study contribute to a more profound understanding of gender difference in language mediation and also have implications for future interpreter training.
Government (linguistics) · Hedge · Interpersonal communication · Interpreter · Linguistics · Mediation · Negotiation · Political science · Source text · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology
Contrastive images of journalists and Chinese premiers in interpreter-mediated press conferences
Hedges in interpreted and non-interpreted English
Reasoning and Appraisal in Multimodal Argumentation
Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches
Linguocultural cognition manifested in spoken narratives in L2 English by native Chinese and Korean speakers
‘Women’s Language’ or ‘Powerless Language’?
Hedging in Scientific Research Articles
Talking to the Academy
Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks
Hedges
Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse
Logic and Conversation
Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles
Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks
The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles
Women, Men and Politeness
To hedge or not to hedge
Implications of translational shifts in interpreter-mediated texts
Gender Differences in Language Use
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language
The Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus
Hedges in conference interpreting
Gender and Hedging
Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech
Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles
Metadiscourse
Modifying illocutionary force
The female register
Language and woman's place
Functions of you know in women's and men's speech
The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifies Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,83 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |