Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 19:1 (2017) ► pp.21–46
Hedges in conference interpreting
The role of gender
Published online: 1 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag
This paper, part of a project on gender differences in simultaneous interpreting, analyzes possible gender-related trends in the use of hedges by professional interpreters and examines two hypotheses: (1) simultaneous interpretations, because of processing constraints, contain fewer hedges than the original speeches; (2) consistent with gender differences in spontaneous speech, women interpreters use more hedges than men. The research draws on Ghent University’s EPICG corpus of speeches at the European Parliament and their interpretations. Here, French speeches recorded in 2008 were compared with their English and Dutch interpretations in respect of hedging frequency. Statistical comparison was based on the chi-squared test. With regard to the first hypothesis, comparison of normalized frequencies (occurrences per 1000 words) shows that the interpreters in both language combinations used significantly more hedges than the speakers. The second hypothesis was tested by comparing data according to interpreters’ gender, factoring in the frequency of hedges in the source texts: women interpreters hedged more than men in both target languages, significantly so in Dutch. Regarding strategies that might account for the interpreters’ use of hedges (omission, translation, addition), the women interpreters made more additions than the men. Possible reasons for these patterns are discussed.
References (39)
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J. & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre and writing in formal written texts. Text 23 (3), 321–346.
Aijmer, K., Foolen, A. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 101–114.
Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (Eds.) (2006). Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–38.
Bachy, S., Dister, A., Francard, M., Geron, G., Giroul, V., Hambye, P., Simon, A.-C. & Wilmet, R. (2007). Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. [URL] (accessed 15 October 2013)
Barik, H. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta 16 (4), 199–210.
Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (1996). You know so I mean probably: Hedges and hedging. In J. Coates (Ed.), Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell, 152–173.
. (1997). Women’s friendships, women’s talk. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage, 245–262.
Degand, L., Cornillie, B. & Pietrandrea, P. (Eds.) (2013). Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diriker, E. (2004). De-/Re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dixon, J. A. & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (1), 89–107.
Erman, B. (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 41, 217–234.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hartman, M. A. (1976). Descriptive study of the language of men and women born in Maine around 1900 as it reflects the Lakoff hypotheses in "Language and woman's place.". In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch (Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 81–90.
Hirschman, L. (1973). Female-male difference in conversational interaction. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Washington, DC: Newbury House, 134.
. (1974). Analysis of supportive and assertive behavior in conversations. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Linguistic Society of America
, July 1974.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication 10 (3), 185–205.
Meyerhoff, M. (1992). A sort of something-hedging strategies on nouns. Working Papers on Language, Gender, and Sexism 2 (1), 59–73.
Monacelli, C. (2009). Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Niemegeers, S. (2010). The Dutch modal particle “wel” and its English counterparts: A corpus-based contrastive and translation study. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
Östman, J.-O. (1981). ‘You know’: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies 11 (2), 202–224.
Poos, D. & Simpson, R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Spoken English. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–23.
Schleef, E. (2004). Gender, power, discipline, and context: On the sociolinguistic variation of okay, right, like, and you know in English academic discourse. In Proceedings of the
Twelfth Annual Symposium about Language and Society–Austin
.
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
Cited by (25)
Cited by 25 other publications
Defrancq, Bart
Hu, Yiyang & Kanglong Liu
Jia, Haibo & Junying Liang
Fu, Rongbo & Jiaqi Tan
Acosta Vicente, Carmen
Götz, Andrea
2023. Adding connectives to manage interpreted discourse. In Pragmatics and Translation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 337], ► pp. 51 ff.
Yi, Ran
Yi, Ran
Fu, Rongbo & Kefei Wang
Hu, Juan
Hu, Juan
Hu, Juan
Guo, Yijun
Pan, Feng & Binhua Wang
2021. Is interpreting of China’s political discourse becoming more target-oriented?. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 67:2 ► pp. 222 ff.
Russo, Mariachiara
2021. Corpus-based interpreting studies. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 5], ► pp. 31 ff.
(Jade) Du, Biyu
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2020. How much noise can you make through an interpreter?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 238 ff.
Cámara Aguilera, Elvira & E. Macarena Pradas Macías
Xiang, Xia, Binghan Zheng & Dezheng Feng
Collard, Camille & Bart Defrancq
Collard, Camille, Heike Przybyl & Bart Defrancq
Magnifico, Cédric & Bart Defrancq
2019. Self-repair as a norm-related strategy in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for gendered approaches to interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 31:3 ► pp. 352 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.