Volume 3, Issue 4 (12-2018)                   IJREE 2018, 3(4): 63-80 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Abstract:   (958 Views)
This study tried to compare the possible differences between female and male EFL students with respect to the use of lexical hedges in their academic spoken language. To fulfil this objective, 40 Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners majoring in TEFL were chosen from Islamic Azad University of Abadan, Iran. The selected participants were assigned into two equal groups namely male group (n=20) and female group (n=20). Then, five discussion sessions in a single gendered context were separately recorded for male and female participants. Frequency counts and chi-square were used to analyze the obtained data. By utilizing the framework of hedges, it is deduced that that there are differences among female and male respondents’ propensity in selecting word of lexical hedges. Female responders tend to utilize more lexical hedges than male responders. In such manner, most frequently lexical hedges of fillers such as; hmm, uhh, you know, yeah were used most frequently by female respondents in their utterances; while male respondents most repeatedly utilized lexical hedges of fillers like; I think, uhh, yeah in their utterances. Female respondents had broad range variegation in picking words of lexical hedges while male respondents were not sufficiently productive in selecting the words of lexical hedges. It was demonstrated by the number of lexical hedges applied in giving viewpoints in debate and discussion context.
Full-Text [PDF 555 kb]   (209 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Adams, S., & Hicks, W. (2001). Interviewing for journalists (Media Skills). London; New York: Routledge. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/43725878
2. Akhmaliah. R. (2009). An analysis of language features in blogs of female undergraduates. Unpublished B.A. project paper. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
3. Ansarin, A. A., & Bathaie, M. (2011). Hedging as an index of gender realization in research articles in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Applied Language, 3(2), 85-108. doi: 10.22111/ijals.2011.1010
4. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Biber, D., & Leech, G. (1999). Grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Longman.
6. 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(6), 358-368. doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162015. [DOI:10.1177/0146167290162015]
7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
9. Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentially in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. By Wallace Chafe, and Johanna Nichols, 261–272. New York: Ablex.
10. Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1975). Investigating English style. London: Longman.
11. Dousti, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2016). ELT students' gender differences in the use of hedges in interpersonal interactions: A mixed method approach applied. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 217-231. doi.org/10.5296/ijl. v5i6.4012
12. Eckert, P. (2003). Elephants in the room. Journal of sociolinguistics, 7(3), 392-397. doi: 10.1111/1467- 9481.00231.
13. Fielding, N., & Thomas. H. (2001). Qualitative interviewing. In N. Gibert (ed.), Researching social life (2nd edition). London: Sage.
14. Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A student's grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
15. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language (2nd Ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
16. Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In C. Brumfit (Ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistics perspectives. London: BAAL.
17. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185-205. doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002. [DOI:10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S]
18. Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics (3rd Ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.
19. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and in German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.). Conversational routines. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110809145.157]
20. Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/pb.iv.6]
21. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [DOI:10.1075/pbns.54]
22. James, A. R. (1983). Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7(2), 191 -206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90052-8 [DOI:10.1016/0378-2166(83)90052-8.]
23. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. Peranteau., J. Levi., & G. Phares. (Eds.). Papers from the Eighth regional meeting of Chicago linguistic society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
24. Leech, G., Deuchar, M., & Hoogenraad, R. (1982). English grammar for today. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-16878-1]
25. Namasaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. Moscow: Publishing Company. [DOI:10.1515/9783110807332.64]
26. Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The use of hedges in the speech of ESL learners. Elia, 1(13), 149-174. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2013.i13.05
27. Rosanti, E. D., & Jaelani, A. (2016). The use of lexical hedges in spoken language by female and male students. Electronic Journals of UIKA Bogor, 16(1), 29-39. https://www ejournal.uika-bogor.ac.id/index.php/ENGLISH/article/download/251/248
28. Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Science Direct, 98(6), 1678–1685. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593 [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593]
29. Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: ABLEX Pub. Corp. https://www.amazon.com/Spoken-Written-Language-Exploring-Discourse/dp/0893910996
30. Tong, R. (2009). Feminist thought (3rd Ed.). Colorado: Westview Press. https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/feminist_thought_a_more_comprehensive_intro.pdf
31. Zaini, A., Hazirah, A., Saadiyah, D., & Kemboja, I. (2012). Gender differences in the language use of Malaysian teen bloggers. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 105-124. http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/24
32. Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds) (1975) Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley: Newbury House. [DOI:10.1007/BF00288006]