1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag
2017-05-08
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Argamon, S. , Koppel, M. , Fine, J. & Shimoni, A. R
    (2003) Gender, genre and writing in formal written texts. Text23 (3), 321–346. doi: 10.1515/text.2003.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.014 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M
    (Eds.) (2006) Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.05alt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.05alt [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. https://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/valibel/documents/conventions_valibel_2004.PDF (accessed15 October 2013)
  6. Barik, H (1971) A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta16 (4), 199–210. doi: 10.7202/001972ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/001972ar [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeching, K
    (2002) Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.104
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.104 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berk-Seligson, S
    (1990) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton, L. J
    (1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, P. & Levinson, S
    (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Coates, J
    (1993) Women, men and language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1996) You know so I mean probably: Hedges and hedging. In J. Coates (Ed.), Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell, 152–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1997) Women’s friendships, women’s talk. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage, 245–262. doi: 10.4135/9781446250204.n11
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250204.n11 [Google Scholar]
  14. Degand, L. , Cornillie, B. & Pietrandrea, P
    (Eds.) (2013) Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.234
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234 [Google Scholar]
  15. Diriker, E
    (2004) De-/Re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dixon, J. A. & Foster, D. H
    (1997) Gender and hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research26 (1), 89–107. doi: 10.1023/A:1025064205478
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025064205478 [Google Scholar]
  17. Erman, B
    (1992) Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed sex interaction. Language Variation and Change4, 217–234. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000764
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000764 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gile, D
    (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, E
    (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, S
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1974) Analysis of supportive and assertive behavior in conversations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America , July 1974.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes, J
    (1990) Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication10 (3), 185–205. doi: 10.1016/0271‑5309(90)90002‑S
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S [Google Scholar]
  25. (1995) Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, R
    (1975) Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper Colophon.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levelt, W (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition14, 41–104. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mason, M
    (2008) Courtroom interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Meyerhoff, M
    (1992) A sort of something-hedging strategies on nouns. Working Papers on Language, Gender, and Sexism2 (1), 59–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Monacelli, C
    (2009) Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  31. Niemegeers, S
    (2010) The Dutch modal particle “wel” and its English counterparts: A corpus-based contrastive and translation study. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Östman, J.-O
    (1981) ‘You know’: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Philips, S
    (1980) Sex differences and language. Annual Review of Anthropology9, 523–544. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.002515
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.002515 [Google Scholar]
  34. Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B
    (2016) The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies11 (2), 202–224. doi: 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  35. 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. doi: 10.1075/scl.9.03poo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.9.03poo [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 .
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Seleskovitch, D
    (1975) Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Swacker, M
    (1979) Women’s verbal behavior at learned and professional conferences. In B. L. Dubois & I. Crouch(Eds.), The sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 155–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vismans, R
    (1994) Modal particles in Dutch directives: A study in functional grammar. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-based studies , gender , hedges and simultaneous conference interpreting
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error