Gender Differences in the Use of Modal Adverbs As Hedges

Home , Modal verb

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES Department of Humanities

Gender differences in the use of modal

adverbs as hedges

Reyyan Ayhan

2020

Student thesis, Bachelor degree, 15 HE English Upper Secondary Teacher Education Programme English 61-90 HE

Supervisor: Henrik Kaatari Examiner: Kavita Thomas

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Aim and research questions ...... 3 2 Theoretical Background ...... 3 2.1 Language and gender ...... 3 2.1.1 Women’s language and politeness ...... 4 2.2 Grammatical background ...... 8 2.2.1 Definition of hedges ...... 8 2.2.2 Modality and modal adverbs ...... 9 2.2.2.1 Categorisation of modal adverbs ...... 11 2.2.2.2 Placement of modal adverbs ...... 12 3 Material and method ...... 13 3.1 Material ...... 13 3.2 Method ...... 14 3.3 Validity and reliability ...... 14 4 Results ...... 15 4.1 Frequency across gender ...... 15 5 Discussion ...... 20 5.1 Conclusion ...... 21 References ...... 22

Abstract The aim of this essay is to investigate the claims made by Robin Lakoff regarding women’s language, where she claims that women use hedges more than men. The aim of this essay is to investigate whether this statement is true. To put it differently, this essay aims to look at gender differences in the use of modal adverbs as hedges. As a method, a frequency analysis has been conducted, where data from the British National Corpus 2014 (BNC2014) has been used. Since hedging involves various linguistic forms, this essay focuses on the modal adverbs presented by Huddleston and Pullum. The results show that women do use more hedges than men. Regardless, there are not any major dissimilarities across genders. Although there were some findings that supported Lakoff’s claims, there were also some that contradicted her claims.

Key words: hedges, politeness, modality, modal adverbs, gender, women’s language

1 Introduction The way one expresses oneself through language is crucial to be able to communicate with other people. According to Coates, various studies show that men and women have communicative skills that vary from each other and that they use language differently (2016: 86). For instance, one stereotype is that women talk more compared to men and use overall polite language (Coates 2016: 86). Men, on the other hand, show their dominance and power through their language use (Coates 2016: 6). Differences in how men and women utilize language have been of interest for many researchers throughout the years. One linguist who has studied gender differences in linguistic behaviour is Robin Lakoff. Her book Language and Woman’s Place (1973) has been used as groundwork for many studies on this topic. Her controversial claims have been criticised a lot and also influenced a lot of projects where Lakoff’s statements have either been confirmed or refuted (Holmes 1990: 185). Lakoff states, for example, that women use more polite language than men (Lakoff 1973: 56). Moreover, they use a language in which “strong expression of feeling is avoided” whereas “expression of uncertainty is favoured” (Lakoff 1973: 45). This linguistic behaviour is a part of, so-called, ‘women’s language’ and it exists because society conditions women to express themselves as powerless and marginalised, according to Lakoff (1973: 45). One way of showing politeness and uncertainty is through the use of hedges (Holmes 2013: 64). Hedges are linguistic forms used to show “certainty or uncertainty” in statements (Coates 2016: 88), as well as showing politeness (Holmes 2013: 64). According to Lakoff, hedging is part of women’s language (Holmes 1990: 185). One way of hedging is by using modal adverbs, which this study will focus on. A modal adverb is a lexical marker that is used to assert modality, that is, to illustrate different levels of certainty and uncertainty (Suzuki & Fujiwara 2017: 827). For example, the modal adverbs obviously and possibly indicate two different levels of certainty, with the former expressing certainty and the latter expressing uncertainty (Suzuki & Fujiwara 2017: 829). Lakoff claims that hedges are mainly used by women because they are “socialised to believe that asserting themselves strongly isn’t nice or ladylike, or even feminine” (Lakoff 1975: 54). This indicates that even if women are certain about a fact expressed in a statement, they still use hedges to refrain from behaving in a way that goes against feminine traits (Holmes 1990: 185). Thus, this essay will look at gender differences in the use of modal adverbs as hedges in terms of their frequency across gender.

1.1 Aim and research questions Based on Robin Lakoff’s claims (that are further presented in section 2), the author hypothesises that women use more hedges than men and they specifically use hedges that express uncertainty to refrain from asserting oneself strongly. Therefore, the author wants to test whether her statements hold by analysing a selection of modal adverbs used as hedges. In other words, the aim of this study is to look at the gender differences in the use of modal adverbs as hedges. More specifically, it will investigate whether men or women use hedges more. The following research question will be answered in this project:

• Are there any frequency differences across gender in the use of modal adverbs as hedges in conversation?

2 Theoretical Background This section will present previous studies regarding the topic of the essay and give definitions of the key concepts that are relevant to this project. It is divided into two main subsections; the first subsection focuses on language and gender, and the second subsection contains a grammatical background on hedges and modal adverbs.

2.1 Language and gender In Language and Woman’s Place (1973), Robin Lakoff discusses the association between gender and language, where she bases her claims on her own observations as well as gender stereotypes and the English language that exists in American society. She points out how society establishes women to being marginalized, which also affects the language they use, and the language used towards women (Lakoff 1973: 45). Lakoff explains that girls get educated at an early age to use a language that is appropriate for females whereas boys do not (Lakoff 1973: 47). She further remarks that women have a significant role during a child’s first language acquisition around the early years of their upbringing, which leads to children learning so-called ‘women’s language’ (Lakoff 1973: 47-48). However, as children develop their language knowledge and communication skills, they acquire different ways of speaking. Girls continue to use women’s language, whereas boys adopt a new way of speaking that is described as “rough talk”, which differs from women’s language (Lakoff 1973: 47-48). As a 4

consequence, a woman gets criticised and ridiculed if she talks in a way that is considered “unfeminine” (Lakoff 1973: 47-48). Thus, the expectations put on women in terms of language use leads to them not being able to “speak precisely or to express herself forcefully” as well as being unable to “take part in a serious discussion” (Lakoff 1973: 48). According to Lakoff, this results in women not being taken seriously later in life because “this special style of speech will later be an excuse others use to keep her in a demeaning position” (Lakoff 1973: 47). She further explains that this creates problems in society since “women are systematically denied access to power, on the grounds that they are not capable of holding it as demonstrated by their linguistic behavior along with other aspects of their behavior” (Lakoff 1973: 48). Moreover, men do not use women’s language in order not to risk harming “his reputation” since women’s language is seen as inferior to men’s language (Lakoff 1973: 52). Holmes argues that because women are viewed as subordinate to men, their language is constructed in a way that does not allow women to be powerful (Holmes 1987: 59-60).

2.1.1 Women’s language and politeness Women’s language (WL) differs from the language used by men, according to Lakoff. The differences can be seen in every aspect of the English language, from phonological to lexical differences. The characteristics of women’s language suggest that it is a “weak” and “powerless” language (Lakoff 1973: 45). O’Barr and Atkins (1980) associate the characteristics of WL with powerless language that reflects the powerlessness of women in society (Coates 2016: 109). In other words, women use powerless language compared to men and according to O’Barr and Atkins, these differences are a result of their position in society and not their gender. Lakoff explains that WL “submerges a woman's personal identity, by denying her the means of expressing herself strongly […] and encouraging expressions that suggest triviality in subject-matter and uncertainty about it” (Lakoff 1973: 48). Language used by women contains, for example, weak expressions that insinuate hesitancy and shows the lack of confidence a woman has. In contrast, men’s language is associated with strong expressions that show certainty and confidence (Talbot 2010: 36).

Furthermore, Holmes (2013: 142) argues that WL is connected with politeness. Polite language means “leaving a decision open, not imposing your mind, or views, or claims, on anyone else” (Lakoff 1973: 56). In other words, it does not involve strong statements and expressions (Lakoff 1973: 56), and instead refers to language that “reflects consideration for 5

others” (Holmes 2013: 141). According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), politeness is connected with the notion of face and “satisfying the face wants of others” (discussed by Coates 2016: 105). Brown and Levinson explain that there are two types of face: positive and negative. Positive face refers to every person’s need of being liked and admired, and negative face refers to the need of a person to not be imposed on (discussed by Coates 2016: 105).

Holmes explains that although men do know how to use polite language, it does not have a major part in their language use. In addition, men generally have a different viewpoint on when it is appropriate to apply it to speech compared to women (Holmes 2013: 142). For example, men do not use so-called “positive polite” language to satisfy the positive face needs of the addressee during serious discussions but during situations that have no importance to them, according to Holmes (2013: 142). On the other hand, women use positive polite language to show courtesy for other people during communication. Holmes explains that hedges are used when one wants to refrain from using speech acts that are face-threatening (Holmes 2013: 65). She mentions the hedge sort of as an example of positive politeness device that mitigates strong statements and you know as a strategy to keep a conversation alive. In contrast, men use those same hedges to show uncertainty (Dixon & Foster 1997: 91).

Politeness can be conveyed in various ways. Holmes claims that men and women have different ways of expressing it. Some examples that Lakoff identifies as being part of WL are the use of euphemisms, tag questions and hedges. Euphemisms are vague expressions that replace inappropriate or offensive words such as saying “passed away” instead of “died”. Tag questions are used to turn statements into questions. This feature is employed when one wants to avoid displaying confidence and certainty towards a claim (Lakoff 1973: 54). Holmes also adds boosters and compliments to be a part of “politeness strategies” used by women. (Talbot 2010: 85). Another part of WL has to do with phonology. Lakoff claims that in English, women use intonation in their answers to a question that implies the need for confirmation from the addressee even if she is certain about the answer (Lakoff 1973: 55-56). This intonation is explained through having “the form of a declarative answer to a question, and is used as such, but has the rising inflection typical of a yes-no question, as well as being especially hesitant” (Lakoff 1973: 55). This particular pattern is only found in women’s speech, according to Lakoff, and she connects this language behaviour to the idea of women’s language showing uncertainty and avoiding strong assertions (Lakoff 1973: 55-56). In contrast, strong expletives (like shit, damn) and imperatives such as close the window are not 6

part of WL (Lakoff 1973: 50). Jespersen also supports this idea by explaining that women tend to stay away from using expressions that are too vulgar and instead use vague expressions (Jespersen 1922, discussed by Coates 2016: 97). A study done by West found instead that female doctors tended to use hedges to soften the command when talking to their patients (see example 1), whereas male doctors did not (example 2) (West 1998, discussed by Coates 2016: 96).

(1) and then maybe you can stay away from the desserts and stay away from the food in between meals

(2) Take off your shoes and socks

Hedges are used as a way to avoid asserting oneself strongly in order to refrain from “seeming too masculine by being assertive and saying things directly” (Lakoff 2004: 79) (more on hedges in 2.2.1). Lakoff claims that hedging is a device that is mainly used by women to show a lack of confidence and uncertainty about a statement (Lakoff 1975: 53-54). A corpus study done by Holmes tested this claim by analysing the hedge you know in two different ways: when the speaker expresses certainty versus uncertainty. The different functions were analysed by looking at the rising versus falling intonation of the utterance (Coates 2016: 88). The corpus consisted of speech of New Zealand and British women and men. (Holmes 1987: 61). The aim was to look at the differences across gender in terms of its function and found that when it expressed certainty, women had a higher percentage of use than men. In contrast, when it came to expressing uncertainty, men had the highest percentage of use. Her findings debunked Lakoff’s claims on women using hedges more than men, specifically the claim that women used hedges as a way to express uncertainty. Holmes concluded that the function of hedges differs across gender and that its use is dependent on the context rather than gender (Coates 2016: 88-89). She explains that depending on the context, it can, for example, “act as a turn-yielding device, as a linguistic imprecision signal, as an appeal to the listener for reassuring feedback, or as a signal that the speaker attributes understanding to the listener” (Holmes 1987: 62-64).

Another study carried out by Dixon & Foster (1997) tested Holmes’ theory on the different functions of hedges across gender in South Africa. They looked at whether men used hedges that had an epistemic meaning (in other words, hedges that convey different levels of 7

certainty) more than women, as well as whether women used hedges that had an affective meaning (in other words, hedges that are used to create a closer relationship with the addressee) (more about hedges in 2.2.1.) more than men. In particular, the hedges sort of and you know were in focus. They analysed the hypotheses by including the factors “situational competitiveness and audience gender” to study the gender differences that occur depending on how formal the setting is and whether it is a same-sex or mix-sex conversation. According to Dixon & Foster, many researchers claim that the differences are most apparent in mixed- sex conversations which they argue might be because of the “male/female power differences” (Dixon & Foster 1997: 92). Moreover, they tested if both sexes decreased their hedging in competitive situations (Dixon & Foster 1997: 93). For the study, the authors analysed same- sex and mixed-sex conversations of 50 men and 54 women, who were divided into competitive versus non-competitive settings (Dixon & Foster 1997: 93). For the competitive situation, the group was asked to debate on a topic they chose, whereas for the non- competitive situation, the participants were asked to casually discuss about good and bad things about university life (Dixon & Foster 1997: 93).

The results showed that the hedge you know was more frequently used by men than women in non-competitive settings, whereas women used it more in competitive settings. The same results were found for the hedge sort of. Dixon and Foster explain that their results did not support the claims made by Holmes since women did not use “supportive hedges” more than men and men did not use “modal hedges” more than women (Dixon & Foster 1997: 100). Regardless, the differences in hedging patterns were influenced by the two factors gender audience (that is, who the addressee is) and the setting in which the hedging occurred. Both sexes used the hedge sort of less during competitive settings than in non-competitive settings, whilst you know did not show the same pattern (Dixon & Foster 1997: 101). In addition, both sexes used the epistemic sort of more frequently when talking to a male. This finding supported the argument made by Brouwer (1982) where he, in his study on a Dutch railway station, claimed that both sexes use polite language more when talking to a male ticket vendor than a female ticket vendor. On the other hand, men used hedges more than women when the addressee was female (Brouwer 1982: 708). In short, the authors concluded that the use of hedges was not connected with the gender of the speaker but rather depends on the situation in which it is being used as well as the gender of the addressee (Dixon & Foster 1997: 102-103). 8

A similar conclusion was drawn by Leaper and Robnett (2011) who carried out a similar study. They did a meta-analysis of 29 studies that investigated gender differences in tentative language. They analysed the gender differences of hedges in relation to different factors such as the relationship of the participants and the context in which hedging occurs. They did not find any significant differences across gender and concluded that it was very much based on the context and not specifically the gender of the speaker. Some situations showed greater differences whereas others showed very little. The authors claim that tentative language “should be viewed as both women’s and men’s language” and not just as a characteristic of WL (Leaper & Robnett 2011: 138-139).

2.2 Grammatical background This section will describe hedges and modal adverbs. For the frequency analysis, Huddleston and Pullum’s categorisation of modal adverbs will be used, which will be explained more in detail in this section.

2.2.1 Definition of hedges A hedge is a linguistic form that makes a statement appear less strong and assertive. In other words, hedges prevent an utterance from being too forceful, direct and intense (Holmes 2013: 64). For this reason, it is considered as being part of polite language (Holmes 2013: 63). Holmes distinguishes two functions of hedges: affective and epistemic functions, where the former works as a way to create “interpersonal solidarity” and the latter illustrates “uncertainty about the validity of particular statements” (Dixon & Foster 1997: 91). Thus, through the use of hedges, a speaker expresses the level of certainty or uncertainty he or she has about a statement (Coates 2016: 88). Various linguistic forms can act as a hedge and these different types have different functions depending on the context in which they are used. Holmes mentions “fall-rise intonation, tag questions and modal verbs, lexical items…and pragmatic particles such as sort of and I think” as being hedging devices (Holmes 2013: 64). These hedging devices work similarly in terms of their intention and meaning. They all allude to expressing different levels of certainty and uncertainty and are used to avoid strong assertions as a politeness tool (Holmes 2013: 64). For example, (3a) and (3b) are different in 9

terms of linguistic form, however, they are similar in the way that they both illustrate tentativeness.

(3) (a) The movie probably starts at 9 pm.

(b) I think the movie starts at 9 pm.

2.2.2 Modality and modal adverbs Apart from the hedging devices mentioned by Holmes, another hedging device which is connected with modal verbs is modal adverbs. Modality demonstrates possibility, probability, necessity as well as permission, obligation and volition (Hoye 2014: 17). Moreover, there are three main types of modality: epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality (Herriman 2000: 584- 585). The first one is related to the notion of the “truth-value” of the statement (Hoye 2014: 58), that is, “the speaker’s opinion of the truth of the content” (Herriman 2000: 585). The speaker conveys their judgement towards the discussed topic (see example 4a). In other words, epistemic modality is connected to knowledge as well as belief (Hoye 2014: 55). Some linguists argue that subjectivity is a vital element in epistemic modality since the speaker expresses their judgement or belief about something. For this reason, this type of modality is considered to be non-factual (Hoye 2014: 56). Deontic modality refers to the notion of obligation expressed by the speaker, as seen in example (4b). To put it differently, the speaker indicates approval, desire, or obligation to perform an action (Herriman 2000: 585). According to Herriman (2000), deontic modality is associated with “human control over events” (2000: 585). The third modality type demonstrates the ability of a subject to perform an action. It is usually conveyed by using the modal verb can (see example 4c) (Herriman 2000: 585).

(4) (a) She may not be available.

(b) You must do your homework.

However, there are also other linguistic forms that express modality, as claimed by Hoye:

English has a variety of means by which it can signal modal contrasts. These would include, for instance, the use of: modal idioms such as HAD BETTER, WOULD RATHER, WOULD SOONER; adjectives such as POSSIBLE, LIKELY, SURE; nouns 10

such as POSSIBILITY, LIKELIHOOD, CERTAINTY; adverbs such as PERHAPS, PROBABLY, DEFINITELY; and modal lexical verbs such as DOUBT, RECKON, BELIEVE. In speech, the prosodic features of intonation and stress interact with the lexical carriers of modality and can be associated with a range of modal meanings; the speaker’s doubt or uncertainty, for instance, is regularly conveyed by a fall—rise intonation pattern (Hoye 2014: 17-18).

Thus, modal adverbs are one of the linguistic forms that denote a modal meaning and they are one of the epistemic devices that express the level of confidence and certainty a speaker has on the presented statement (Holmes 1987: 61).

Since adverbs provide additional information to a verb, adjective, adverb, or a phrase (Collins English dictionary 2020), modal adverbs work in a similar way. They provide modal verbs with supplementary information. That is, they modify, complement or transform a sentence or a clause. Modal adverbs change modal auxiliary verbs (such as can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will and would) (Hoye 2014: 16-20). Modal adverbs are different from other adverbs in the way that they specifically illustrate modality. It is also important to mention that modal adverbs cannot be studied on their own without taking into account other modal elements within the clause or a sentence since the elements are all connected and affect the meaning. Hoye explains that “modal elements frequently combine and interact dynamically” and that they are not “one carrier of modality operating in isolation within the clause” (Hoye 2014: 18). For instance, example 5a and 5b have different linguistic forms and also different meanings even though the modal adverb perhaps occurs in both sentences. The first example insinuates a possibility and probability, whereas perhaps in the second example is used as a politeness device to mitigate a command. It is thus important to analyse the whole sentence. Moreover, when it comes to speech, intonation has a vital role in expressing various degrees of modality. For example, uncertainty is expressed by a fall-rise intonation (Hoye 2014: 17-18). Additionally, the placement of the modal adverb is also vital to the meaning (more about placement of modal adverbs in 2.2.2.2). Therefore, to get an understanding of the expression of modality, it is vital to study the whole clause or sentence (Hoye 2014: 18).

(5) (a) She is perhaps there.

(b) Could you perhaps take a look at the new plans? 11

2.2.2.1 Categorisation of modal adverbs Grammatical descriptions of modal adverbs indicate that there are various levels of modal meanings, which have led to divisions in the meaning of the adverbs in terms of the modality it expresses. In a study made by Greenbaum, he categorizes modal adverbs into two categories (see Table 1), where the first category illustrates a solidly held opinion or judgement, and the second category expresses uncertainty (Suzuki & Fujiwara 2017: 828).

Table 1. Greenbaum’s categorisation of modal adverbs Modal adverbs that express conviction Modal adverbs that express doubt admittedly, assuredly, certainly, decidedly, allegedly, arguably, conceivably, doubtless, definitely, incontestably, indeed, quite likely, maybe, perhaps, possibly, indisputably, indubitably, surely, presumably, probably, reportedly, reputedly, unarguably, undeniably, undoubtedly, supposedly unquestionably

Huddleston and Pullum add two more categories and divide the modal adverbs depending on the strength of the assertiveness (Huddleston & Pullum 2002:768). They identify three strengths of modality: (i) strong, (ii) medium, and (iii) weak (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 768). Accordingly, modal adverbs are divided into four categories based on modality strength (see Table 2): (a) strong, (b) quasi-strong, (c) medium, and (d) weak (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 768).

Table 2. Huddleston and Pullum’s categorisation of modal adverbs Strong Quasi-strong Medium Weak assuredly, certainly, clearly, definitely, apparently, arguably, conceivably, incontestably, indubitably, ineluctably, doubtless, likely, maybe, perhaps, inescapably, manifestly, necessarily, evidently, probably possibly obviously, patently, plainly, surely, truly, presumably, unarguably, unavoidably, undeniably, seemingly undoubtedly, unquestionably

2.2.2.2 Placement of modal adverbs Adverbs can function as a sentence or a word modifier (Hoye 2014: 154). Their functionality depends on their placement within a clause or a sentence (Hoye 2014: 155-156). Hoye (2014) presents three main positions: initial, medial and final position (Hoye 2014: 157). In the initial position, the adverb comes first which is mainly before the subject (Quirk et al. 1985: 491). In the medial position, the adverb usually appears between subject and verb. However, if the sentence includes a verb phrase with an operator, the adverb comes after the subject and the operator (Quirk et al. 1985: 491-492). In the final position, the adverb comes at the end (Quirk et al. 1985: 498). Depending on where the modal adverb is placed, these various positions modify the meaning of the sentence in various ways (Hoye 2014: 158). In example (6a) and (6b), the meaning of the modal adverb possibly changes depending on its position (Hoye 2014: 155).

(6) (a) Possibly, she can’t be reached at home.

(b) She can’t possibly be reached at home.

In the first example, the adverb possibly indicates that there is a possibility that she cannot be reached at home. The speaker gives his or her statement to the incident as a whole. The initial position of the modal adverb modifies the whole sentence since it appears outside of the verb phrase. This is in other words called a sentence adverb (S-adverb). Thus, it has a supplemental but nonessential function to the clause (Hoye 2014: 155-156). On the other hand, the second example indicates that it is impossible to reach this person at home. In this example, the medial position of the modal adverb has a close incorporation with the verb phrase since it specifically modifies the negative modal verb (Hoye 2014: 155-156). In this case, the adverb is a verb phrase adverb (VP-adverb) which functions as an intensifier of the negative modal verb. According to Hoye, modal adverbs can work both within and the outside of the clause (Hoye 2014: 156).

The semantic function of modal adverbs is divided into two main categories of modification: approximation and reinforcement. The first main category refers to topicalization, insertion and tagging of modal adverbs. Topicalization refers to the initial position of modal adverbs which functions as topicalization for the clause or the sentence and is syntactically nonessential, as in example 4a (Hoye 2014: 159). Insertion refers to the medial position of a clause or a sentence which generally acts as a word modifier as in example (6b) 13

and is usually connected with short phrases (Hoye 2014: 158). Tagging relates to the final position of a modal adverb in a clause or a sentence (Hoye 2014: 159). Hoye argues that adding a modal adverb in the final position is more common in spoken language where the speaker as an afterthought either strengthens or weakens the statement that has been uttered, as in example (7) (Hoye 2014: 158). The second main category reinforcement refers to emphasising or intensifying modality within a sentence when it occurs in medial position, as in example (6b) (Hoye 2014: 160).

(7) They may have been sent to London, possibly.

3 Material and method This section will present the method and materials that have been used to investigate the research question. The aim of this study is to look at the gender differences in the use of modal adverbs as hedges. More precisely, it will investigate whether men or women use hedges more. For the frequency analysis, Huddleston and Pullum’s categorisation of modal adverbs will be investigated.

3.1 Material For the research question, speech corpus from the British National Corpus (BNC) 2014 will be used. The BNC contains an extensive collection of “samples of contemporary British English language use, gathered from a range of real-life contexts” (British National Corpus, 2014). The data consist of transcriptions from authentic everyday conversations in informal settings from L1 British English speakers that belong to different “age group, sex, social class and geographic region” (Love et al. 2017: 319, 321, 324). The purpose of the creation of this corpus was to give the resource to “say something about language in general” (Love et al. 2017: 321) and make it possible for researchers to use “for a wide variety of linguistic interests” (Love et al. 2017: 325) such as grammar, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, conversation analysis and language teaching et cetera (Love et al. 2017: 322). This is the reason why this particular corpus is suitable to use in this project.

3.2 Method The frequency analysis will investigate the frequency of the modal adverbs that are presented by Huddleston and Pullum (see section 2.2.2.1.) across gender. To be specific, this essay will look at whether women use modal adverbs as hedges more than men. To gather corpus data from the spoken BNC, the Corpus Query Processor (CQP) webserver was used. Each modal adverb was searched within a restricted query with female and male speaker selection separately to collect frequency data for each gender. The normalized frequencies presented are based on the total number of words produced by men and women respectively in the full corpus. The adverbs were searched by using the following formulation: [word= "?" & pos= "RR"], where RR stands for the word class adverb and the question mark refers to the relevant adverb that was searched. This method was used for all the words in order to only get results for the correct word class. The query for the following adverbs that Huddleston and Pullum mention did not give any results: assuredly, incontestably, indubitably, ineluctably, inescapably, unarguably, unavoidably, unquestionably, and doubtless. The author speculates that the reason for this outcome is because these words mainly belong to formal language and are not very common in spoken language. Thus, these words will not be presented.

3.3 Validity and reliability The validity of a study is concerned with how well the data represents the topic of the study. For this essay, using the British National Corpus creates high validity since the corpus contains transcriptions of real-life conversations from L1 British English speakers. Thus, the method gives accurate data for the aim of this project. However, one factor that affects the validity is the transcription process. The validity is dependent on how accurate the transcriptions of the audio recordings are. If there are any mistakes in the transcription process, this affects the accuracy of the data and thus the validity of what is being studied. This is especially important with speech that is unclear in the recording, which requires more transcriber inference (Love et al. 2017: 334). Moreover, language is something that always changes. Thus, the collected data might not entirely correspond with present-day language, which might not be suitable to use depending on the study. Regardless, for this study, it is an appropriate method to use since the aim is not specifically to look at present-day language use. However, this was the reason behind why the creators of BNC have updated its data from 1994 to 2014 where one can choose depending on what type of study it will be used for (Love 15

et al. 2017: 323-324). Another factor that affects the validity is that the modal adverbs that have been studied in this essay mainly include words that belong to formal written language. Thus, there are words that are not so common in spoken language. When it comes to the reliability of this method, since the corpus is recorded and transcribed, the data is always accessible. However, the reliability and the validity of the study is also affected by the grammatical tagging that has been used for all the words. Because of the tagging, the results only showed data that have been registered under that specific tagging. One shortcoming with using data from the BNC is that the collection of spoken data does not have an equal amount of data from males and females, as well as children and elderly. Despite the imbalance, the creators of the corpus collected “as much data as possible” (Love et al. 2017: 326).

4 Results This section will present the results of the frequency analysis of using modal adverbs as hedges across gender. The results will be presented in tabular form and will be categorized depending on their modality strength: strong, medium and weak.

4.1 Frequency across gender The first category of modal adverb that will be presented is strong. The modal adverbs in this category convey a high modality. Table 1 shows the results of the frequency difference across gender of the modal adverbs that are in the strong category. The results show that for the majority of the adverbs, female speakers have a higher number of total matches and the normalized frequency is higher than male speakers. However, the normalized frequency of the words certainly, truly, manifestly, patently, and undoubtedly is higher for men than women. Moreover, the words manifestly, patently, and undoubtedly have a higher number of total matches for male speakers.

Table 1. High modality adverbs Word Query Speaker Total Normalized gender matches frequency 16

Certainly [word= Female 472 66.740 instances per "certainly" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 311 71.511 instances per million words Clearly [word= "clearly" Female 333 47.085 instances per & pos= "RR"] million words Male 137 31.502 instances per million words Definitely [word= Female 2,084 294.673 instances per "definitely" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 1,170 269.028 instances per million words Manifestly [word= Female 0 0 "manifestly" & Male 1 0.230 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Necessarily [word= Female 388 54.862 instances per "necessarily" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 158 36.330 instances per million words Obviously [word= Female 3,883 549.047 instances per "obviously" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 1,700 390.896 instances per million words Patently [word= Female 0 0 "patently" & Male 1 0.230 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Plainly [word= "plainly" Female 7 0.990 instances per & pos= "RR"] million words Male 4 0.920 instances per million words Surely [word= "surely" Female 380 53.731 instances per & pos= "RR"] million words Male 221 50.816 instances per million words Truly [word= "truly" Female 43 6.080 instances per & pos= "RR"] million words Male 29 6.668 instances per million words Undeniably [word= Female 1 0.141 instances per "undeniably" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 0 0 Undoubtedly [word= Female 2 0.283 instances per "undoubtedly" & million words pos= "RR"] Male 6 1.380 instances per million words

The second category of modal adverb is medium modality. Table 2 shows the results of the frequency difference across gender. The results show that for all the modal adverbs apart from arguably and likely, there are higher numbers of total matches for female speakers. In contrast, the majority of the modal adverbs have a higher normalized frequency for male speakers.

Table 2. Medium modality adverbs Word Query Speaker Total Normalized frequency gender matches Apparently [word= "apparently" Female 1,314 185.797 instances per & pos= "RR"] million words Male 779 179.122 instances per million words Evidently [word= "evidently" Female 18 2.545 instances per million & pos= "RR"] words Male 8 1.840 instances per million words Presumably [word= Female 191 27.007 instances per million "presumably" & words pos= "RR"] Male 130 29.892 instances per million words Seemingly [word= "seemingly" Female 8 1.131 instances per million & pos= "RR"] words Male 5 1.150 instances per million words Arguably [word= "arguably" & Female 6 0.848 instances per million pos= "RR"] words Male 12 2.759 instances per million words Likely [word= "likely" & Female 3 0.424 instances per million pos= "RR"] words Male 5 1.150 instances per million words Probably [word= "probably" & Female 7,014 991.764 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Male 4,565 1,049.671 instances per million words

The last category of modal adverb is weak modality. The modal adverbs in this category convey low modality. Table 3 shows the normalized frequency of modal adverb across gender. The results show higher numbers for female speakers on total matches and 18

normalized frequency on the modal adverbs maybe and perhaps. For the word conceivably, both the total matches and normalized frequency are higher for male speakers. Moreover, for the word possibly, the normalized frequency is higher for male speakers, but the total matches are higher for female speakers.

Table 3. Weak modality adverbs Word Query Speaker Total Normalized frequency gender matches Conceivably [word= "conceivably" Female 0 0 & pos= "RR"]

Male 3 0.690 instances per million words Maybe [word= "maybe" & Female 5,635 796.776 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Male 2,858 657.165 instances per million words Perhaps [word= "perhaps" & Female 609 86.111 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Male 362 83.238 instances per million words Possibly [word= "possibly" & Female 479 67.730 instances per pos= "RR"] million words Male 328 75.420 instances per million words

To summarize the results, the modal adverbs in the high modality category showed a higher normalized frequency for female speakers than male speakers. On the other hand, the modal adverbs in the medium modality category showed a higher normalized frequency for male speakers than female speakers. Lastly, the modal adverbs for the weak modality category showed no difference in normalized frequency across gender. Two out of four modal adverbs showed high normalized frequency for female speakers and the other two words showed higher normalized frequency for male speakers. Figure 1 shows the total normalized frequency across gender for each category. Both females and males tend to use adverbs that express medium modality the most, compared to the other two categories. In addition, the second category that has high numbers for both genders is the high modality category. The biggest gender gap is also seen in this category, where the numbers are higher for female speakers than male speakers. 19

1,400.0 1,265.5 1,209.5 1,200.0 1,073.6

1,000.0 0,950.6 0,859.5 0,816.5 0,800.0

0,600.0

0,400.0

Frequencyper words million 0,200.0

0,000.0 High modality Medium modality Weak modality Modality

Female Male

Figure 1. The total normalized frequency across gender

5 Discussion The aim of this study was to look at the gender differences in the use of modal adverbs as hedges. More specifically, the aim was to investigate whether men or women used hedges more. In order to study the research question, a frequency analysis has been conducted using the BNC. For the analysis, Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002) categorisation of modal adverbs was investigated. The results for the frequency analysis show that females tend to use modal adverbs as hedges more than men. However, the frequency differences vary depending on the modal adverb and the modality strength. Certain words have a higher normalized frequency for male speakers. For example, the majority of high modality adverbs showed higher normalized frequency for female speakers. However, words such as certainly, truly, manifestly, patently, and undoubtedly showed higher normalized frequency for male speakers. Thus, even if female speakers showed higher numbers regarding normalized frequency for the majority of the modal adverbs, the differences are still minimum. Interestingly, modal adverbs that express medium modality showed higher normalized frequency for male speakers. This goes against Robin Lakoff’s (1973) claims, who explains that women tend to use tentative language more than men to avoid asserting themselves strongly. Talbot (2010) explains that language used by women contains weak expressions that insinuate hesitancy whereas men’s language is associated with strong expressions that show certainty. Moreover, Lakoff claims that hedging is a device that is mainly used by women to show a lack of confidence and uncertainty about a statement (Lakoff 1975). She clarifies that women are taught this behaviour from an early age. Despite the claims, the results showed that it might not be the case since the normalized frequency for medium modality was higher for male speakers than female speakers. Furthermore, the results for the weak modality category showed no difference in the frequency across gender.

The findings in this essay are similar to the findings in the corpus study done by Holmes (1987), who analysed the hedge you know in two different ways: when the speaker expresses certainty versus uncertainty. Holmes found that when it expressed certainty, women had a higher percentage of use than men. On the other hand, when it came to expressing uncertainty, men had the highest percentage of use. Her findings also contradicted Lakoff’s (1973) claims about women using hedges more than men, in particular the claim that women used hedges as a way to express tentativeness. 21

Furthermore, the summary of the collected data shows that both female and male speakers tend to use adverbs that express medium modality the most, compared to the other two modality categories. Additionally, the second category that has a high normalized frequency for both genders is the high modality category. The biggest gender gap is also seen in this category, where the numbers are higher for female speakers than male speakers. The third category, weak modality had four words in total and the results showed no difference in female and male speakers. Two out of four words (maybe and perhaps) showed higher normalized frequency for female speakers and the other two words (conceivably and possibly) had higher frequency for male speakers. This shows that generally, women use hedges more than men. However, the differences are exceedingly small as both genders mainly use it to express medium and high modality. Additionally, women use high modality adverbs more than men. Thus, this confirms Lakoff’s (1975). claims about women using hedges more than men only to some extent since they specifically use high modality adverbs more than men and thus express more certainty than men.

For further studies based on this topic, it would be interesting to investigate the functional differences of hedges across gender to see how men and women use hedges and investigate the patterns and differences.

5.1 Conclusion In conclusion, the findings in this essay show that women do use hedges more than men. Moreover, women tend to use hedges that express certainty more than men. However, there are not any major dissimilarities across genders. Although there were some findings that supported Robin Lakoff’s (1973, 1975) claims, there were also some that debunked her claims. Some modality categories and certain modal adverbs confirmed the claims made by Lakoff, whereas other categories and modal adverbs did not.

References British National Corpus. (2014). A new resource for research and teaching on the contemporary English language. Retrieved 2019 December 09 from http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/ Brouwer, D. (1982). The influence of addressee's sex on politeness in language use. Linguistics, 20, 697-711. Coates, J. (2016). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Collins English dictionary. (2020). Adverb. Retrieved 2020 February 15 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/adverb Dixon, John A., & Foster, Don H. (1997). Gender and Hedging: From Sex Differences to Situated Practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 89–107. Holmes, J. (1987). Hedging, fencing and other conversational gambits: an analysis of gender differences in New Zealand speech. In Pauwels, A. (Ed.), Women and Language in Australian and New Zealand Society (pp. 59-79). Sydney: Australian Professional Publications. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and Boosters in Women’s and Men’s Speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205. Holmes, J. (2013). Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Taylor & Francis. Hoye, L. (2014). Adverbs and Modality in English. New York: Routledge. Huddleston, R. & K. Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row. Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2011). Women Are More Likely Than Men to Use Tentative Language, Aren’t They? A Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 129-142. Love, R. Dembry, C. Hardie, A. Brezina, V. & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319-344. Suzuki, D., & Fujiwara, T. (2017). The multifunctionality of ’possible’ modal adverbs: a comparative look. Language, 93(4), 827-841. Talbot, M. (2010). Language and Gender. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.