Hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in scientific discourse and women’s language
Open accessAbstract
This Critical Discourse Analysis examines hedging as a linguistic device at the intersection of scientific discourse and women’s language. Hedging has been identified as a marker of scientific discourse where it is valued for expanding dialogic space for the promulgation of knowledge. It is also a recognised marker of women’s common language, where it is purported to align with discriminatory gender norms that women should not impose their views but could also be construed as a lack of clear thinking, conviction, or confidence. This could be limiting, especially in professional domains, however, the particular value attached to hedging in scientific discourse challenges this hypothesis and provides the focus of this study of gender differences in hedging with modal auxiliary verbs in the context of scientific discourse. The findings confirm hedging as a marker of scientific discourse and reflect modal auxiliaries being used with similar frequency by women and men, although with subtle, but significant differences in the specific modals that were used, and how. This provides a nuanced picture of women hedging in ways that mostly exemplify the standards of scientific discourse while also integrating some of the socially normative hedging practices that are associated with women’s language.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Corpus-based studies found minimal overall differences in hedge usage between men and women, though some variation emerged in specific types of hedges employed.
“Corpus-based studies, such as Schmauss and Kilian (2023), found minimal overall differences in hedge usage between men and women, though some variation emerged in the speci fi c types of hedges employed.”
From Examining the linguistic and behavioural patterns of gender identity in women with dissociative identity disorder (2025) · cites this paper as Schmauss and Kilian, 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Lakoff, R. (1973) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500000051 · Cited by 3,138 · see citing works
Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts
Lakoff, G. P. (1975) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1756-5_9 · Cited by 1,573 · see citing works
Hedging in Scientific Research Articles
Hyland, K. (1998) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.54 · Cited by 761 · see citing works
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511981395 · Cited by 751 · see citing works
Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles
HYLAND, K. (1996) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/17.4.433 · Cited by 736 · see citing works
Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech
Holmes, J. (1990) · Language & Communication · doi:10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-s · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Definitions of Gender and Sex: The Subtleties of Meaning
Pryzgoda, J., & Chrisler, J. C. (2000) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1023/a:1007123617636 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
The care and maintenance of hedges
Skelton, J. (1988) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/42.1.37 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1997) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110807332.3 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Constructing professional identity: "Doing power" in policy units
Holmes, J., Stubbe, M. H., & Vine, B. (1999) · doi:10.1515/9783110208375.3.351 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Corpus of Contemporary American English
Davies, M. (2020) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Feminist critical discourse analysis
Lazar, M. M. (2017) · doi:10.4324/9781315739342-26 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Persistent Topics in Linguistic Theory
Chomsky, N. A. D. T. (1965) · Diogenes · doi:10.1177/039219216501305102 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Discourse-Analytic Approaches to Text and Talk
Baxter, J. (2018) · doi:10.5040/9781350043466.ch-010 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Factors in the Underrepresentation of Women in Science and Engineering: A Review of the Literature
Blaisdell, S. L. (2006) · Women in Engineering ProActive Network · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Gender differences in tertiary education: what explains STEM participationPreprint
McNally, S. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Organizing and Processing Your Data: The Nuts and Bolts of Quantitative Analyses
Levon, E. (2018) · doi:10.5040/9781350043466.ch-007 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Cotton, C. (2018) · doi:10.1002/9781119165811.ch60 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (6th edn). New York: Routledge.
- Cotton, Christian. 2018. "Hedging." Bad arguments: 100 of the most important fallacies in Western Philosophy, (1st edn) edited by Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce, p. 273-6. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
- Martin, James R. and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in english, 92-135. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 2011. "Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: Hedging." European Science Editing 37(2), 35-7.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alotaibi, T., Almusharraf, N., & Imran, M. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05672-4 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Corpus-based studies, such as Schmauss and Kilian (2023), found minimal overall differences in hedge usage between men and women, though some variation emerged in the speci fi c types of hedges employed.”
- Authors
- Schmauss, L. S., & Kilian, K.
- Affiliations
- Rhodes University (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Schmauss, Lindsay Susannah
- Venue
- Open Linguistics
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2023-01-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2300-9969 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4321120980
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 13.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Open Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- hedging, modal verbs, scientific discourse, women's language, gender differences, gender norms, academic writing, uncertainty markers, women in science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
