Gender Roles Via Hedging in Children s Films

Transcription

1 Gender Roles Via Hedging in Children s Films Rebekka Karlsson Nordqvist Fall Term 2013 Uppsats, Grundnivå (yrkesexamen), 15 hp Engelska med ämnesdidaktisk inriktning Engelska (61-90) Lärare för grundskolans senare år och gymnasiet Table of Contents Handledare: Kavita Thomas Examinator: Maria Estling Vannestål No table of contents entries found. 1

2 Abstract Hedges are words and phrases such as sort of, I mean, like and kind of. Hedges can have different functions depending on the context in which they appear. Different types of hedges can also be linked to different gender roles. The aim of this essay was to investigate whether Disney constructs hegemonically masculine and feminine gender roles in their animated films by having heroines produce hedges more frequently than heroes. The hedges investigated were well and you know. To investigate heroes and heroines use of hedges in Disney s animated films, an annotation procedure was developed. This annotation procedure distinguished three types of hedges: hedges as softening devices, hedges as attention-getting devices and hedges as filler items signalling uncertainty. The annotation procedure investigated face threats, intonation and the hedge s position in the utterance. The results imply that Disney does not construct hegemonically masculine and feminine gender roles in terms of the hedges well and you know. Keywords: Hedges, gender roles, children s animated films, hegemonic masculinity and femininity 2

3 Table of contents Abstract Introduction Aims and scope Previous Research Definition of hedges The function of hedges Gender differences in hedges Gender differences in language in children s media Methodology Data Annotation procedure Hedges as softening devices Hedges as attention-getting devices Hedges as filler items and signs of uncertainty Calculating results Validity and reliability Results Discussion of results Conclusion References Appendix: Annotated data

4 1. Introduction While there is a lot of research on gender differences in language it is still a relatively new subject. It was not until 1975, when Robin Lakoff published her study Language and Woman's Place, that the question of gender differences in language became a topic that interested many researchers (Coates, 2004: p.5). Until then, and for some time after this study had been published, the androcentric rule suggested that men s language was the norm and that women s language was abnormal. The androcentric rule predicts that commentators will describe the linguistic behavior of men as normal and the linguistic behavior of women as deviating from the norm (Coates, 2004: p.83). There are studies, such as Lakoff's, that support the androcentric rule (Lakoff, 1975). Lakoff produced a list of features regarding women s language that she claimed were inferior since they deviated from the male norm. Examples of these were empty adjectives, super-polite forms and hedges (Lakoff, 2004: p ). Lakoff also suggested that women are more tentative and seem to be afraid of sounding too masculine by speaking too assertively (2004). According to Lakoff, women have to be tentative and almost inferior to men in order to act feminine and they therefore apply linguistic forms such as hedges in conversations. However, the idea of what is considered feminine changes over time. Hegemonic forms are the particular norms of masculinity and femininity that are dominant in different time periods (Coates, 2004: p.139). Some features of hegemonic masculinity are toughness, violence and muscles, while some features of hegemonic femininity are timidness, beauty and being emotional (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). In linguistics, many researchers have questioned and criticized previous studies that claim women s language to be inferior to men s, for example Coates (2004), Holmes (1987) and Talbot (1998). One of Lakoff s initial claims was that women use hedges more than men and that these hedges are a sign of uncertainty. However in a more recent edition of her book Language and Woman's Workplace, Lakoff adjusted this claim to include men as well, proposing that it is a sign of low self-esteem in both genders (Lakoff, 2004: p.79). Hedges are words and expressions such as well, you know, I mean and sort of which can signal both certainty and uncertainty. Hedges can also mitigate the force of an utterance and can be used as a politeness strategy (Coates, 2004: p.88, 105). Other studies show that hedges can function in several different ways, for example in order to save face for the speaker or hearer (Coates, 2004: p.105). 4

5 Even contemporary society is flooded by stereotypical images and ideas regarding how girls and boys should conduct themselves (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). Many studies have shown that media has a huge influence on children who watch television shows and films and who view the characters therein as role models (Singer and Singer, 2001: p.314). Coates suggests that children learn how to talk and act gender-appropriately from different models provided by adults (2004: p.169). This essay will investigate what message Disney's animated films send to children when it comes to gender differences in the use of hedges. The question that will be examined is as follows: does Disney construct hegemonic gender roles by making the heroine and hero use hedges that are linked to hegemonic femininity or masculinity? 1.1 Aims and scope The aim of this essay is to investigate the gender differences between the heroes and heroines use of hedges in Disney's animated films from 1989 to The essay will focus on the hedges well and you know. The hypothesis is that heroines use hedges more frequently than heroes which can result in Disney constructing hegemonically feminine and masculine role models. This essay will begin by discussing previous research on the topic of hedges and their different functions, as well as gender differences in the usage of these hedges. It will also examine how the media uses gender specific language in material aimed at children and adolescents. The essay will then present the methodology and data and end with a presentation of results and a conclusion of the study. 5

6 2. Previous Research Different researchers have attempted to describe what hedges are and what functions they fill in language. In particular, research defining hedges, exploring their functions, and gender differences in the use of hedges will be discussed in this section. Previous studies regarding the differences in language use in media aimed at children and adolescents will also be presented, finishing the section with a discussion on the topics of hegemonic femininity and masculinity and the social construction of gender roles. 2.1 Definition of hedges Hedges are linguistic forms such as I think, I m sure, sort of and perhaps which express the speaker s certainty or uncertainty about the proposition under discussion (Coates, 2004: p.88). Lakoff was one of the first researchers who wrote about hedges, and her 1975 study suggests that women s use of hedges is linked with uncertainty, a claim which has since been criticized (Coates, 2004: p.88). In 2004, a few years after first publishing her book, Lakoff updated her statements about hedges to include four different types of hedges: one type that expresses uncertainty, another type that is used for the sake of politeness, one that is used as an apology for speaking and one that is used to preface declarations or questions. Hedges that express uncertainty are used because the speaker is uncertain or cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement, for example: you know, well and kind of. Hedges that are used for the sake of politeness mitigate an utterance that could otherwise sound unkind or harsh, such as the hedge sort of. Hedges that are used as an apology occur even when the speaker is certain of the truth of a statement and when there is no possibility of offending the hearer. This type of hedge is, according to Lakoff, used as an apology for speaking at all, for example There is no shame in turning back, you know. The last type of hedge that Lakoff mentions is the type that is a preface to declarations or questions and these hedges are used when the speaker is uncertain of the accuracy of the proposition and wants to indicate this uncertainty. Lakoff writes if I say it will rain this afternoon, and it doesn t, you can later take me to task for a misleading or inaccurate prediction. But if I say, I guess it will rain this afternoon, then I am far less vulnerable to such an attack (2004: p.79). Examples of these hedges are I guess one could say that..., (prefacing declaration) and I wonder if we should..., (prefacing question). These hedges give the impression that the speaker feels inferior (Lakoff, 2004: 6

7 p.79). Lakoff also claims that for women, the use of these hedges [the last kind] arises out of the fear of seeming too masculine by being assertive and saying things directly (2004: p.79). Talbot describes hedges as filler items that reduce the force of an utterance and claims that hedges are used to add tentativeness to a statement, for example the hedges you know, well and kind of (1998: p.39). Hedges that are used as filler items while the speaker thinks about what to say can be used together with other filler pauses, for example vocalizations such as uh or uhm. These filler items may occur at the beginning of a sentence when the speaker is uncertain (Swerts and Hirschberg, 2010). These hedges may also occur in the middle of a sentence, before the term that the speaker is uncertain about, for example something, you know, academic (Aijmer, 1986: p. 13). This type of hedge does not seem to occur at the end of the utterance (Aijmer, 1986: p. 7). Talbot adds that hedges can be used to weaken the strength of an assertion that might cause offense, like sort of and about. One can also use hedges to avoid sounding too sure of oneself or too dogmatic, for example the hedge might (1998: p.39, 90). Cameron performed a study on men s and women s use of the hedge you know, and she found that women used this expression more than men (1990: p. 237). Cameron explains that this is due to the different ways one can use the hedge you know. She writes that you know is used as an attention-getting device, as a way to see if the interactional partner is following, listening and attending to one s remarks. She also suggests that the hedge is used to invite the other speaker to respond in order to engage them in the conversation (1990: p ). Aijmer supports Cameron s study and suggests that you know can be placed utterance-finally when it functions as interactive hedges, which are hedges that invite other speakers to respond or check if they are listening to what the speaker is saying (Aijmer, 1986: p. 12). Maulana claims that intonation can change the meaning of an utterance. Rise-fall intonation in the utterance She is a doctor would indicate that the speaker is stating the fact that the woman is a doctor. If the same utterance would be pronounced with rising intonation the utterance would be interpreted as a question about whether the woman was a doctor or not (Maulana, 2011: p. 8). Maulana s study suggests that speakers generally use rise-fall intonation when they either assert something or when they expect agreement (2011: p. 8-9, 12). Thus a speaker that pronounces a hedge with a rise-fall intonation is using that hedge as an attention-getting device. This type of hedge can also have a floor-holding function since it makes it easier for the speaker to keep speaking (Aijmer, 1986: p. 7). 7

8 2.2 The function of hedges One of Lakoff s claims is that hedges show a sign of linguistic weakness because they indicate that the speaker is unsure of what he or she is saying (2004). Holmes does not agree with Lakoff's claim that hedges are a sign of linguistic weakness but instead she argues that the same hedge can express either uncertainty or certainty depending on the situation and the intonation (Coates, 2004: p.88-89). Maulana suggests that rising intonation indicates uncertainty and confusion, which supports Holmes (1987) study which claims that hedges with a rising intonation indicate uncertainty (Maulana, 2011: p. 10). Hedges can also be used to show politeness. The concepts of politeness and face are closely related. Coates writes that people have two basic human needs: (1) the need not to be imposed on (this is called negative face) and (2) the need to be liked and admired (this is called positive face) (2004: p.105). Hedges can be both face-saving and a way of showing respect to other people s face. According to Talbot politeness is divided into two categories: positive politeness and negative politeness (1998: p.90). Talbot writes that the difference between the two types is that positive politeness is friendly behavior and negative politeness is respectful behavior (ibid.). Since politeness and face go hand in hand, face is also divided into positive and negative face. Coates suggests that by apologizing when requesting something, the negative face wants of others are satisfied because now the addressee can turn down the request without being rude and losing face. The positive face wants of others are satisfied by compliments and greetings. One can say that politeness satisfies the face wants of others (2004: p.105). Hedges are used to respect the face needs of all participants..., to negotiate sensitive topics, and to encourage the participation of others. Mitigated utterances (that is, utterances involving hedges) encourage discussion because they prevent speakers taking a hard line (Coates, 2004: p.129). Coates also writes that hedges can prevent sensitive topics from being too face-threatening and that hedges can protect the speaker's and the hearer's face by mitigating the force of what is said (2004: p.90). Below is an example from one of her studies. Note how the number of hedges increases as the speaker becomes more nervous. The hedges are underlined in the example below: Example 1. Meg: but I did see what amounted to sort of chest hair, black, she s a very dark sort of dark skinned and sallow complexion and a lo-i mean I I mean I hope I m just reporting this without any edge to it. you know, so I mean I probably- Bea: you mean you really feel that she s turning into a gorilla? <LAUGHTER> (Coates 2004: p 129) 8

9 Meg is using hedges as a way of mitigating the force of what she is saying and as a result her utterance does not sound as harsh as it would without the hedges. The hedges save Meg s face because it reduces the unfriendliness of the utterance, which means that she will avoid sounding mean. Meg s use of hedges could also work as protection if Bea were to disagree with her, since Meg s use of hedges has prevented her from making a clear statement. Brown and Levinson suggest that irony has face-threatening content but that irony can be used as a device to soften the face threat. They also suggest that since the content of an ironic utterance is face-threatening, it calls for strategies used to save face (Brown and Levinson, 1987, cited in Miller, 2006: p. 8). Hedges that soften statements can therefore be used together with irony in face-threatening utterances. 2.3 Gender differences in hedges Hedges are seen as one of the features of women's language (Coates, 2004: p ) but if this is actually the case or not is something which many researchers, such as Coates (2004), Lakoff (2004) and Holmes (1987), have discussed and analyzed. Most researchers have come to the conclusion that both men and women use hedges but in different ways. However, some claim that women use hedges more frequently than men (Coates, 2003: p. 75). Others claim that men use hedges just as much as women do but that women use hedges to express certainty while men use hedges to express uncertainty (Holmes, 1987). It has also been suggested that women use hedges to express politeness (Coates, 2004). However, Lakoff claimed that the use of hedges is a sign of weakness and that it is strongly linked with women's language (1975). Lakoff also claimed that the reason why women use hedges more frequently than men is because women are socialized to believe that asserting themselves strongly isn t nice or ladylike, or even feminine (2004: p.79). Her claim that women use hedges more frequently than men does not have evidence supporting it, so it cannot be used as a fact, but should instead be treated as a personal belief or opinion. Coates gives an example where a man uses hedges to soften the force of his utterance and protect his addressees' face (2003: p.75). The man in this conversation is talking about suicide and Coates writes that his anxiety is expressed by his frequent use of hedges. Here Coates shows that men do use hedges, and that they use hedges to express uncertainty, but at the same time Coates claims that this density of hedges is unusual in men's 9

10 talk but typical of female conversation, because women speak of more sensitive topics (2003: p.75). Coates suggests that male speakers less frequent use of hedges is explained by their choice of topic; male speakers avoid sensitive topics and prefer to talk about impersonal subjects (2004: p. 141). Hedges protect the speaker from seeming unfriendly and mean, and they protect the hearer from getting hurt. Following this argument, since male speakers avoid sensitive topics, they do not need to protect their own or others face needs. Talbot mentions a study where Holmes examined women s use of politeness strategies in New Zealand. Holmes found that women mostly used the positive variety of politeness which involves hedges that either intensify or weaken the force of a statement (Holmes, 1995, cited in Talbot, 1998: p.90), for example sort of, as in 'he is sort of loud' (Talbot, 1998: p.90). In other words, another reason why women use hedges more frequently than men is that they have different ways of expressing politeness, which involves the use of hedges. Again the type of hedge that expresses politeness does not normally express uncertainty. In the example he is sort of loud the hedge sort of is used to mitigate and soften the force of the statement. It is not used because the speaker is unsure if the third party discussed is a loud person or not. However, this hedge can also indicate uncertainty, but then it has a different function. A study by O Barr and Atkins shows that women s language (of which hedging is one of the features) is confused with something they call powerless language (O Barr and Atkins, 1980, cited in Coates, 2004). They found in their study that the features of women s language were not correlated with gender but with the speaker s social status and with the speaker s previous experience with the subject and the situation. The speaker will use fewer hedges when he or she is more experienced in the situation since he or she will be more comfortable and know how to act. The reason why powerless language has been confused with women s language is because in societies like ours, women are usually less powerful than men. Many women therefore use powerless language, but this is the result of their position in society rather than of their gender (Coates. 2004: 109). So, when looking at the use of hedges we need to be aware that it may not be a question of gender, but instead a reflection of power differences. 2.4 Gender differences in language in children s media To function in a society, a child needs to be socialized into the expectations, behavior and roles of their society. Over the years, the responsibility for this socialization has shifted; Traditionally, parents, peers, teachers, and the clergy have had the major responsibility for 10

11 socialization. Numerous studies have found, however, that in today's society, the mass media plays a very important role in the socialization process (Singer and Singer, 2001: p.343). It is still the case that parents, siblings, teachers, peers and the clergy have a big influence on a child, acting as role models, but the media's influence is increasing with the development of new technology. Coates claims that children not only learn gender-appropriate behavior, they also learn the folklinguistic beliefs of their society, for example that men use more swear words and women use more tag questions (2004: p.159). For a child to become linguistically competent, the child needs to learn how to 'do' masculinity or femininity in a particular speech community (Coates, 2004: p.148). There are also other factors involved in communicative competence, for example knowing when to speak and when to be silent. These norms are however different depending on culture and gender. An example of this is interruptions; girls learn at an early age that they are supposed to be silent and not to interrupt the teacher in school, while boys are encouraged to speak and to be dominant (Coates, 2004: p ). The child learns what it means to be a girl or a boy and how to apply different gender-appropriate behavior and language based on role models provided by parents, other children and adults and the media (Singer and Singer, 2001: p.314). Coates claims that it is largely through language that children are socialized into culturally approved gender roles. She also points out some particular ways in which the child learns gender-appropriate language. One way is through explicit comments on some aspects of the child s linguistic behavior, such as swearing, politeness and verbosity. Another way that children learn gender-appropriate language is by adults talking to the child differently depending on the child's gender, such as adults being more prone to interrupt girls than boys. A third way is by adults tending to respond differently when the child uses a linguistic strategy depending on the child's gender, such as adults giving a more positive response when boys are talking assertively than when girls are (Coates, 2004: p.169). This can result in boys learning to dominate the conversations and girls learning to be a supporting audience (Coates, 2004: p.156). As stated above, one of the ways that children learn gender-appropriate language is through their role models. Role models are adults, parents and teachers that the child looks up to. However, it is also commonly known that children look up to and use celebrities as role models; this includes their favorite hero and heroine from animated films. By using celebrities as role models for children, the media can affect children's behavior and language; an important part of the verbal culture of adolescence is produced not by the adolescents but by the media they engage with (Homes & Meyerhoff. 2003: p.393). This is why it is important 11

12 to investigate the role that media plays in presenting stereotypical gender norms and what message this sends to young consumers. In order to analyze what message the media is sending out about gender differences, it is important to first define hegemonic and subversive masculinities and femininities. At any given time a particular version of femininity or masculinity will be dominant. This version is called the hegemonic form (Coates, 2004: p.139). Hegemonic masculinity embraces qualities of physicality, violence, autonomy, wit and irony (Litosseliti and Sunderland, 2002: p.158). Subordinated groups or constructions to hegemonic masculinity are gay men, women and hippies (ibid.). Children s media teaches children at an early age how to preform masculinity or femininity. By just owning toys like the action-figures 'GI Joe' or 'Action Man' a child learns that masculinity is strongly connected with a muscled, tough and aggressive character (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). Coates claims that men perform masculinity by their choice of topic (such as cars, sports and fights) and through their use of swear words and an appeal to violence, which gives a tough image. She also suggests that masculinity is characterized by emotional restraint (2004: p.141). When it comes to alternative masculinities to the hegemonic form, Coates suggests while men can also be reflective and occasionally communicate emotions like pain and fear, they are constantly aware that this exposes them to ridicule and to the accusation of being homosexual (2004: p.142). Hegemonic femininities stand in stark contrast to hegemonic masculinities. As boys learn to be like 'GI Joe' and 'Action Man', girls learn to be like Barbie, Cinderella and Rapunzel who are portrayed as being beautiful, emotional and timid, waiting for a man to come along to rescue them (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). Throughout the twentieth century, the media has presented two images of girls: good girls and bad girls. Good girls are portrayed as quiet, sensitive, pretty, nurturing and selfless, while bad girls are portrayed as sexual, selfish, assertive and stubborn (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). Coates claims that today's dominant version of femininity positions women as caring, maternal, gentle, and above all, nice, and that toughness is something that is stereotypically masculine (2004: p.139). One way to signal toughness is by using foul language; since swearing is associated with power, it is associated with masculinity (Coates, 2004: p.98). In modern media, a new and cool type of woman has emerged, one that may be dressed in provocative clothing, adorned with tattoos and piercings. She might also use hegemonically masculine language such as swear words and taboo expressions. However, it has been claimed that this new woman does not abandon her traditional role as a sex object (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.124). 12

13 A subversive feminine role that many young women take on, particularly those from workingclass backgrounds, is a role which aims to be cool and act tough. One of the strategies used to achieve this involves adopting language forms associated with male speakers, such as the use of taboo words (Coates, 2004: p.98). Wojcik-Andrews observes the fact that it is common in children's films that the male character is the one giving directives (2000: p.177-8) and to illustrate this he gives an example from The Land Before Time, where Littlefoot tells the others where to go (Wojcik-Andrews, 2000: p.177-8). Ward claims that women are silent objects but she also mentions that in some Disney films, the female character may not be the stereotypical silent female, but that she might adopt some of the contemporary feminists attitudes, including being more vocal (2002: p.119). However, being more vocal might not always be a positive quality depending on what and how something is said. Sometimes women talk in ways which are seen as negative. One such example is the view that women gossip more than men (Coates, 2004: p.86). In the media, men are often described as aggressive: masculine power is often constructed using aggressiveness of all kinds, from verbal and body language to more explicit actions (Jacobson, 2005: p.28). While females are seen as emotional, males are seen as powerful and they are strongly associated with strength, both physically and mentally: The mainstream medias messages on femininity usually stress appearance, sexuality and nurturing, while masculinity themes are about power, action and aggression (Jacobson, 2005: p.39). Animated children's films want to be didactic, and everything that one can see and hear in animated films is present because someone consciously put it there: nothing accidental or serendipitous occurs in animation as each second of action on screen is rendered in twenty-four different still paintings (Bell, Haas & Sells, 1995: p.108). However in terms of speech, results from a study about articulation rates in films suggested that the speech in children s animated films is relatively slow, which means that the pauses and intonations in the films in this essay might be exaggerated (Haruhiko, Hironobu and Klinger, 2010). Even though films often include messages about important moral values, such as helping others and being friendly, they also tend to send stereotypical messages about how men and women are supposed to look and act. For example, men should act tough and have big muscles while women should be beautiful, silent and sweet (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12). It is however important to keep in mind that everything in films does not communicate these stereotyped messages. 13

14 3. Methodology The aim of this essay is to analyze heroes and heroines use of hedges in Disney's animated films in order to discover if heroines use hedges more frequently than heroes, thereby supporting hegemonic gender roles. This study is quantitative since the frequency of the hedges well and you know will be counted and analyzed based on what they communicate. Quantitative studies refer to methods using frequency counts, measurements and proportions or probabilities (Denscombe, 2010: p.104). The hedges will be divided into categories in order to investigate whether the functions of hedges are correlated to hegemonic gender roles. The distribution of these hedges functions may shed light on hegemonic gender differences. However, it is important to remember that the words well and you know do not always function as hedges. When well does not function as a hedge it can be an adjective as in I am well. Well can also act as a noun, for example build a well. It can be a verb as in tears welled up in his eyes and it can be an adverb as in I knew her very well. When well is used as a hedge, it is often an interjection. The expression you know does not function as a hedge when it is used as a subject and verb in clauses; You is a pronoun and know is a finite verb, and the two combined act as subject and verb in main or dependent clauses as in the example Do you know where I can find him?. When you know functions as a hedge it is often used in a comment clause. Comment clauses have the basic structure of a main clause: they contain a subject and a verb (you know, it seems), though they lack the other elements which these verbs normally require (you know something ) (Crystal, 2004: p. 215). This study focuses on well and you know as hedges as in the examples I m not, well, going and You can stay, you know. Based on the findings in the literature examined the various functions of these hedges have been analyzed by their contextual functions and annotated into three different categories which are listed below in subsection 3.2. The data studied in this essay will be presented in subsection 3.1. The data will be followed by the annotation procedure in subsection 3.2. After the presentation of the annotation procedure, a description of the calculation procedure will be presented in subsection 3.3. This section will end with subsection 3.4, which is a discussion of the validity and reliability of this essay. 14

15 3.1 Data The data selected for this study are Disney's animated films: Little Mermaid (1989), Beauty and the Beast (1991), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996), Hercules (1997), The Princess and the Frog (2009) and Tangled (2010) and their transcripts (listed in the reference section). The analysis of these films will be based on the occurrences of the expressions well and you know that function as hedges when uttered by the heroes and heroines. These films were chosen for several reasons. Disney usually produces films using a historical event, myth or famous novel as the basis for the plot, which makes these films fit the mold of what is considered a typical Disney film (Ward, 2002). These films are also the only Disney films between 1989 and 2010 that have both a human hero and a human heroine. Since this study focuses on hegemonic gender roles in Western culture, it was important to use Disney s films that take place in that culture. The focus will be on the heroines Ariel, Belle, Esmeralda, Megara, Tiana and Rapunzel and the heroes Eric, Beast, Quasimodo, Hercules, Naveen and Flynn. 3.2 Annotation procedure The aim of the study is to see if the heroes and heroines use hedges that are connected to hegemonic gender roles. In order to do this, an annotation procedure that distinguishes the different functions of the hedges well and you know was developed. The functions of these hedges are divided into three categories that are based on findings in the literature. Some of these categories can be distinguished by the position of the hedge in an utterance. To investigate if a hedge occurs initially, medially or finally in an utterance, one has to identify the beginning and the end of the utterance. This is easy to do in some cases when the utterance is short and follows directly after another speaker or starts a new scene. However, in some cases, a single character has a long turn which is composed of several utterances. An utterance is a stretch of speech preceded and followed by silence or a change of speaker (Crystal, 1991: p.367). Distinguishing utterance boundaries was only relevant in cases where a turn contained a hedge. In these cases, distinguishing utterance boundaries in longer turns is achieved by measuring the pauses surrounding the utterance that contains a hedge with a stop watch. In films aimed at adults, a pause that distinguishes utterance boundaries is over two seconds long (Utterance Boundaries, 2014). The threshold for utterance boundaries used in this study is 0.6 seconds since the speech in the films analyzed sounded to be a lot faster compared to speech in films aimed at adults despite results indicating the contrary (Haruhiko, Hironobu and Klinger, 2010). Intonation is another 15

16 distinguishing feature which is analyzed. Relevant intonation features of the hedge are analyzed as rising intonation, rise-fall intonation and neutral intonation. The hedges are analyzed in the context that they appear in, to get a better understanding of their function. Three utterances before the hedge and two utterances after the hedge are considered to provide this context. In some cases there is little context available, since the hedge sometimes occurs after a song or in the first utterance of a new scene. The hedge might also occur at the end of a scene or before a song which means that no utterance is used after the utterance with the hedge. The songs in the films are not analyzed and the words in the songs are not counted. The first category to be described in this section is hedges used as softening devices. This is followed by the next category which involves hedges used as attention-getting devices. The last category in this section describes hedges used as filler items and signs of uncertainty Hedges as softening devices The hedges well and you know can be used as softening devices. These hedges can reduce the force of an utterance and add tentativeness to a statement (Talbot, 1998: p.39). This type of hedge is used when the topic is face-threatening to the speaker, the addressee or to a third party. The hedge can be used to save the hearer s face by preventing the hearer from feeling attacked. It can also save the speaker s face by preventing the speaker from sounding too unkind, for example: you are a bit, well, loud. This type of hedge can also be used together with irony since the content of an ironic utterance is face-threatening and calls for strategies used to save face (Brown and Levinson, 1987, cited in Miller, 2006: p. 8). One of the features of hegemonic femininity is to be nice (Coates, 2004: p. 139). A women needs to soften her statements in order to sound nice, which can involve using hedges. However, irony is linked with hegemonic masculinity (Litosseliti and Sunderland, 2002: p.158), which means that when this hedge is used together with irony, it is more likely that the hedge is linked with hegemonic masculinity rather than femininity. However, irony will not be analyzed in the films as that is beyond the scope of this essay. To test if a hedge in the films analyzed is of this type, one has to consider how the utterance would sound without the hedge. If the utterance would be too harsh or unfriendly, or if it could be face-threatening to either the speaker or addressee without the hedge, then the hedge is probably used as a softening device, for example you are a bit loud. This type of hedge does not depend on pauses or intonation. It is entirely dependent on face threats, which means that even if an utterance that is face-threatening involves pauses, the hedge is still used 16

17 to soften the statement. One example would be a speaker that pauses near the hedge, knowing what to say but not how to say it without sounding too unfriendly. In other words, the hedge is not used as a filler item while the speaker thinks of how to say something but is used to soften the statement Hedges as attention-getting devices The hedge you know can be used when the speaker wants to see if the conversational partner is listening, following and attending to what the speaker is talking about (Cameron, 1990). This type of hedge is used when the speaker wants confirmation or a response while they are speaking. An example would be: The music is playing you know and everyone is dancing. The hedge well cannot act as a hedge of this type since well does not require a response from other participants. This type of hedge does not seem to occur in an initial position, but it can occur either medially or finally in an utterance (Aijmer, 1986: p. 13). Hedges as attention-getting devices are often pronounced with a rise-fall intonation (Maulana, 2011: p. 12). Aijmer suggests that this type of hedge can be associated with floor-holding since the hedge makes it possible for the speaker to keep the floor (1986). Both men and women want others to listen to them, but dominating conversations and demanding attention from others seem to be two features of hegemonic masculinity (Coates, 2004: p. 124, ). Coates states that it is common that men hog the floor which means that they do all the talking (ibid.). Using hedges as attention-getting devices could therefore be a hegemonically masculine trait. To investigate if one of the hedges in the films analyzed is of this type, one wants to rule out softening hedges by investigating whether there are any face threats in the statement. If there are face threats then the hedge is used as a softening hedge. To rule out uncertainty and filler item hedges one can look at the intonation and the positioning of the hedge. If you know is pronounced with a rise-fall intonation it would indicate that the hedge is of the attention-getting type. If the hedge is positioned in an utterance-final position, and if it does not contain any face threats, the hedge falls into this category, as it will be shown in that hedges which signal uncertainty do not occur in final position Hedges as filler items and signs of uncertainty Talbot describes the hedges well and you know as filler items (1998: p.39). Hedges can be used as filler items by filling out the silence while the speaker thinks about what to say. 17

18 This function of hedges can signal uncertainty by showing that the speaker is unsure of what to say and needs time to think. Vocalizations such as uh or uhm and other filler pauses can be combined in speech to signal uncertainty (Swerts and Hirschberg, 2010). An example of this type of hedge could be: My feelings in this matter are uhm well, not all that clear. One can distinguish hedges that signal uncertainty depending on intonation. Rising intonation indicates uncertainty and falling intonation indicate certainty (Lakoff, 2004 and Holmes, 1987). This type of hedge can occur at the beginning or in the middle of an utterance, but it can never be in final position (Aijmer, 1986). This type of hedge occurs before the term that the speaker is unsure about as in the example: It was, you know, pink. This type of hedge might be connected to hegemonic femininity since women are supposed to be nice and timid. Lakoff writes that women use hedges to avoid asserting themselves strongly because that would not be nice or feminine (2004: p.79). To see if a hedge in the films analyzed signals uncertainty one must investigate if any face threats occur since that would indicate that the hedge is of the softening type. One can also look at the positioning of the hedge. If the hedge is in final position then this type can be excluded. The phonological features of the conversations, such as intonation, can also be investigated to see if a hedge signals uncertainty or is used as a filler item. If the hedge is pronounced with a rising intonation, it is a sign of uncertainty. A hedge combined with vocalizations such as uhm is another sign of this type of hedge, as in the example: I, um well thought you liked ice cream. A rising intonation and an initial or medial positioning would also indicate that the hedge is a filler item which signals uncertainty. In Table 1 below the different features of hedges are summarized for three categories of hedges. These are the criteria which will be used when distinguishing these three categories in the films analyzed. Table 1. Characteristics of the different types of hedges Face threats Rising intonation Rise-fall intonation Initial position Medial position Final position Other filler pauses Softening Yes Does Does not Does not Does not Does not Does not not apply apply apply apply apply apply Attention-getting, Does not No No Yes No Yes Yes only you know apply Filler item No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 18

19 As shown in Table 1, softening hedges are only distinguished by face threats while attention-getting hedges are distinguished by a rise-fall intonation and medial and final position. Hedges as filler items are, as shown in Table 1, distinguished by rising intonation, initial and medial position and by whether or not they are used together with other filler pauses. 3.3 Calculating results It has now been shown that the hedges well and you know can function in different ways in a conversation depending on positioning, intonation and the presence of face threats. To investigate how the distribution of hedge functions varies by gender (that is, between heroes and heroines), one has to establish how many hedges are uttered by heroes and heroines in each of the three categories for all films analyzed. To then recognize the frequency of hedges by function, normalization must be performed in order to account for the different amounts of speech uttered by heroes and heroines. To obtain normalized frequencies, the number of hedges in each category by gender must be divided by the total number of words spoken by heroes and heroines respectively. In this study the heroines use of the hedges well and you know in each category will be divided with the heroines total number of words. The same procedure will be performed for the heroes. 3.4 Validity and reliability According to Denscombe (2010: p. 143), validity has to do with the accuracy of the questions asked, the data collected and the explanations offered. There are two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity investigates the likelihood of the study s results being correctly based on the method that was used when analyzing the data. Internal validity applies to causal relationships investigated, and since this study does not investigate causal relationships but rather correlations in a descriptive way, internal validity is not strictly relevant for this study. However, internal validity will be used to discuss methodological shortcomings affecting accuracy. External validity has to do with whether the study s results can be applied to other studies concerning other situations and participants. Reliability entails an evaluation of the methods and techniques used to collect the data. It refers to the ability of a research process to provide results that do not vary from occasion to occasion and that do not vary according to the particular persons undertaking the research (Denscombe, 2010: p. 144). There are two types of reliability as well, internal and 19

20 external. Internal reliability addresses the consistency of the method. It addresses whether or not this study s annotation procedure enables other people to make the same annotations without any discrepancies. External reliability has to do with whether the method is consistent each time it is run, so that a second analysis at a later point in time will give identical or highly similar results as a first analysis The internal validity of this study might be questionable since it was sometimes difficult to hear the intonation of the hedges and since no established benchmark for pause duration in children s films was used. The positioning of hedges, which is one of the distinguishing criteria in the annotation procedure, might be incorrect since it was difficult to identify the boundaries of the utterances. This also affects the internal and external reliability since the interpretation of face threats involving irony may vary from time to time and between people. The results of this study might also be skewed since the study is based on descriptive statistics rather than inferential statistics. In terms of external validity, the results of this study should not be used to generalize women s and men s speech or even to describe their speech generally in other children s films. As stated in the previous research section, the intonation in children s films might be exaggerated and this might have affected the validity and reliability of the results in this study since some of the hedges are categorized based on intonation. Since a fairly small sample of films from a fixed time period was considered it can also be concluded that this study has not analyzed enough data to guarantee external validity. As mentioned above, the internal reliability and validity are questionable because of the difficulties in hearing intonation and distinguishing utterance boundaries. The internal reliability has increased somewhat since the annotations were checked by the supervisor using this study s annotation guide; if multiple annotators obtain similar annotations this increases internal reliability. If one were to annotate the data of this study again at a later time, those annotations may vary a bit from the earlier annotations because of the uncertainty involved in identifying face threats, intonation and utterance boundaries. Since a subsequent annotation has not been performed, external reliability cannot be established. In the next section the results of applying the annotation procedure to the data are presented. 20

21 4. Results This section will present the results of the study. The annotation procedure in the methodology section was applied to the hedges well and you know that were used by the heroes and heroines in the Disney films analyzed in this study. This section will start with an introduction of the numerical results of the various types of hedges which will be followed by an analysis of the results and a discussion of the implications of the results for the hypothesis. The hypothesis of this essay is that heroines use hedges more frequently than heroes, which can result in Disney constructing hegemonically feminine and masculine role models. There were altogether 69 instances of the hedges well and you know in the films analyzed. 22 of these were uttered by the heroines, and 47 were uttered by the heroes. The total number of words by the heroes and heroines were 12,460, of which 5890 were produced by heroines and 6570 were produced by heroes. The hedges were annotated following the procedure outlined in the preceding section. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the total number of words and the occurrence of the different types of hedges spoken by each heroine and hero. Table 2. Each heroine s use of different types of hedges and total number of words Total Heroine Softening hedge Filler item hedge Attention-getting hedge words Ariel: Belle: Esmeralda: Megara: Tiana: Rapunzel: Total for all Heroines: Table 3. Each hero s use of different types of hedges and total number of words Hero Softening hedge Filler item hedge Attention-getting hedge Total words Eric: Beast: Quasimodo: Hercules: Naveen: Flynn: Total for all heroes:

22 Tables 2 and 3 present each hero s and heroine s use of the different kinds of hedges. Table 4 illustrates the normalized percentages for the heroes and heroines use of the different types of hedges. The total number of hedges for each category has been divided by the total number of words by gender and then the normalized fractions have been converted to normalized percentages by multiplying by 100. In the last row the table presents the total percentage of hedges by gender, counting all three hedging categories. Table 4. Heroines and heroes normalized percentages for the different hedging categories Heroines Hedges Words Percentage Heroes Hedges Words Percentage Softening % Softening % All hedges % All hedges % Table 4 shows that heroes used more hedges than heroines in all categories. These results will be discussed in subsection 4.1. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the proportions of hedges by category for each gender. Heroines' hedges 73% 5% 22% Softening hedges Filler item hedges Filer item % Filler item % Attentiongetting Attentiongetting % % Attentiongetting hedges Figure 1. Heroines use of the different types of hedges 22

23 62% Heroes' Hedges 6% 32% Softening hedges Filler item hedges Attentiongetting hedges Figure 2. Heroes use of the different types of hedges Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that heroes and heroines use hedges as filler items more frequently than the other types of hedges. The figures also illustrate that hedges as attentiongetting devices are used the least. Furthermore the figures indicate that the ratio of softening hedges to filler items is slightly higher for heroes than for heroines. These results will be discussed in subsection Discussion of results The heroes had a higher percentage of hedges than the heroines in all categories which indicates that the hypothesis for this study is incorrect. Both groups mostly used hedges as filler items which indicates that Disney does not create an image of a confident hero and an insecure heroine in these particular aims. However, while Table 4 illustrates that heroes have a higher percentage than heroines in the use of hedges as filler items, Figures 1 and 2 show that heroines have a larger proportion of this type of hedge. Figures 1 and 2 also illustrate that heroes have a larger proportion of hedges as softening devices than heroines, which agrees with Table 4 which shows that heroes use hedges as softening devices more frequently than heroines. This might be explained by Brown and Levinson s claim that face-threatening utterances can involve irony, which is one of the features of hegemonic masculinity (Brown and Levinson, 1987, cited in Miller, 2006: p. 8; Litosseliti and Sunderland, 2002: p.158). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that there is no difference in the proportion of hedges as attention-getting devices between genders, which indicates that Disney does not seem to employ this feature to signal hegemonic masculinity. A hegemonically masculine character should be muscled, aggressive, witty, ironic and tough (Carter and Steiner, 2004: p.12; Litosseliti and Sunderland, 2002: p.158). All of the characters in the films analyzed possessed at least a few of these features except for 23