JEngL 30.

2
Mondorf / Gender
(June 2002)
Differences in English Syntax

Gender Differences in English Syntax

BRITTA MONDORF
Universitt Paderborn, Germany

While the past three decades have witnessed an upsurge in research on gender
and language, empirical investigations of gender differences in the area of syntax
are still at a premium. The objective of this paper is to combine corpus-linguistic
methodology with the theoretical framework provided by functional grammar in
order to explore an area of marked gender differences in syntax (i.e., epistemic
grounding strategies by means of adverbial clauses). The gender sensitivity of lin-
guistic items that encode epistemic meaning has already been shown by Holmes
(1984, 1986, 1990) for tag questions and hedges, as well as by Preisler (1986) and
Coates (1987) for modal verbs.
1
The quantitative and qualitative in-depth analysis of syntactic variation in the
use of four types of finite adverbial clauses according to gender in the London-
Lund Corpus (LLC)2 not only introduces verifiable data on statistically significant
differences but is also able to provide a more realistic point of departure for future
theory building. This is more than that which is currently offered by less data-driven
approaches. Moreover, a corpus-based approach is able to reconcile the apparently
contradictory results of studies on gender-differentiated language use conducted so
far. The semantic types investigated are causal, conditional, concessive, and pur-
pose clauses. A careful breakdown of the data according to a range of factors, such
as semantic type and position, allows us to discern the underlying motivation for the
observed sex-differentiated use of adverbial clauses. The results will be analyzed
with a view to several tenets postulated in expectation states theory.

Previous Research
Although claims of sex differences in the use of subordination date at least to the
beginning of the twentieth century, few studies have approached this question em-
pirically. Sex differences with respect to subordinate clause usage were postulated
by Jespersen (1922, 252) in his well-known quotation:

A male period is often like a set of Chinese boxes, one within another, while a
feminine period is like a set of pearls joined together on a string of ands and

Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 30 / No. 2, June 2002 158-180

2002 Sage Publications
158

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 159

similar words. . . . In learned terminology we may say that men are fond of
hypotaxis and women of parataxis.

Karin Aijmer (1986) has discussed adverbial clauses in terms of hedging, a phe-
nomenon that (since Lakoff 1975) is one of the best-known characteristics differen-
tiating female and male speech. Similarly, Brown and Levinson (1987, 146f.) have
stressed that adverbial clauses can be used to hedge a main clause in order to signal
negative politeness.
In a diachronic study of gender difference in dramatic dialogue, Biber and
Burges (2000, 35) analyzed ninety-five drama texts from A Representative Corpus
of Historical English Registers (ARCHER) and observed that female authors por-
trayed both female and male characters as being more involved and tentative than
male authors. Politeness, tentativeness, and hedging share the property of being
expressed by linguistic devices that can signal epistemic meaning (i.e., the speak-
ers commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed). The gender differences
concerning position and semantic clause type that are identified in the present
investigation can all be attributed to differences in the expression of epistemic
meaning.

The Data
The present analysis is based on the LLC of spoken British English, which com-
prises 100 texts exceeding a total of 500,000 words uttered by approximately 650
educated native speakers. This computer-readable corpus has been selected be-
cause, in addition to being large enough to give new insights into the structure in-
vestigated, it has the advantage of being prosodically coded.

Definition
For present purposes, a grammatical unit is considered a finite adverbial clause
if it

1. is introduced by a subordinating conjunction,

2. has a subject and finite verb,
3. cannot function as subject or object of the main clause verb.

After automatically retrieving the major causal, conditional, purpose, and con-
cessive subordinators in the corpus, each occurrence was manually edited in order
to eliminate those cases to which the defining characteristics did not apply. This
procedure provided approximately 4,500 finite adverbial clauses as the database
for the present study.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

160 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

Gender Differences in the Use of

Finite Adverbial Clauses
Statistically highly significant sex differences are revealed in an analysis of
the correlation between finite adverbial clause usage and speaker sex in the LLC. A
comparison of absolute differences is unrevealing since womens and mens over-
all contribution to the corpus measured in terms of the number of tokens differs.
Men contributed 68 percent of all tokens to the corpus while the female contribution
amounts to only 32 percent. In order to take account of these absolute differences,
the expected value for each sex is computed. The expected value (EV) is the value
that would be reached if the clause/token ratio had been proportionate to that of the
other sex. The difference between actual and expected values then serves as a basis
for comparison. The direction and extent of sex differentiation is depicted in the
histogram in Figure 1.
As the figure indicates, womens proportion of adverbial clauses is higher
than expected. This means that it is above the value that would have been ex-
pected if women had used the same proportion of adverbial clauses per token as
men. The extent of sex differentiation is statistically highly significant. The level of
statistical significance measured by the chi-square test is indicated at the bottom of
the legend.3

Gender Differences According to

Position and Semantic Clause Type
The observation that women in the LLC use more finite adverbial clauses of the
types analyzed is not in itself revealing. A further differentiation according to
formal and functional criteria provides a clearer motivation for the encountered
pattern.
A strikingly consistent pattern emerges with respect to the positioning of adver-
bial clauses (see Figure 2). Statistical significance is ascertained for each position
separately. A set of columns is labeled with its respective chi-square score only if
gender differences reach the 5 percent level of statistical significance. The figure il-
lustrates that no noteworthy differences emanate for preposed clauses. By contrast,
the gender effect is statistically highly significant for postposed clauses and signifi-
cant for clauses without main clause. The latter rubric comprises instances where
an adverbial clause does not modify explicitly expressed material. The distribution
according to position suggests the following:

Pre- and postposed adverbial clauses serve crucially different functionsa phenome-
non that is largely uncontroversial to researchers in this field.
Female dominance in the use of finite adverbial clauses appears to be traceable to post-
posed adverbial clauses and those without main clause.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 161

Adverbial Clauses 3500

3000 AV (F)
EV (F)
2500 AV (M)
EV (M)
2000

x2 = 42.97***
1500

1000

500

Figure 1: Finite Adverbial Clauses According to Sex (n = 4,471).

NOTE: AV = actual value; EV = expected value.

2
x = 71.68***
Adverbial Clauses 2000
AV (F)
1800
1600 EV (F)
AV (M)
1400
1200 EV (M)

1000
800
600
2
400 x = 8.01**
200
0
Preposed Postposed No Main Clause

Figure 2: Finite Adverbial Clauses According to Sex and Position (n = 4,462).

In this context, a comment on hedges by Janet Holmes (1984, 52) is of interest. She
states that positioning is often relevant to the functional differentiation of hedges
and gives the following example, in which, in most contexts, the initial positioning
of I believe can be interpreted as expressing more certainty than final positioning.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

162 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

(1) I believe the students are responsible for this.

The students are responsible for this I believe. (Holmes 1984, 52)

Whereas initial placement of I believe may intensify or strengthen the assertion, fi-
nal placement typically attenuates the strength of the speakers commitment to the
truth of the proposition. In both cases, the expression of epistemic modal meaning
is involvedin one case indicating certainty and in the other uncertainty.

Causal Clauses

The LLC contains 1,792 finite adverbial causal clauses introduced by such con-
junctions as because and its variants cause and cos, as well as since, for, as, in that,
as long as, inasmuch, and in case. Causal clauses produce gender effects that reflect
the same pattern as the aggregate results for all adverbial clauses (i.e., there is a sta-
tistically highly significant female lead in the use of this clause type, whereas males
use comparatively few causal clauses) (see Figure 3).
With respect to positioning, the emerging pattern also resembles that of the ag-
gregate figures for all clause types. While there is no discernible correlation be-
tween gender and preposed causal clauses, sex differences for postposed clauses
are statistically highly significant, displaying theby now familiarfemale lead
(see Figure 4).
The parallels between causal clauses and the aggregate pattern for all adverbial
clause types raise the question as to whether the aggregate results are conditioned
by the causal clause findings. Consideration of the remaining three clause types
(i.e., conditional, concessive and purpose clauses) will demonstrate that this is not
the case.

Conditional Clauses

Conditional clauses included in the analysis are those introduced by if, unless,
when, whenever, in case, supposing, provided, providing, so long as, as long as, on
condition that, assuming, before, in the case that, just so, once, and save.4 At first
sight, the 2,222 conditional clauses in the LLC do not exhibit statistically signifi-
cant gender marking. However, taking the position of the conditional clause into ac-
count, the distribution resembles that of causal clauses: no gender differences
emerge for preposed clauses, but a strong female dominance is apparent for post-
posed conditionals and the gender effect is statistically significant (see Figure 5).
The same female lead may be observed for conditionals with no main clauses.
Thus, as for causal clauses, the position of conditional clauses strongly corre-
lates with gender. Women prefer postposed clauses, while men use postpositions
comparatively less often.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 163

Causal Clauses 1400

1200 AV (F)
EV (F)
1000 AV (M)
EV (M)
800
2
x = 68.53***
600

400

200

Figure 3: Finite Causal Clauses According to Sex (n = 1,792).

2
x = 66.87***
Causal Clauses 1200
AV (F)
1000 EV (F)
AV (M)
800
EV (M)
600

400

200

0
Preposed Postposed No Main Clause

Figure 4: Finite Causal Clauses According to Sex and Position (n = 1,792).

Purpose Clauses

The third adverbial clause type, which is introduced by so, if, in case, lest, for
fear that, and in order that, displays the same pattern as causal clauses. Women use
comparatively more purpose clauses compared to men, who use relatively few.
Since all 126 occurrences of purpose clauses in the LLC are postposed, the total dis-
tribution is the same as for postposed clauses (see Figure 6).

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

164 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

Conditional 900
Clauses
800 AV (F)

700 EV (F)
x 2 = 5.71*
AV (M)
600
EV (M)
500

400

300

200 x 2 = 5.91*

100

0
Preposed Postposed No Main Clause

Figure 5: Finite Conditional Clauses According to Sex and Position (n = 2,222).

Purpose Clauses 90
AV (F)
80
EV (F)
70
AV (M)
60
EV (M)
50
40 2
x = 18.77***
30
20
10
0
Figure 6: Finite Purpose Clauses According to Sex (n = 126).

Concessive Clauses

The subordinators retrieved for the present analysis are even if, even when, al-
though, though, whereas, while, and whilst, where these encode a primarily conces-
sive function. Concessive clauses pattern very differently from the other three ad-
verbial clause types. In contrast to causal, conditional, and purpose clauses, they are
comparatively often used by men. This male preference is statistically highly sig-
nificant (see Figure 7).

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 165

Concessive 250
Clauses AV (F)
EV (F)
200 AV (M)
EV (M)

150 2
x = 7.48**

100

50

Figure 7: Finite Concessive Clauses According to Sex (n = 322).

Concessive 140
Clauses
120 x 2 = 8.73** AV (F)
EV (F)
100 AV (M)

80 EV (M)

60

40

20

0
Preposed Postposed No Main Clause

Figure 8: Finite Concessive Clauses According to Sex and Position (n = 322).

The deviant distribution for concessive clauses raises the question of whether
this sentence type also exhibits a different pattern as regards positioning. Figure 8
illustrates that this is indeed the case.
The pattern for concessives differs in three respects from the pattern for causal,
conditional, and purpose clauses.

There is no gender effect observable for postposed clauses. For the remaining three
clause types, this position was characterized by frequent female usage.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

166 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

For the first time, a statistically highly significant sex difference for preposed clauses is
apparent.
This clause type is the only one that is predominantly used by males rather than females.

Explanation of Gender Differences

According to Position

Female Preference for Postposed Clauses

The finding that women use more postposed adverbial clauses in the LLC than
men do has been observed throughout all four adverbial clause types. This finding
is most noteworthy with respect to conditional clauses that are generally indiscrimi-
nate with respect to gender in the corpus as a whole. However, when differentiated
according to position, the gender-neutral pattern disappears and a clearly differenti-
ated pattern emerges for women and men, a pattern that is concealed by the aggre-
gate figures. Females clearly favor postposed conditionals, whereas men favor pre-
posed conditionals.
The positional preference can be explained in terms of the information structure
of finite adverbial clauses. The postposed clauses favored by women are mainly as-
serted rather than presupposed. Women score particularly high on postposed
clauses produced under a separate intonation contour (cf. Mondorf 1996). Such
clauses express lower commitment than presupposed information. Postposition has
also been shown to be the typical location for clausal hedges. Thus, one of the rea-
sons why women apparently use these final clauses is to epistemically modify the
proposition expressed in the main clause. Postposition appears to be the default lo-
cation for signaling limited commitment toward the truth of the proposition ex-
pressed in the main clause.

Male Preference for Preposed Clauses

Mens adverbial clauses in the LLC are far more often of the kind conveying pre-
supposed information, thereby expressing high commitment toward the truth of the
proposition expressed. The difference in information status of womens and mens
subordinate clauses is reflected in the distribution of clauses as regards positioning.
Presupposed information usually appears in the canonical given information slot
(i.e., in prepositioning), whereas asserted information typically appears in final po-
sition. This is consistent with the finding that women are, comparatively, more
likely to use postposed adverbial clauses, while men use mainly preposed clauses.
Overall, then, men tend to use finite adverbial clauses to convey high commitment
to the truth of the propositions expressed, whereas women use them to the opposite
effect.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 167

Causal Purpose Conditional Concessive

causality asserted causality hypothesized causality denied

Figure 9: Continuum of Causality Relations.

SOURCE: Based on Harris (1988).

Causal Purpose Conditional Concessive

Women Men
causality asserted causality hypothesized causality denied

Figure 10: Continuum of Causality Relations Extended by a Gender Component.

In addition, the discourse function of preposed clauses has been described by

Ford (1993) as text structuring rather than of a main clause modifying kind. Pre-
posed clauses generally have a less localized scope and often serve to introduce new
topics (cf. Ramsay 1987). This feature can also be related to status differences be-
tween the sexes, since topic control tends to be a privilege of those in higher status
positions.

Explanation of Gender Differences

According to Semantic Clause Type

Harriss Semantic Continuum

Harris (1988, 71) has suggested a semantic continuum covering causal relations
in causal, conditional, and concessive clauses. By adding purpose clauses to the
spectrumwhere the relation between the subordinate and the main clause also as-
serts causality rather than hypothesizing or denying itthe semantic continuum
can be represented in Figure 9.
The findings presented have shown that in comparison with men, women in the
LLC use strikingly more causal and purpose clauses and fewer concessives. By
contrast, conditional clauses proved to be indifferent to the gender factor. Thus, ex-
tending the continuum by a female and male pole presents the distribution given in
Figure 10.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

168 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

Male Preference for Concessive Clauses

Concessive clauses have been discussed in terms of hedges (i.e., in terms of neg-
ative politeness, which takes the face needs of interlocutors into consideration).
Preisler (1986) assumes that concessives facilitate a compromise. His analysis
groups together concessive clauses that appear within the same intonation contour
as the main clause as tentativeness signalsclauses used to mitigate the state-
ment made in the main clause. Preisler predicted that such concessives would occur
more frequently in womens speech, a hypothesis that was not borne out by his data.
I argue that concessives have exactly the opposite effect: they do not mitigate the
main clause proposition but rather reinforce it. Thus, a concessive clause intro-
duced by even if can signal that the main clause proposition holds even if there may
be arguments against it. Such concessives cannot be analyzed in terms of politeness
strategies or tentativeness. They rather invoke some kind of infallibility clause,
which is why they are intensifying rather than mitigating. The following example
uttered by a politician during a radio discussion illustrates this point:

(2) [@] and . ^though I dont know much about the :Cr\oydon C/ouncil# Im
^sure theyre :wrong about th\at# . (LLC 5.1 TU 254090)5

The concessive clause belongs to the type that Preisler (1986)on prosodic
groundsgroups among tentativeness signals. However, although the speaker ad-
mits his knowledge to be rudimentary, he intensifies his claim that theyre wrong.

Female Preference for Causal and Purpose Clauses

Gnthner (1992) has reported how conversational partners can turn a conversa-
tion into a confrontation by not giving a reason or justification for a proposition.
This supports the view that causal clauses can serve as attenuators for a given state-
ment. By contrast, the omission or nonutterance of an expected causal clause can
signal that there is nothing to add to the proposition, since providing a reason is re-
garded as unnecessary; the interlocutor is not considered important enough to de-
serve such effort.
In the data analyzed, it has been shown that purpose clauses are predominantly
used by women. Hopper and Thompson (1985, 174f.) emphasize that a purpose
clause denotes an unrealized state of affairs.

(3) Ill just break one open so that you can see the rich mushroom filling. (LLC
10.11 TU 7380ff.)

The clause provides motivation for the event. Since the verb of the purpose clause
does not report any event but only an unrealized state of affairs, it scores low with

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 169

Presupposition Realis Assertion Irrealis Assertion

Negative Assertion

Figure 11: Discourse Pragmatic Scale According to Givn (1984, 322).

respect to categoriality. This is reflected cross-linguistically by the fact that in many

languages, this verb is an infinitive form or otherwise marked as irrealis. It normally
lacks morphological indications of tense, aspect, and person. The subordinate
clause proposition (i.e., to see the filling) encodes an irrealis component. Irrealis,
in turn, is related to epistemic meaning. Irrealis assertions have been characterized
in Givns (1984, 25) epistemic contract as open to challenge. They score compara-
tively high in the encoding of epistemic meaning. If something is expressed in the
irrealis mode, the degree of commitment to the proposition is comparatively low.
In his functional grammar, Givn (1984) has expressed this relation in the scale in
Figure 11.
The scale indicates that presupposed material is put on a par with negative asser-
tions as regards their ability to express the speakers commitment. Next on the scale
are realis assertions, which do not require evidentiary support (Givn 1984, 322)
but convey lower commitment on the part of the speaker than presuppositions and
negative assertions. Irrealis assertions are considered to be open to challenge.
The scale illustrates that presupposed material ranks on an equal commitment
level to negative assertions. Thus, a denial as it is implicitly expressed in conces-
sive clauses encodes very strong commitment. It is an assertive strategy by speakers
who, according to the epistemic contract, do not typically expect their statement to
be challenged. Denial implies the negation of a presupposed belief, which is why it
scores so high on the commitment scale.
The reason for placing negative assertion on a par with presuppositions is that af-
firmative utterances are commonly used to inform the addressee of something new.
By contrast, negative declaratives deny a proposition against the background of the
addressees presumed belief in the proposition or familiarity with it (cf. Givn
1984, 324).

(4) a. Whats new?

b. Oh, my wife is pregnant. affirmative
c. Oh, my wife is not pregnant. negative

A likely answer to the negated sentence might be as follows:

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

170 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

(5) Wait a minute, I didnt know she was supposed to be pregnant. (Based on
Givn 1984, 323)

Thus, the negation can be regarded as denying a presupposed belief. In the example,
the negation My wife is not pregnant denies the presupposed assumption of the
conversation partner that the wife of the speaker is pregnant. As Givn (1984, 324)
puts it,

Affirmative declarative: The hearer does not know and the speaker knows.
Negative declarative: The hearer knows wrong and the speaker knows better.

One of the functions of a negative declarative can therefore be to signal the ad-
dressee that the speaker does not share the belief in the corresponding affirmative.
This is why

negatives are considered less polite, contentious, unpleasant or downright

threatening. It is one thing to tacitly add to a persons knowledge on the im-
plicit background of non-knowledge. It is another thing altogether to chal-
lenge a persons already existing, strongly held (and oft strongly asserted) be-
lief. (Givn 1984, 324fn.)

It might be tempting to account for the female preference for causal and purpose
clauses by falling back on the hypothesis that women, in general, are more tentative
than men, and they therefore use more adverbial clauses to justify the propositions
in their utterances. However, this begs the question of how to account for the
multifunctionality of causal clauses (i.e., not all causal clauses have a justifying
function). Likewise, one might be tempted to argue that males as a group are so as-
sertive that they can afford to use concessive clauses that state a contrast toward
what is conveyed in the main clause and might even provide an interlocutor with ar-
guments that can be used to challenge the speaker. However, this would not explain
why some semantic clause types are differentiated for gender while, for instance,
conditional clauses are not, even though the importance of conditional clauses in
signaling politeness is so pervasive in language that one type of conditional clause
has been characterized as a conventional expression of politeness (cf. Quirk et al.
1985).
Further analyses concerning the pragmatic function of those adverbial clauses
that encode primarily epistemic meaning versus those that mainly convey proposi-
tional meaning show that for all four semantic clause types, females use signifi-
6
cantly more adverbial clauses that signal epistemic meaning than men. For space
reasons, this analysis cannot be provided within the scope of this paper.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 171

Epistemic Meaning and Gender

Gender differences exist in the use of adverbial clauses as well as most of the lin-
guistic units that have been discussed in terms of gender differences (e.g., hesita-
tions, rising tone, tag questions, lexical hedges, intensifying particles, etc.), largely
because these constructions encode epistemic meaning (i.e., the speakers commit-
ment to the truth of the proposition expressed). This is consistent with Chafes
(1987) observation that a subordinate clause can provide the epistemic background
for the main clause proposition. The question remains as to why epistemic meaning
appears so closely linked to gender.
Givn (1990, 821) postulates an indirect inference relation between truth and
power. He draws on the epistemic contract, a set of conventions that govern human
communication. This contract links epistemic dimensions, such as knowledge and
subjective certainty, to more sociopersonal dimensions, such as status or power.
Hedges are a case in point, where speakers downtone the assertion expressed to in-
dicate deference. Givn (1990, 822) holds that

toning down is a hedge against the possibility that the higher authority
might hold a contrary belief. Such epistemic deference to power realities
is a pervasive feature of many, perhaps all cultures.

He assumes a continuum ranging from truth to power.

truth > knowledge > certainty > status > power

Since gender effects are closely related to power and status, the continuum is easily
applicable to gender variation.

Truth and knowledge. The typical expectation if a speaker claims to express the
truth of a proposition is that she or he has the relevant knowledge. If this is not true,
speakers are expected to signal this, for instance, by means of a nondeclarative
speech act or downtoning modifiers. Thus, when uttering

(6) The train arrives at eight.

the speaker is assumed to be more knowledgeable about arrival times than when
uttering

(7) Does the train arrive at eight? or I suppose the train arrives at eight.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

172 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

I maintain that speakers who are aware they may not be expressing the truth usually
indicate this deficit by means of certain disclaimers (i.e., expressions that bear
epistemic significance). Among such disclaimers are certain tag question types and
finite adverbial clauses expressing epistemic grounding. This does not mean that
speakers cannot flout this principle by claiming something to be true, for instance,
for rhetorical purposes. Conversely, speakers can use disclaimers even though they
do know what they say to be true, in order to appear less knowledgeable and more
polite. The present study provides empirical support for the claim that it is specifi-
cally women who use these expressions of epistemic modality in order to signal that
what they are saying is not claimed to be the absolute truth. Whether these women
really believe their propositions to be true or not is secondary in the present context
because what is at stake is their intention of not appearing too knowledgeable.

Knowledge and certainty. A speaker is only expected to express certainty about

a proposition if he or she knows about it, unless of course expressions of certainty
are deliberately used as a rhetoric device in persuading others.

Certainty and status. The expression of certainty can be the privilege of high-
status speakers. The expression of uncertainty about a proposition can be a means
of signaling modesty or deference. Thus, Syder and Pawleys (1974) modesty
principle states that speakers sometimes pretend to know less than they actually
do, when their knowledge might positively reflect on their personal stature. This re-
lates to a power maxim that states the following:

In communicating to an interlocutor of higher status, one downgrades ones

own subjective certainty. (Givn 1990, 823)

This factor is likely to contribute to the expression of politeness. As Lichtenberk

(1995, 318) holds,

Crosslinguistically, epistemic downtoning is a common feature of polite

speech.

Politeness is often effected by figuratively taking less space for oneself and leaving
this space to others. Using disclaimers reduces the space for ones own certainty or
knowledge and increases that of others. This is where epistemic and interpersonal
meaning are related. Epistemic meaning, in the form of mitigated expressions of
commitment, can be signaled to achieve interpersonal ends. It therefore represents
one strategy to signal interpersonal meaning. Another strategy of negative polite-
ness is to soften disagreement. There is often a connection between downtoners and

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 173

negation. Commenting on combinations of negation plus yes/no question markers,

conditionals, subjunctives, and modals, Givn (1990, 823) holds that its

deference value might derive from the overlap between negation and irrealis,
along the psychological dimension of subjective certainty.

Status and power. If a speaker is in a powerful position, this often derives from
the speakers status in society. Most frequently, power is associated with socioeco-
nomic status but it need not be. The factors contributing to a persons status are mul-
tifarious, and what conveys status on a person in one situation need not do so in an-
other. The relation between status and expectations has been discussed under the
heading of expectation states theory, which will play a crucial part in the explana-
tion of sex differences introduced in the present study.

Expectation States Theory

Expectation states theory accounts for the fact that what is at stake in the relation
between certainty and knowledge in the above continuum is not necessarily the as-
sociation of objective certainty or knowledge with status or power but expectations
about speakers certainty or knowledge. Thus, a speaker in a high-status position
might be expected to be more knowledgeable by deferent interlocutors. Conversely,
a speaker in a comparatively low-status situation is likely to find that lack of power
is frequently associated with expectations of uncertainty, lack of knowledge, or
even the statement of what is not true. Whether the relation between truth and power
is based on actual differences in knowledgeability is secondary in this context be-
cause the expectations themselves can result in different behaviors without ever be-
ing questioned or verified. This is where expectation states theory relates to the ob-
served sex differences in syntax.
Givn (1990, 807) remarks that

the grammar of verbal manipulation shades into the grammar of deference,

honorification and even the epistemics of certainty.

Expectation states theory postulates seven central assumptions for interactants in

task-oriented settings (cf. Meeker and Weitzel-ONeill 1985, 387, 389):

(A) Group members who are expected to do better at a given task receive and
take more opportunities to make task contributions; they have more influ-
ence and prestige and receive more expressions of agreement and approval.
(B) In the absence of information to the contrary, communication partners as-
sign performance expectations on the basis of external status characteristics.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

174 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

(C) Gender functions as a status characteristic, with females having lower sta-
tus than males.
(D) In the absence of information to the contrary, task contribution is accepted
to raise the status of the contributor relative to the status of others.
(E) Raising ones status is legitimate and will be accepted for persons with high
status (e.g., men) but not for those with low status (e.g., women).
(F) Assumptions (D) and (E) can be canceled either if a lower status persons
contribution is motivated by helping others in the group rather than raising
her or his own status or if the person holding lower external status legiti-
mately has been assigned higher status (e.g., by having been appointed as
leader).
(G) These statements hold independently of performance expectations.

As regards linguistic behavior, Meeker and Weitzel-ONeill (1985, 390) hold that
lower status speakers do more agreeing and expressing of approval than higher
status speakers. In terms of assumption (F), these are legitimate contributions for
female speakers.

If the external status characteristic of sex can be made to appear irrelevant to

the task, or if the particular women involved can be made to appear compe-
tent, performance expectations will not be affected by sex. If, at the same
time, high rates of task behaviour are legitimated for women, sex differences
should disappear. (Meeker and Weitzel-ONeill 1985, 390)

And Lockheed (1985, 410) points out that status expectation theory predicts that

actors holding relatively higher expectation advantages will be deferred to.

They will be given more opportunities to contribute to the group task, and
their contributions will be more positively evaluated. A result of this admit-
tedly unconscious deference is the emergence of an observable power and
prestige order in the group.

Bergers (1980) theory has a lot to offer for the explanation of sex differences in
language. Proponents of this theory hold that different expectations and beliefs
about oneself and others lie at the basis of many behavioral differences. Individuals
constantly evaluate themselves in relation to others, thereby creating self-other
performance expectations. These expectations directly influence interactants be-
havior. The expectations are formed on the basis of so-called status characteristics
of interactants.

A status characteristic is any characteristic that is socially valued, is mean-

ingful, and has differentially evaluated states which are associated directly or

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 175

indirectly with beliefs about task performance ability-performance expecta-

tions. Examples of status characteristics are race, sex, education, or organi-
zational office. (James and Drakich 1993, 286)

Expectations are particularly influential among interactions of people who do not

know each other well, so that no other factors can override status characteristics.
According to James and Clarke (1993, 261),

Unacquainted individuals are more likely than those who know each other
well to rely on characteristics such as sex to define status/power relationships.

These findings show that the sex-linked effect can be overriden or neutralized by
other factors. Interactions need certain conditions in order for the gender effect to
become operative. For instance, researchers such as Coates (1988) and Tannen
(1992) argue that women, in general, feel more comfortable in private than in public
settings. In private settings, sex as a status characteristic is least salient. The conse-
quence of possessing high or low states of a status characteristic is multifarious. For
instance, high-status speakers can be regarded as more competent or as performing
better on a given task. The crucial consequence of such expectations is that a
speaker who is believed to perform better is given more opportunity to do so, while
a speaker who ranks low on a given status characteristic might not even try.

It is important to note that status characteristics and their associated perfor-

mance expectations are relational; that is, we do not speak of performance ex-
pectations for women, but rather we speak of performance expectations asso-
ciated with women in relation to those performance expectations associated
with men. (James and Drakich 1993, 286f.)

This is why the status characteristics approach is able to account for situational
factors.

Because status characteristics involve relational expectations females do not

in this conception carry sex-related characteristics around with them in every
situation. (Berger and Zelditch 1977, 35)

Discussion
The expression of epistemic meaning influences the creation and establishment
of social relations. To signal a low degree of certainty can serve as a politeness strat-
egy. Huebler (1983) has stressed that uncertainty or noncommitment reduces the
risk of being falsified. It is no coincidence that linguistic units that express

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

176 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

epistemic meaning are also the ones that can signal interpersonal meaning in the
form of politeness. Politeness can manifest itself in claiming less space for ones
own certainty, thereby increasing the space of interlocutors. Indeed, Robin Lakoff
(1977, 147) related this point to womens language many years ago:

Since deference is often expressed as uncertainty, a deferential sentence is

subject to interpretation as true intellectual indecision based on lack of
knowledge. it (sic) is the plausibility of this interpretation that makes it diffi-
cult for women to be taken seriously in fields dominated by men.

Another related aspect of epistemic meaning has been formulated in Givns (1990,
824) hazardous information principle, which says that the demonstration of too
much knowledge or certainty can be socially destabilizing. Expectation states the-
ory predicts that lower status speakers who formulate their proposition in an envi-
ronment that expresses uncertainty merely fulfill expectations and hence do not run
the risk of appearing to challenge the status hierarchy. Adverbial clauses encoding
epistemic meaning are well suited for this function.
By contrast, linguistic means that express a high degree of commitment are gen-
erally the privilege of higher status speakers. In a complex sentence, only the as-
serted part can be negated, since the presupposed part is outside the scope of nega-
tion. This aspect can be easily linked with the male preference for preposed
adverbial clauses. Preposed clauses are in the default position for presupposed ma-
terial. The male preference for concessive clauses can be similarly explained. In
terms of the degree of commitment, negated material is on a par with presupposi-
tions since negated declaratives in the new information slot state a proposition
against the belief of an interlocutor.

Summary
This investigation of the semantics and positioning of finite adverbial clauses
has provided a consistent picture. On the semantic dimension, clause types that sig-
nal the lowest commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed (i.e., causal and
purpose clauses) were favored to a statistically significant extent by women. Con-
versely, in the mens speech investigated, the semantic clause type that typically ex-
presses the highest degree of speaker commitment by means of denied assertions
(i.e., the concessive clause) was significantly more frequent.
In the data analyzed, womens and mens speech also differed with respect to the
positioning of adverbial clauses: preposed adverbial clauses were generally pre-
ferred by men, whereas postposed ones are the marked domain of women. These
positional preferences have been shown to be explicable with a view to information
management and epistemic grounding.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 177

The findings provided in the present study contribute to our understanding of the
varied ways in which human beings make use of language. The multifarious func-
tions served by syntactic devices such as adverbial clauses emphasize that any ap-
proach that neglects the intricate semantic, pragmatic, and cognitive aspects in-
volved is unable to cope with the sex-differentiated variation described in the
present study. Therefore, the present investigation makes a case for the inclusion of
functional aspects in linguistic analysis on each language level.
Coates (1987, 114) emphasizes a prominent aspect not acknowledged by views
assuming that language can be accounted for with respect to its transactional
function:

One of the crucial differences between computer language and human lan-
guage . . . is that computers have no attitude at all towards the propositions
they utter.

One consequence of the present investigation for Building HAL (cf. Williams
1981, 27ff.), the robot in 2001, would thus be the assignment of gender identities for
Ms. and Mr. Hal, manifested in the programming component for the expression of
epistemic meaning. Ms. Hal would need to use considerably more causal and pur-
pose clauses than Mr. Hal. She would prefer postposed clauses and adverbial
clauses with an epistemic meaning, and both would need to know when to back-
ground their respective gender identities in order to allow other factors to become
salient.

Notes
1. The question of whether it is theoretically and methodologically justified to
extend the concept of variation to syntax has been widely debated (cf. Lavandera
1978; Dines 1980; Jacobson 1982; Romaine 1984; Winford 1984; Cheshire 1987).
In the present analysis, I follow Lavandera (1978, 181), who holds that a syntactic
variable should only be termed as such if the following conditions are met: first, it
must carry some nonreferential information, manifested in social, stylistic, or other
(e.g., pragmatic) significance; second, it must be definable in terms of quantifiable
covariation reflected in frequency relationships.
2. For a detailed description of the corpus, see Svartvik (1992).
3. Statistical significance for alpha = 0.05 and 1 degree of freedom (2(1;95 percent))
is indicated by one asterisk, while highly statistically significant results (2(1;99 percent))
are indicated by two asterisks and very highly significant results by three asterisks
(2(1;99.9 percent)). In other words, the likelihood that a sex difference is accidental is
5 percent for those results with one asterisk, 1 percent for those with two asterisks,
and only 0.1 percent for those with three asterisks.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

178 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

4. Only those occurrences were included in which the subordinator encodes a

primarily conditional relation. In the case of in case, each example is included in
only one clausal category, determined by its primary function: causal, conditional,
or purpose.
5. Examples from the London-Lund Corpus (LLC) are cited with accompany-
ing reference to the corpus section and the tone unit number.
6. For a pilot analysis of causal and conditional clauses, see Mondorf (1996).

References
Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Discourse Variation and Hedging. In Corpus Linguistics II:
New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora, edited by
Jan Aarts and Willem Meijs, 1-18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Berger, Joseph and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1977. Status Characteristics and Social In-
teraction. New York: Elsevier.
Berger, Joseph. 1980. Status Organization Processes. Annual Review of Sociology
6:479-508.
Biber, Douglas, and Jen Burges. 2000. Historical Change in the Language Use of
Women and Men: Gender Differences in Dramatic Dialogue. Journal of English
Linguistics 28 (1): 21-37.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow. In Coherence
and Grounding in Discourse, edited by Russell Tomlin, 21-51. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Syntactic Variation, the Linguistic Variable, and
Sociolinguistic Theory. Linguistics 25 (1): 257-82.
Coates, Jennifer. 1987. Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse. Transactions of
the Philological Society 85:110-31.
. 1988. Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups. In Women in
Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex, edited by
Deborah Cameron and Jennifer Coates, 94-122. London: Longman.
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. Variation in Discourse and Stuff Like That. Language
in Society 9:13-31.
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American
English Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Givn, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, I. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, II. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Gnthner, Susanne. 1992. Die interaktive Konstruktion von Geschlechterrollen,
kulturellen Identitten und institutioneller Dominanz: Sprechstundengesprche

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

 Mondorf / Gender Differences in English Syntax 179

zwischen Deutschen und Chinesen/innen. In Die Geschlechter im Gesprch, ed-

ited by Susanne Gnthner and Helga Kotthoff, 91-125. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Harris, Martin B. 1988. Concessive Clauses in English and Romance. In Clause
Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A.
Thompson, 71-99. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Holmes, Janet. 1984. Hedging your Bets and Sitting on the Fence: Some Evidence
for Hedges as Support Structures. Te Reo 27:47-62.
. 1986. Functions of you know in Women and Mens Speech. Language in
Society 15 (1): 1-21.
. 1990. Hedges and Boosters in Womens and Mens Speech. Language and
Communication 10 (3): 185-205.
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. The Iconicity of the Universal
Categories Noun and Verbs. In Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Sympo-
sium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24-26, 1983, edited by John Haiman,
151-83. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Huebler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Jacobson, Sven. 1982. Syntactic Variation: Theory and Practice. Umea, Sweden:
Umea University, Department of English.
James, Deborah, and Sandra Clarke. 1993. Women, Men, and Interruptions: A Crit-
ical Review. In Gender and Conversational Interaction, edited by Deborah Tannen,
231-80. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
James, Deborah, and Janice Drakich. 1993. Understanding Gender Differences in
Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research. In Gender and Conversational
Interaction, edited by Deborah Tannen, 281-312. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language, Its Nature, Development and Origin. London:
Allen & Unwin.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Womans Place. New York: Harper Colophon.
. 1977. Womens Language. In Language and Style, edited by Douglas Butturff
and Edward L. Epstein, 139-58. Akron, OH: L & S Books.
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop? Lan-
guage in Society 7:171-83.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, edited by
Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, 293-327. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lockheed, Marlaine E. 1985. Sex and Social Influence: A Meta-Analysis Guided
by Theory. In Status, Rewards and Influence: How Expectations Organize Be-
havior, edited by Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch Jr., 406-29. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Meeker, Barbara F., and Patricia A. Weitzel-ONeill. 1985. Sex Roles and Interper-
sonal Behaviour in Task-Oriented Groups. In Status, Rewards and Influence: How
Expectations Organize Behavior, edited by Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch Jr.,
379-405. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011

180 JEngL 30.2 (June 2002)

Mondorf, Britta. 1996. Why Women Use More Postposed Adverbial Clauses.
Working Papers in Language, Gender and Sexism 6 (2): 5-29.
Preisler, Bent. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the
Expression of Tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Ramsay, Violeta. 1987. The Functional Distribution of Preposed and Postposed
if and when Clauses in Written Narrative. In Coherence and Grounding in
Discourse, edited by Russel S. Tomlin, 383-408. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. On the Problem of Syntactic Variation and Pragmatic
Meaning in Sociolinguistic Theory. Folia Linguistica 18:409-37.
Svartvik, Jan. 1992. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Users Manual.
Lund: Department of English, Lund University.
Syder, Frances Hodgetts, and Andrew Pawley. 1974. The Reduction Principle in
Conversation. Auckland, New Zealand: Anthropology Department, Auckland
University.
Tannen, Deborah. 1992. Thats Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style
Makes or Breaks Relationship. New York: Ballantine.
Williams, Joseph M. 1981. The English Language as Use-Governed Behavior. In Style
and Variables in English, edited by Timothy Shopen and Joseph M. Williams,
27-60. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Winford, Donald. 1984. The Linguistic Variable and Syntactic Variation in Creole
Continua. Lingua 62:267-88.

Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University of Wollongong on July 23, 2011