人际冲突场景中的反讽

Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE
Joshua M. Averbeck
{"title":"人际冲突场景中的反讽","authors":"Joshua M. Averbeck","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Irony in interpersonal conflict scenarios\",\"authors\":\"Joshua M. Averbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

间接论证策略的使用,如反讽,仍未得到充分研究。本研究考察了各种反讽论点以及这些论点的产生和抑制,而不是接受。夸张、轻描淡写、反问、诙谐和讽刺分别在亲密关系和疏远关系中进行了研究。研究结果指出,在更亲密的关系中,与那些更随意的关系相比,人们倾向于使用更多消极的争论。总之,在亲密的关系中,我们更有可能是消极的,尽管我们的典型行为表明了这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Irony in interpersonal conflict scenarios
The uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1