{"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}
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.