Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse PSPB online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hancock, J. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 4, 447-463 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X04269587

Verbal Irony Use in Face-To-Face and Computer-Mediated Conversations

Jeffrey T. Hancock

Cornell University

Speakers use a range of cues to signal ironic intent, including cues based on contrast with context, verbal, and paralinguistic cues. Speakers also rely on cues provided by addressees regarding comprehension of irony. When such cues are unavailable, speakers may be less willing to use irony because of the risk of miscommunication, and addressees may be more likely to misinterpret irony. The present study tested these hypotheses by examining the production and comprehension of irony in multimodal (face-to-face) and unimodal (computer-mediated) conversations. Contrary to expectations, speakers in the computer condition used more irony than face-to-face speakers. Comprehension of irony did not appear to differ across settings, although addressees in the computer condition provided less feedback (positive or negative) to their partners about their comprehension. These surprising results are discussed in terms of possible differences in the discourse goals and relational strategies engendered by computer-mediated and face-to-face communicative settings.

Key Words: irony • sarcasm • figurative language • computer-mediated communication


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Language and Social PsychologyHome page
M. L. Dress, R. J. Kreuz, K. E. Link, and G. M. Caucci
Regional Variation in the Use of Sarcasm
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 2008; 27(1): 71 - 85.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
J. Pena and J. T. Hancock
An Analysis of Socioemotional and Task Communication in Online Multiplayer Video Games
Communication Research, February 1, 2006; 33(1): 92 - 109.
[Abstract] [PDF]