Metaphor production in online conversation: Gender and friendship status

Discourse Processes

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 75-98

  Hussey, Karen A ^a   Katz, Albert N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746048782     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326950dp4201_3     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aronsson, K., Jonsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 99-116.
2. Barlow, J. M., Kerlin, J. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1971). Training manual for identifying figurative language (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Metaphor Research Group.
3. Baron, N. S. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397-423.
4. Bell, R. A., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Gore, K. E. (1987). "Did you bring the yarmulke for the cabbage patch kid?" The idiomatic communication of young lovers. Human Communication Research, 14, 47-67.
5. Bell, R. A., & Healey, J. G. (1992). Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends' relational cultures. Human Communication Research, 18, 307-335.
6. Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 119-135). London: Academic.
7. Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Colley, A., & Todd, Z. (2002). Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.
10. Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, N., & Pike, H. (2004). Style and content in e-mails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 369-378.
11. Colston, H. L. (2005). Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 99-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. Corts, D. P., & Meyers, K. (2002). Conceptual clusters in figurative language production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 391-408.
13. Corts, D. P., & Pollio, H. R. (1999). Spontaneous production of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 81-100.
14. Ehrlich, H. J., & Graeven, D. B. (1971). Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 389-400.
15. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol Special Issue: The Uses of Processing Irony and Sarcasm, 15, 5-27.
16. Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2002). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 181-194). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
17. Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & O'Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35-68.
18. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory or language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London: Academic.
19. Hancock, J. T. (2002). The production of verbal irony: An examination of asymmetry of affect and the role of expectation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia.
20. Hancock, J. T. (2004). Verbal irony use in face-to-face and computer-mediated conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 447-463.
21. James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312). London: Oxford University Press.
22. Katz, A. N., Lenhardt, M., & Mitchell, K. (2005, November). The pragmatics of acknowledging "Thanks" for a favour. Poster presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto, Ontario.
23. Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. (2000). Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576-593.
24. Kothoff, H. (1999, June). Responding to conversational irony in different contexts. Presentation at Pragma 99: International Pragmatics Conference on Pragmatics and Negotiation. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel
25. Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26. Kreuz, R. J. (1996). The use of verbal irony: Cues and constraints. In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 23-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. LaFrance, M. (1985). Postural mirroring and intergroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 207-217.
28. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Link, K. E., & Kreuz, R. J. (2005). Do men and women differ in their use of nonliteral language when they talk about emotions? In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 153-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Meyers, K., & Corts, D. P. (2002). Updated version of Training Manual for Identifying Figurative Language (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Metaphor Research Group.
33. Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. J. Canary & K. Dinda (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27, 121-152.
35. Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributions to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 81-101.
36. Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1994). Effects of gender-linked language differences in adults' written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Language and Communication Special Issue: Language Attitudes, 14, 299-309.
37. Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students' impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23, 439-469.
38. Natale, M. (1975). Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic communications as a function of social desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 790-804.
39. Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53.
40. Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 382-419.
41. Street, R. L., Jr. (1983). Noncontent speech convergence in adult-child interactions. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 7, pp. 369-395). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.