“Cool” communication in the classroom: A preliminary examination of student perceptions of instructor use of positive slang

Qualitative Research Reports in Communication

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 20-28

  Mazer, Joseph P ^a   Hunt, Stephen K ^b  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom communication; Communication accommodation theory; Slang

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449579187     PISSN: 17459435     EISSN: 17459443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17459430802400316     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Beck, A. T. (1988). Love is never enough. New York: Harper & Row.
2. Cooper, T. C. (2001). “Does it suck?” or “Is it for the birds?” Native speaker judgment of slang expressions. American Speech, 76(1), 62-78.
3. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Eble, C. (1996). Slang & sociability. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
5. Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
6. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87-105.
7. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The next decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 13-48). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
9. Giles, H. & Williams, A. (1992). Accommodating hypercorrection: A communication model. Language and Communication, 12, 343-356.
10. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
11. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
12. Jannedy, S., Poletto, R., & Weldon, T. L. (1994). Language files (6th ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
13. Johnson, F. (1996). Friendships among women: Closeness in dialogue. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships: A reader (pp. 79-94). Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield.
14. Lewis, E. T. & McCarthy, P. R. (1988). Perceptions of self-disclosure as a function of gender-linked variables. Sex Roles, 19, 47-56.
15. Martin, M. M., Weber, K., & Burant, P. A. (1997, April). Students’ perceptions of a teacher’s use of slang and verbal aggressiveness in a lecture: An experiment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, Md.
16. Mottet, T. P. & Richmond, V. P. (1998). An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication Quarterly, 46, 25-40.
17. Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, application, and measures. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
18. Saurer, M. K. & Eisler, R. M. (1990). The role of masculine gender roles’ stress in expressivity and social support network factors. Sex Roles, 23, 261-271.
19. Shepard, C. A., Giles, H., & LePoire, B. A. (2001). Communication accommodation theory. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33-56). New York: John Wiley & Sons.