Cover not available

Article published In: Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 87–109

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Irony in interpersonal conflict scenarios

Differences in ironic argument endorsement and suppression across topics

 | Western Illinois University, USA
Published online: 8 June 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.05ave
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.
References (44)
Averbeck, Joshua M. 2013. “Comparisons of Ironic and Sarcastic Arguments in Terms of Appropriateness and Effectiveness in Personal Relationships.” Argumentation and Advocacy 501: 47–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Irony and Language Expectancy Theory: Evaluations of Expectancy Violation Outcomes.” Communication Studies 611: 356–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Averbeck, Joshua M., and Dale Hample. 2008. “Ironic Message Production: How and Why we Produce Ironic Messages.” Communication Monographs 751: 396–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brockriede, Wayne. 1975. “Where is Argument?” Journal of the American Forensics Association 111: 179–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buller, David B., and Judee K. Burgoon. 2006. “Interpersonal Deception Theory.” Communication Theory 61: 203–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgoon, Judee K. 1993. “Interpersonal Expectations, Expectancy Violations, and Emotional Communication.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 121: 30–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgoon, Michael. 1990. “Language and Social Influence.” In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. by Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson, 51–72. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canary, Daniel J., and Brian H. Spitzberg. 1987. “Appropriateness and Effectiveness Perceptions of Conflict Strategies.” Human Communication Research 141: 93–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesser, Chris, Irby Smith, and David S. Ward. 1989. Major League [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Ruth A., and Jesse G. Delia. 1979. “TOPOI and Rhetorical Competence.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 651: 187–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cody, Michael J., Daniel J. Canary, and Sandi W. Smith. 1994. “Compliance-gaining Goals: An Inductive Analysis of Actors’ Goal Types, Strategies, and Successes.” In Strategic Interpersonal Communication, ed. by John A. Daly and John M. Wiemann, 33–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L. 1997. “Salting a Wound or Sugaring a Pill: The Pragmatic Functions of Ironic Criticism.” Discourse Processes 231: 25–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daly, John A., David J. Weber, Anita L. Vangelisti, Madeline Maxwell, and Heather Neel. 1989. “Concurrent Cognitions During Conversations: Protocol Analysis as a Means of Exploring Conversations.” Discourse Processes 121: 227–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dews, Shelly, Joan Kaplan, and Ellen Winner. 1995. “Why Not Say it Directly? The Social Functions of Irony.” Discourse Processes 191: 347–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dews, Shelly, and Ellen Winner. 1995. “Muting the Meaning: A Social Function of Irony.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 101: 3–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillard, James Price, Chris Segrin, and Janie M. Harden. 1989. “Primary and Secondary Goals in the Production of Interpersonal Influence Messages.” Communication Monographs 561: 19–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ettema, James S., and Theodore L. Glasser. 2004. “The Irony in-and of-Journalism: A Case Study in the Moral Language of Liberal Democracy.” Journal of Communication 441: 5–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Courtney. 2013. A Qualitative Analysis of Irony as Humor in Japanese Conversation. Master’s thesis, Tohoku University.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1986. “On the Psycholinguistics of Sarcasm.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1151: 3–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Irony in Talk Among Friends.” Metaphor and Symbol 151: 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hample, Dale. 2000. “Cognitive Editing of Arguments and Reasons for Requests: Evidence from Think-Aloud Protocols.” Argumentation and Advocacy 371: 98–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Judith M. Dallinger. 1987a. “Cognitive Editing of Argument Strategies.” Human Communication Research 141: 123–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987b. “Self-Monitoring and the Cognitive Editing of Arguments.” Central States Speech Journal 381: 152–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “The Use of Multiple Goals in Cognitive Editing of Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 281: 109–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “The Effects of Situation on the Use or Suppression of Possible Compliance Gaining Appeals.” In Interpersonal Communication: Advances Through Meta-Analysis, ed. by Mike Allen, Raymond W. Preiss, Barbara M. Gayle, and Nancy Burrell, 187–209. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hample, Dale, Benjamin Warner, and Holly Norton. 2006. “The Effects of Arguing Expectations and Predispositions on Perceptions of Argument Quality and Playfulness.” Argumentation and Advocacy 431: 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hample, Dale, Benjamin Warner, and Dorian Young. 2006. “Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments.” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation , Amsterdam, Netherlands, June 2006.
Holtgraves, Thomas. 1997. “Styles of Language Use: Individual and Cultural Variability in Conversational Indirectness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 731: 624–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert. 1981. “The Taken-For-Granted.” Human Communication Research 71: 195–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Amy Janan. 2003. “Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Type of argument as a situational constraint.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association , San Diego, CA, May 2003.
Johnson, Amy Janan, Joshua M. Averbeck, Katherine M. Kelley, and Shr-Jie Liu. 2011. “When Serial Arguments Predict Harm: Examining the Influences of Argument Function, Perceived Resolvability, and Argumentativeness.” Argumentation and Advocacy 471: 214–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karsetter, Allan B. 1964. “Toward a Theory of Rhetorical Irony.” Speech Monographs 311: 162–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, Albert N., and Christopher J. Lee. 1993. “The Role of Authorial Intent in Determining Verbal Irony and Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 81: 257–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufer, David S. 1981. “Ironic Evaluations.” Communication Monographs 481: 25–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufer, David S., and Christine M. Neuwirth. 1982. “Foregrounding Norms and Ironic Communication.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 681: 28–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lampert, Martin D., and Susan M. Ervin-Tripp. 2006. “Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking among Male and Female Friends.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 51–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leggitt, John S., and Raymond W. Gibbs. 2000. “Emotional Reactions to Verbal Irony.” Discourse Processes 291: 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muecke, Douglas C. 1969. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nofsinger, Robert E. 1991. Everyday Conversation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. J. 2002. “The Persuasive Effects of Variation in Standpoint Articulation.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren, 65–82. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabourin, Teresa C., Dominic A. Infante, and Jill Rudd. 1993. “Verbal Aggressiveness in Marriages: A Comparison of Violent, Distressed but Nonviolent, and Nondistressed Couples.” Human Communication Research 201: 245–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spitzberg, Brian H., and William R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal Communication Competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Puhacheuskaya, Veranika & Juhani Järvikivi
2025. Sorry, you make less sense to me: The effect of non-native speaker status on metaphor processing. Acta Psychologica 254 ► pp. 104853 ff. DOI logo
Ervas, Francesca & Zsuzsanna Schnell
2024. Irony Across Cultures: A Contrastive Analysis of Conceptualizations and Social Functions. In Studying Verbal Irony and Sarcasm, ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Weng, Xin, Xiaoming Jiang & Qiaoyun Liao
2023. Using information of relationship closeness in the comprehension of Chinese ironic criticism: Evidence from behavioral experiments. Journal of Pragmatics 215 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Ervas, Francesca
2020.  How nice does it sound?. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Caffarra, Sendy, Arman Motamed Haeri, Elissa Michell & Clara D. Martin
2019. When is irony influenced by communicative constraints? ERP evidence supporting interactive models. European Journal of Neuroscience 50:10 ► pp. 3566 ff. DOI logo
Akimoto, Yoritaka & Shiho Miyazawa
2017. Individual Differences in Irony Use Depend on Context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36:6 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Burgers, Christian, Britta C. Brugman, Kiki Y. Renardel de Lavalette & Gerard J. Steen
2016. HIP: A Method for Linguistic Hyperbole Identification in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 31:3 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn & Gerard J. Steen
2016. Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. Communication Theory 26:4 ► pp. 410 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue