Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 31–49 | Cite as

Variations in Figurative Language Use as a Function of Mode of Communication

  • Michael A. Boerger


Various studies have demonstrated that the mode by which people communicate affects the content of their messages. The present study examines the ways in which one aspect of language use, namely figurative language, differs as a function of mode of communication. Subjects worked together in pairs to build a small household appliance, with an “expert” directing a novice in the construction. Subjects communicated in one of four modes: full copresence, separated by a screen, through an intercom system, or through e-mail. Differences between modes were found on a number of measures of figurative language types, including what the author has described as “interrogative analogies”. These differences are discussed in terms of costs, constraints, and affordances associated with different media, and the role figurative language plays in communication.


figurative language communication mode on-line education. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barlow J.M., Kerlin J.R. Pollio H.R. (1971). Training manual for identifying figurative language (Technical Report #1). Knoxville: Metaphor research group, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  2. Boerger, M.A., Henley, T.B. 1999The use of analogy in giving instructionsThe Psychological Record.49193209Google Scholar
  3. Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R.B., Parrish, R.N., Weeks, G.D. 1972Studies in interactive communication: I. The effects of four communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving.Human Factors.14487509Google Scholar
  4. Chapanis, A., Parrish, R.N., Ochsman, R.B., Weeks, G.D. 1977Studies in interactive communication: II The effects of four communication modes on the linguistic performance of teams during cooperative problem-solving.Human Factors.19101126Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H.H., Brennan, S. E. 1991Grounding in communication.Resnick, L.B.Levine, J. M.Teasley, S. D. eds. Perspectives on socially shared cognitionAmerican Psychological AssociationWashington, D. C127149Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H.H., Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986Referring as a collaborative processCognition22139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, P.R. 1984The pragmatics of referring and the modality of communicationComputational Linguistics1097146Google Scholar
  8. Columbus, M.A., Boerger, P.J. 2002Defining popular iconic metaphorPsychological Reports90579582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fussell, S.R., Krauss, R.M. 1989The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground frameworkJournal of Experimental Social Psychology25203219Google Scholar
  10. Glucksberg, S. 1989Metaphors in conversation: How are they understood? Why are they used?Metaphor and Symbolic Activity4125143Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, M.G., Malgady, R.G. 1979Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: association and metaphorJournal of Psycholinguistic Research8249265Google Scholar
  12. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W. 1984Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communicationAmerican Psychologist.3911231134Google Scholar
  13. Krauss, R.M., Fussell, S.R. 1991Constructing shared communicative environments.L. Resnick, L.Levine, J.Teasley, S. eds. Perspectives on socially shared cognitionAmerican Psychological AssociationWashington, D. C172202Google Scholar
  14. Krauss, R.M., Glucksberg, S. 1977Social and nonsocial speechScientific American.236100105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Krauss, R.M., Weinheimer, S. 1964Changes in the length of reference phrases as a function of social interaction; A preliminary studyPsychonomic Science.1113114Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980Metaphors we live byUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Ochsman, R.B., Chapanis, A. 1974The effects of 10 communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solvingInternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies.6579619Google Scholar
  18. Ortony, A. 1975Why metaphors are necessary and not just niceEducational Theory254553Google Scholar
  19. Pollio, H.R., Barlow, J.M., Fine, H.J., Pollio, M.R. 1977Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy and educationLawrence Erlbaum Associates, IncHillsdale, N. JGoogle Scholar
  20. Pollio, H.R., Smith., M.K, Pollio, M.R. 1990Figurative language and cognitive psychologyLanguage and Cognitive Processes.5141167Google Scholar
  21. Stoll, F.C., Hoecker, D.G., Krueger, G.P., Chapanis, A. 1976The effects of four communication modes on the structure of language used during cooperative problem solvingThe Journal of Psychology.941326Google Scholar
  22. Verbrugge, R.R. 1985Language and event perception: Steps toward a synthesis.Warren, W. H.Shaw, R. eds. Persistence and ChangeLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, N. J157194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Social SciencesHiwassee CollegeMadisonville37354

Personalised recommendations