Dominance-Seeking Language Strategies: Please Eat the Floor, Dogbreath, or I’ll Rip Your Lungs Out, Okay?

References

• Aries, E. (1982). Verbal and nonverbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex roles changing? Psychological Reports, 51, 127–134.
   Google Scholar
• Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 149–176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Axia, G., & Baroni, M. R. (1985). Linguistic politeness at different age levels. Child Development, 56, 918–927.
   Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehait & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R., Zahn, C., & Hopper, R. (1984). Disclaiming: A test of two competing views. Communication Quarterly, 32, 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, I. S. (1981). Dominance: The baby and the bathwater. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 419–457.
   Google Scholar
• Berryman, C. L. (1980). Attitudes toward male and female sex-appropriate and sex-inappropriate language. In C. Berryman & V. Eman (Eds.), Communication, language and sex (pp. 195–216). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Berryman, C. L., & Wilcox, I. R. (1980). Attitudes toward male and female speech: Experiments on the effects of sex-typed language. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 50–59.
   Google Scholar
• Berryman-Fink, C. L., & Wilcox, J. R. (1983). A multivariate investigation of perceptual attributions concerning gender appropriateness in language. Sex Roles, 9, 663–681.
   Google Scholar
• Bohn, E., & Stutman, R. (1983). Sex-role differences in the relational control dimension of dyadic interaction. Women’s Studies in Communication, 6, 96–104.
   Google Scholar
• Bohra, K. A., & Pandey, J. (1984). Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 217–222.
   Google Scholar
• Bostrom, R. N., Basehart, J. R., & Rossiter, C. M., Jr. (1973). The effects of three types of profane language in persuasive messages. Journal of Communication, 23, 461–475.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. I. (1988). Language variables: Conceptual and methodological problems of instantiation. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 301322). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J. (Ed.). (1989). Message effects in communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M., & Tardy, C. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech upon judgments of victims and villains. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327–341.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., Hopper, R., & Wiemann, J. M. (1989). Message effects: Retrospect and prospect. In J. I. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 294–317). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., & Mulac, A. (1984a). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51, 307–319.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., & Mulac, A. (1984b). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles in a crisis-intervention context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., Schneider, M. J., Hemphill, M. R., & Tardy, C. H. (1979). Consequences of language intensity and compliance-gaining strategies in an initial heterosexual encounter. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 71–75). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Bradac, J. J., & Street, R. L., Jr. (1986, November). Powerful and powerless styles re-visited: A theoretical analysis of language and impression formation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, P. (1981). The folk-linguistics of women’s speech: An empirical examination. Communication Monographs, 48, 73–90.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M., & De Haan, D. (1979). Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track? Language in Society, S, 33–50.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R., & Levinson, S. (1974). Universals in linguistic usage: Politeness phenomena. Unpublished manuscript, Cambridge University, Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R., 8c Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Capitanio, J. P. (1982). Early experience, behavior and organization in rhesus monkey social groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
   Google Scholar
• Chesler, P. (1972). Women and madness. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Cowen, G., Drinkard, J., & MacGavin, L. (1984). The effects of target, age, and gender on use of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1391–1398.
   Google Scholar
• Cronkhite, G. (1984). The perception of meaning. In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory (pp. 51–229). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977).The Female Register: An emprical study of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313–322.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.). (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, B., Lind, E., Johnson, B., & O’Barr, W. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266–279.
   Google Scholar
• Esposito, A. (1979). Sex differences in children’s conversation. Language and Speech, 22, 213–220.
   Google Scholar
• Falbo, T. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 537–547.
   Google Scholar
• Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618–628.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, P. (1978). What do couples talk about when they’re alone? In D. Butturff & E. Epstein (Eds.), Women’s language and style (pp. 11–22). Akron, OH: L&S.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 127–132). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thome, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Frances, S. (1979). Sex differences in nonverbal behavior. Sex Roles, 5, 519–535.
   Google Scholar
• Franks, V., & Burtle, B. (Eds.). (1974). Women in therapy: New psychotherapies for a changing society. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of Social Language, 27, 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Geis, F. L., Brown, V., Jennings, J., & Corrado-Taylor, D. (1984). Sex vs. status in sex-associated stereotypes. Sex Roles, 11, 771–785.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1987). Language, social comparison, and power. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 350–384). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Glauser, M. J. (1984). Self-esteem and communication tendencies: An analysis of four self-esteem/verbal dominance personality types. Psychological Record, 34, 115–131.
   Google Scholar
• Goody, E. N. (Ed.). (1978). Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenburg, B. S. (1976). The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal aggressiveness. Communication Monographs, 43, 130–139.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences: Stereotypes and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 616–626.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A. (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (1984). Women’s language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24, 149–178.
   Google Scholar
• Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305–314.
   Google Scholar
• Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 389–406.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169–191.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, Schieffelin, Piatt, (1976). Proposition across utterances and speakers. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Kenkel, W. F. (1963). Observational studies of husband-wife interaction in family decisionmaking. In M. Sussman (Ed.), Source book in marriage and the family (pp. 144–156). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, C. (1974). Women’s speech: Separate but unequal? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 14–24.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, C., Thome, B., & Henley, N. (1978). Perspectives on language and communication. Signs, 3, 638–651.
   Google Scholar
• LaFrance, M., & Carmen, B. (1980). The nonverbal display of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 36–49.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1974). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 16, 1–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1977). Language and sexual identity. Semiolica, 19, 119–130.
   Google Scholar
• Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 97–104). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, T. S. (1988, November). A new model of politeness in discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Face-work: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415–450.
   Google Scholar
• Linehan, M. M., & Seifert, R. F. (1983). Sex and contextual differences in the appropriateness of assertive behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Liska, J. (1986, November). The problem of perceiving paper and pencil people. Response presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Liska, J. (1990). Dominance-seeking strategies in primates: An evolutionary perspective. Human Evolution, 5, 75–90.
   Google Scholar
• Liska, J., & Hazleton, V. (1990). Deferential language as a rhetorical strategy: The case for polite disagreement. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 187–198.
   Google Scholar
• Liska, J., Mechling, E. W., & Stathas, S. (1981). Differences in subjects’ perceptions of gender and believability between users of deferential and nondeferential language. Communication Quarterly, 29, 40–48.
   Google Scholar
• Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. P. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: Applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 111–124.
   Google Scholar
• Markel, N. H., Long, J. J., & Saine, T. J. (1976). Sex effects in conversation interaction: Another look at male dominance. Human Communication Research, 2, 356–364.
   Google Scholar
• Marlatt, G. A. (1970). A comparison of vicarious and direct reinforcement control of verbal behavior in an interview setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 695–703.
   Google Scholar
• McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M, (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). Language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, G., & Maple, T. L. (1985). Dominance in nonhuman primates. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 49–66). New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, W. (Ed.). (1975). American heritage dictionary. Boston: American Heritage Publishing Co. and Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Mosher, D. L. (1956). A pilot study to develop a laboratory measure of verbal aggressiveness (Final Report No. 044). Columbus: Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Mosher, D. L., & Proenza, L. M. (1968). Intensity of attack, displacement and verbal aggression. Psychonomic Science, 12, 359–360.
   Google Scholar
• Mulac, A. (1976). Effects of obscene language upon three dimensions of listener attitude. Communication Monographs, 43, 300–307.
   Google Scholar
• Mulac, A., Incontro, C. R., & James, M. R. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and sex role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1098–1109.
   Google Scholar
• Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315–335.
   Google Scholar
• Newcombe, N., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1979). Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1293–1303.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, R., & Wamick, B. (1976). Assertiveness as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 3, 62–68.
   Google Scholar
• O’Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women’s language” or “powerless language”? In S. McConnellGinet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Omark, D. R., Strayer, F. F., & Freedman, D. G. (Eds.). (1980). Dominance relations. New York: Garland STPM.
   Google Scholar
• Pandey, J., & Singh, A. K. (1986). Attribution and evaluation of manipulative social behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 735–744.
   Google Scholar
• Philips, S. U., Steele, S., & Tatiz, C. (Eds.). (1987). Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piliavin, J. A., & Martin, R. R. (1978). The effects of the sex composition of groups on style of social interaction. Sex Roles, 4, 281–296.
   Google Scholar
• Quina, K., Wingard, J. A., & Bates, H. G. (1987). Language style and gender stereotypes in person perception. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 111–122.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, J. L., & Moely, B. E. (1986). Impression formation as a function of the sex role appropriateness of linguistic behavior. Sex Roles, 14, 149–161.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. L., & Nelson, M. W. (1983). Multiple determinants of a stigmatized speech style: Women’s language, powerless language, or everyone’s language? Language and Speech, 26, 273–290.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, K., Briere, J., & Sandler, L. (1984). The use and development of sex-typed language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 327–336.
   Google Scholar
• Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Shimanoff, S. B. (1976). The tyranny of politeness or how to get the fence white-washed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Siderits, M. A., lohannsen, W. J., & Fadden, T. F. (1985). Gender, role, and power: A content analysis of speech. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 439–450.
   Google Scholar
• Street, R. L., Jr. (1985). Participant-observer differences in speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 125–130.
   Google Scholar
• Street, R. L., Jr., & Cappella, J. N. (1986). Message variables: A theoretical analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Strodtbeck, F. L., & Mann, R. D. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. Soci-ometry, 19, 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Thome, B., & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Vinson, L., & Johnson, C. (1989). The use of written transcripts in powerful and powerless language research. Communication Reports, 2, 16 21.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. (1988). A critical analysis of stylistic devices speakers use when confronting hostile audiences. Unpublished master’s thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington.
   Google Scholar
• Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles, 12, 993–1007.
   Google Scholar
• Zahn, C. J. (1989). The bases for differing evaluations of male and female speech: Evidence from ratings of transcribed conversation. Communication Monographs, S6, 59–74.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thome & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar