A reexamination and reevaluation of an earlier theory proposed by Bradac, Bowers, and Courtright contributes to Bradac's reputation and development as a researcher and theorist. The reexamination suggests that a paradigm different from the strictly scientific one applied in the earlier work may lead to additional insights.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
2.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
3.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
4.
Bowers, J. W. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 30, 345-352.
5.
Bowers, J. W. (1964). Some correlates of language intensity. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 415-420.
6.
Bowers, J. W. (1968). The pre-scientific function of rhetorical criticism. In T. R. Nilsen (Ed.), Essays on rhetorical criticism(pp. 126-145). New York: Random House.
7.
Bowers, J. W. (1974a). Beyond threats and promises. Speech Monographs, 41, ix-xi.
8.
Bowers, J. W. (1974b). Communication strategies in conflicts between institutions and their clients. In G. R. Miller & H. W. Simons (Eds.), Perspectives on communication in social conflict(pp. 125-152). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
Bowers, J. W. (1985, January). On the pragmeme. Spectra, 2-3.
10.
Bowers, J. W., & Bradac, J. J. (1984). Contemporary problems in human communication theory. In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory(pp. 871-893). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Bowers, J. W., Elliott, N. D., & Desmond, R. J. (1977). Exploiting pragmatic rules: Devious messages. Human Communication Research, 3, 235-242.
12.
Bowers, J. W., Metts, S. M., & Duncanson, W. T. (1985). Emotion and interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication(pp. 500-550). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Bowers, J. W., & Ochs, D. J. (1971). The rhetoric of agitation and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
Bowers, J. W., & Sanders, R. E. (1974). Paradox as a rhetorical strategy. In W. R. Fisher (Ed.), Rhetoric: A tradition in transition(pp. 300-315). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
15.
Bradac, J. J. (1982). A rose by another name: Attitudinal consequences of lexical variation. In E. G. Ryan& H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied contexts(pp. 99-115). London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
16.
Bradac, J. J. (1983). The language of lovers, flovers, and friends: Communicating in social and personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 141-162.
17.
Bradac, J. J. (2000). Much ado about power, and rightly so!Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 499-507.
18.
Bradac, J. J. (2003). Aristotle's semantic theory and some implications for research. Review of Communication, 3, book 1.
19.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
20.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1980). Lexical variations in intensity, immediacy, and diversity: An axiomatic theory and causal model. In R. N. St. Clair& H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language(pp. 193-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Bradac, J. J., Desmond, R. J., & Murdock, J. I. (1977). Diversity and density: Lexically determined evaluative and informational consequences of linguistic complexity. Communication Monographs, 44, 273-283.
22.
Bradac, J. J., & Giles, H. (2005). Language and social psychology: Conceptual niceties, complexities, curiosities, monstrosities, and how it all works. In K. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction(pp. 201-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Bradac, J. J., Hosman, L. A., & Tardy, C. H. (1978). Reciprocal disclosures and language intensity. Communication Monographs, 45, 1-17.
24.
Bradac, J. J., Martin, L. W., Elliott, N. D., & Tardy, C. H. (1980). On the neglected side of linguistic science. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 18, 967-995.
25.
Burgoon, M., & Chase, L. J. (1973). The effects of differential linguistic patterns in messages attempting to induce resistance to persuasion. Speech Monographs, 40, 1-7.
26.
Burgoon, M., Jones, S. B., & Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1, 240-256.
27.
Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1971). Prior attitudes and language intensity as predictors of message style and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 240-253.
28.
Cargile, A. C., & Bradac, J. J. (2001). Attitudes toward language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25(pp. 347-382). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Carmichael, C. W., & Cronkhite, G. L. (1965). Frustration and language intensity. Speech Monographs, 32, 107-111.
30.
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251-266.
31.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Replication and expansion. Communication Monographs, 46, 179-192.
32.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. London: Verso.
33.
George, E. (2001). A traitor to memory. New York: Bantam.
34.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
35.
Giles, H., Scherer, K., & Taylor, D. M. (1979). Speech markers in social interaction. In K. Scherer& H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech(pp. 343-381). London: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole& J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts(pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
37.
Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235-256.
39.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
40.
Jamieson, K. M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 406-415.
41.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
42.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 55-78.
43.
Martin, J. (2004, August 15). Lost in translation [Electronic version]. The Washington Post, p. D3D3.
44.
Michell, G. (1984). Women and lying: A pragmatic and semantic analysis of “telling it slant.” Women's Studies International Forum, 7, 375-383.
45.
Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath (Ed.), International encyclopedia of unified science(Vol. 1, No. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62, 42-55.
47.
Perry, A. (1999). Bedford square. New York: Ballantine.
48.
Plato (1956). Phaedrus(W. C. Helmbold& W. G. Rabinowitz, Trans.). New York: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 360 B.C.)
49.
Scherer, K., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1979). Social markers in speech. London: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Simons, H. W., Moyer, R. J., & Berkowitz, N. W. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 1-16.
52.
St. Clair, R. N., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1980). The social and psychological contexts of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W. Norton.
55.
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1967). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
