Cover not available
Part of
It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research
Edited by Bettina Kluge and María Irene Moyna
[Topics in Address Research 1] 2019
► pp. 355–372

Brocatives

Self-reported use of masculine nominal vocatives in Manitoba (Canada)

This apparent-time study presents the results of a self-report survey adapted from Kiesling (2004) on the use of man, dude, bro, and brah [brʌ] /bruh [brə:] in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Our analysis considers social and identity variables (i.e., age, speaker and addressee gender, education, ethnicity, drug use, and alcohol consumption), as well as the degree of familiarity between speaker and addressee. Results show that brocatives occur at higher rates in M-M dyads, followed by F-M dyads, and that man indexes higher degree of masculinity and greater distance than dude. Man and bro are more commonly used by males, and bro and the newer form brah/bruh are associated with younger participants. Findings further show a relationship between brah/bruh and non-Caucasian participants, which along with its low self-reported frequency suggest an association with covert prestige in Canadian English.
Keywords: nominal vocatives, solidarity, apparent time, survey, Canadian English, sociolinguistic variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Nominal masculine vocatives
    • 2.1Vocatives: An overview
    • 2.2The sociolinguistics of nominal masculine vocatives
    • 2.3Brocatives in Manitoba
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Sample
    • 3.3Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Reported use
    • 4.3M-M dyads
    • 4.4M-F interactions
    • 4.5F-F interactions
    • 4.6F-M interactions
    • 4.7Most commonly used brocatives: Dude vs. man
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.1.14uri
References (30)
References
Alba-Juez, Laura. 2009. ‘Little words’ in small talk: Some considerations on the use of the pragmatic narkers ‘man’ in English and ‘macho/tío’ in Peninsular Spanish. In Donna Lardiere, Héctor Campos & Ronald P. Leow (eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition, 171–181. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2012. The new Russian vocative: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica 58 (1). 122–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Formentelli, Maicol. 2007. The vocative mate in contemporary English: A corpus-based study. In Andrea Sansò (ed.), Language resources and linguistic theory, 180–199. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
. 2014. Vocatives galore in audiovisual dialogue: Evidence from a corpus of American and British films. English Text Construction 7 (1). 53–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fought, Carmen. 2006. Language and ethnicity. (Key topics in sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaviño Rodríguez, Victoriano. 2011. Operaciones metalingüísticas del marcador discursivo “hombre.” MARCO ELE Revista de didáctica de español como lengua extranjera 12. 1–11.Google Scholar
Hill, Richard. 1994. You’ve come a long way, dude – A history. American Speech 69 (3). 321–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2008. An introduction to sociolinguistics (3rd edition). London, New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hook, Donald D. 1984. First names and titles as solidarity and power semantics in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (3). 183–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–77. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2004. Dude. American Dialect Society 79 (3). 281–305.Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, Friederike. 2013. Mexican güey – from vocative to discourse marker. A case of grammaticalization? In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patricia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocative! Addressing between system and performance, 235–268. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2. 205–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Out of corpora. Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 107–120. Amsterdan: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael J. & Anne O’Keeffe. 2003. What’s in a name?: Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls. In Pepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 153–85. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCready, Eric. 2008. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (6). 671–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moyna, María Irene. 2017. Voseo vocatives and interjections in Montevideo Spanish. In Juan José Colomina Almiñana (ed.), Contemporary advances in theoretical and applied Spanish linguistic variation, 124–147. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Palacios, Niktelol. 2002. Algunos marcadores discursivos característicos del habla de los adolescentes mexicanos. Iztapalapa 18 (53). 225–247.Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2009. The address term mate in Australian English: Is it still a masculine term? Australian Journal of Linguistics 29 (2). 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. ‘Mate’ as a term of address in ordinary interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (5). 1201–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojas, Darío. 2012. Huevón como marcador del discurso en el español de Chile: Huellas de un proceso de gramaticalización. Revista de Humanidades 25. 145–164.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1. 179–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1974. Hey, Whatsyourname! In Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 787–801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Flesch, Marie
2023. “Dude” and “Dudette”, “Bro” and “Sis”: A Diachronic Study of Four Address Terms in the TV Corpus. Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies :32/2 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Nominal and Pronominal Address in Jamaica and Trinidad [Topics in Address Research, 3], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. 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.