Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 5:2 (2014) ► pp.271–295

Dude, Alter!

A tale of two vocatives

| Freiburg University
This paper takes a cross-linguistic look at two notorious examples of contemporary slang: American English dude and German Alter. Both have received considerable attention in the media and some initial sociolinguistic inquiry. It is shown here that both items share a number of properties, some quite obvious, others subtler and possibly less stable. This includes features from all levels of linguistic analysis and covers both formal and functional aspects. The seminal similarity between dude and Alter is of a syntactic nature: while both NPs can occur within argument structure, their default is in vocative position. Based on this structural parallelism, other domains are analyzed, including semantics and bleaching effects, phonological and orthographic variation. Particular attention is given to the sociocultural and sociopragmatic potential of dude and Alter, including their role as indexicals for certain youth groups and their subsequent stereotypization. This paper tracks both the similarities and the subtle differences in the usage and function of dude and Alter. It is argued that this lexical parallelism, albeit coincidental, highlights the role of vocative forms in the discursive makeup of both English and German.
Keywords: dude, stylization, contrastive pragmatics, vocative, cross-linguistic analysis, Alter
Published online: 25 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.2.05hey
References (38)
Aijmer, Karin. (ed). 2011. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2002. jetzt speak something about italiano. Sprachliche Kreuzungen im Alltagsleben. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 651, 79–109.Google Scholar
. 2001. From the streets to the screens and back again: on the mediated diffusion of ethnolectal patterns in contemporary German. LAUD Linguistic Agency A5221, 1–24.Google Scholar
. 2001. Ultra korregd Alder!. Zur medialen Stilisierung und Aneignung von ‘Türkendeutsch’. Deutsche Sprache 291, 321–339.Google Scholar
. 1998. Deutsche Jugendsprache: Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2008. Uniformity and diversity in the syntax of evaluative vocatives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11, 1, 43–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2007. Playing with the voice of the Other: Stylized “Kanaksprak” in conversations among German adolescents. In: Style and Social Identities – Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity, Peter Auer (ed.), 325–360. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirim, İnci and Peter Auer. 2004. Türkisch sprechen nicht nur die Türken. Über die Unschärfebeziehung zwischen Sprache und Ethnie in Deutschland. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2002. SMS-Schreiben als Gegenstand der Sprachreflexion. Networx 281, 1–26.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 4, 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. Sociolinguistic rules of address. In: Sociolinguistics, John Pride and Janet Holmes (eds), 225–240. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2011. Challenges in contrast: a form to function approach. In Contrastive Pragmatics. Karin Aijmer (ed.), 73–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne and Marina Yaguello. 2004. Discourse markers across languages: evidence from English and French. In: Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, Carol Lynn Moder and Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds), 129–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311, 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henne, Helmut. 1986. Jugend und ihre Sprache. Darstellung – Materialien – Kritik. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyd, Theresa. 2010. How you guys doin’? Staged orality and emerging plural address in the television series Friends . American Speech 85, 1, 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. English and the Media: Internet. In: English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Alexander Bergs and Laurel Brinton (eds.) Berlin: de Gruyter. 1105–1118.Google Scholar
Hill, Richard. 1994. You’ve come a long way, dude: a history. American Speech 69, 3, 321–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In: Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), 3–28. Oxford:Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keim, Inken. 2007. Die “türkischen Powergirls”. Lebenswelt und kommunikativer Stil einer Migrantinnengruppe in Mannheim. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott. 2004. Dude. American Speech 79, 3, 281–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Daniela. 2009. Kiezdeutsch-Sprachliche und kommunikative Merkmale im sprechsprachlichen Register von Berlinern mit türkischer Herkunftssprache. Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Sharon Ash and Charles Boberg. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology, Sound Change. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In: Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell (eds), 107–120. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez. 2011. Teasing Apart to Bring Together: Gender and Sexuality in Variationist Research. American Speech 86, 1, 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael and Anne O’Keeffe. 2004. What’s in a name? Vocatives in casual conversations and phone-in calls. In: Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, Pepi Leistyna and Charles Meyer (eds), 153–185. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Naumova, Nellja. 2002. Rußlanddeutsche Spätaussiedler in Thüringen: eine empirische Untersuchung zu ihrer sprachlichen Integration. Frankfurt (Oder): Ost-West-Linguistik.Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2010. ’Mate’ as a term of address in ordinary interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 421, 1201–1218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sari, Faizah. 2007. Pragmatic Particles: A Cross-Linguistic Discourse Analysis of Interaction. Dissertation. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1988. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 2006. Gespräche über Gespräche. Nach- und Nebengespräche über ausgeblendete Aspekte einer Interaktion. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 71, 229–247.Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark. 2003. Spelling rebellion. In: Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities, Jannis Androutsopoulos and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds), 151–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Souza, Miguel. 2013. Die Semiotik soziolinguistischer Marker am Beispiel der Diskurspartikel alter: Sprachliche Variation in einer Gesamtschule.In: Was machen Marker? Logik, Materialität und Politik von Differenzierungsprozessen, Eva Bonn, Christian Knöppler and Miguel Souza (eds), 47–83. Bielefeld: Transkript Verlag.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. 2010. Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 391, 457–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waksler, Rachelle. 1995. She’s a mensch and he’s a bitch: neutralizing gender in the 1990’s. English Today 111, 3–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1974. Hey, whatsyourname! CLS 101, 787–810.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Arias Álvarez, Alba & Isaac McAlister
2024. Dude, obvio, ho!: A cross-linguistic pragmatic account of Asturian Spanish Ho and American English Dude. Journal of Pragmatics 221 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Baumgarten, Nicole
2023. Chapter 9. And the postcode darlin’ . Vocative variation in service encounters on the telephone in Northern England. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Cappeau, Paul & Catherine Schnedecker
2022. La pragmaticalisation des noms d’humains généraux mec / man . Étude sur corpus montrant un changement linguistique en cours. Travaux de linguistique n° 83:2 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Milà-Garcia, Alba
2022. Desacuerdo, atenuación y empatía en tutorías universitarias. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 90 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
ÖZER, Nuriye & Pınar İBE AKCAN
2022. TÜRKÇEDE HİTAP İFADELERİ: ANLAM VE SÖZCÜK TÜRÜ TEMELİNDE BİR ULAMLAMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi 7:1 ► pp. 382 ff. DOI logo
ÖZER, Nuriye & Pınar İBE AKCAN
2022. A Pragmatic Function-Position Analysis of Address Terms: Tendencies in Turkish. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi 8:2 ► pp. 456 ff. DOI logo
Palacios Martínez, Ignacio M.
2018. “Help me move to that, blood ”. A corpus-based study of the syntax and pragmatics of vocatives in the language of British teenagers. Journal of Pragmatics 130 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Palacios Martínez, Ignacio M.
2023. A syntactic and pragmatic study of nominal vocatives in the Twitter exchanges of rappers’ fans. Journal of Pragmatics 207 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Kleinknecht, Friederike & Miguel Souza
2017. Chapter 9. Vocatives as a source category for pragmatic markers. In Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 186], ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.