1

Title. ‘Mate’ as a term of address in ordinary interaction Author names and affiliations.

Name: Johanna Rendle-Short Affiliation: Linguistics Program School of Language Studies College of Arts and Social Sciences Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Email: Johanna.Rendle-Short@anu.edu.au Phone: +61 2 6125 4677 Fax; +61 2 6125 3252

Abstract. This paper focuses on the sequential environment of the address term ‘mate’, contrasting the post-positioned ‘mate’ (e.g. ‘hello mate’) with the pre-positioned ‘mate’ (e.g. ‘mate how are ya’). Because ‘mate’ occurs in a wide variety of situations and carries with it a range of interpretations, it is an extremely popular term that can be used not only when talking to friends, but also between casual acquaintances who may never talk to each other again. However, it can also be negatively interpreted, especially in ironic and antagonistic contexts. This paper will argue that the interpretation of ‘mate’ is closely tied to its sequential placement. When post-positioned, ‘mate’ overwhelmingly occurs in openings and closings of conversations or following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements and appreciations, presenting an attitude of open friendliness towards the other person. This is no more evident than when ‘mate’ plays a mitigating role following requests, advice giving or even disagreements. However when pre-positioned, it changes the sequential organization of the talk (as do pre-positioned address terms in general), giving the turn first status. It will be argued that it is only through understanding its sequential position that we can begin to understand why ‘mate’ is sometimes interpreted as antagonistic or hostile. Keywords. mate, address term, conversation analysis, sequential environment, Australian English Bio-note. Johanna Rendle-Short is senior lecturer in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the Australian National University. Her main research interest is conversation analysis, talk-in-interaction, and embodied discourse. She is interested in the Australian political news interview as well as the interaction of children with communication disorders. More recently she has been analysing address terms and how they are used interactionally within a variety of contexts.

2

1.0 Introduction ‘Mate’ is a useful term that can either be used as a term of address, as in ‘hey mate’, or as a term of reference, as in ‘she’s my best mate’. Much has been written concerning the use of ‘mate’ from a historical perspective, generally focusing on how the term ‘mate’ is perceived as being quintessentially Australian (e.g. Turner, 1972; Ward, 1966; Wierzbicka, 1997; Wilkes, 1985). Such research has tended to examine the semantics of the term (e.g. Wierzbicka, 1997) and how it tends to be used ‘by males and for males’ (e.g. Pauwels, 1998; Poynton, 1989; Wilkes, 1985). However, generally speaking, these discussions do not distinguish between ‘mate’ as a term of reference and ‘mate’ as a term of address, although some dictionary definitions have separate entries for ‘mate’ as a form of address (e.g. Australian National Dictionary (Ramson, 1988); Australian Oxford Dictionary (Moore, 1999); Macquarie Dictionary (Delbridge, 2005); Oxford English Dictionary, 2006). However, a preliminary sociolinguistic self-report survey (Rendle-Short, frth) showed that the vocative use of ‘mate’ is not abating in contemporary Australian society, with both men (88.4%) and women (60.4%) reporting that they use the address term. This increased use is generally occurring in the younger generations, particularly for younger women. However, when reporting whether they like the term or not, two issues emerge. One is that many of the younger women report that they don’t think of ‘mate’ as carrying the traditional meaning of male solidarity, camaraderie and equality. Instead they interpret ‘mate’ as being a fun, friendly term of address, almost like a term of endearment, particularly useful for addressing their friends, male or female, of a similar age. The second aspect is that younger women indicated that they did not like ‘mate’ in all contexts, especially when it is used in antagonistic or hostile situations. The complexity surrounding ‘mate’ is exemplified in a recent article by Spry (2005), as editor of the National Observer, who argued that the term ‘mate’ is “in one sense hypocritical (the user being aware that the other person is not in any real sense his ‘mate’) and in another sense aggressive and hostile (being intended to disabuse the other person from any view he may have that he may be in any way superior to the user)” (p. 11-12). Spry concluded with the hope that ‘mate’ would be used progressively less and less. This Spry (2005) article was written in response to recent discussions relating to the use of ‘mate’ within the Australian Parliament (ABC news). The problem arose because some of the security officers at Parliament House were addressing some politicians and visitors by ‘mate’ as they entered the building. The use of such a term was considered, by some politicians, to be disrespectful. As a result, there was much discussion in the media, on talkback radio and in the literature as to the role of ‘mate’ within contemporary Australian society. Politicians themselves stated whether they used the term or not, with even the then Prime Minister (John Howard) saying that he often used it (Spry, 2005). In the end a ‘clarification’ to security officers in Parliament House was issued indicating that the term ‘mate’ could be used, but only with “sensitivity and appropriateness” (Spry, 2005:11). The aim of this paper is to address some of the complexity surrounding the address term ‘mate’. Analysing talk-in-interaction the paper will examine why it is that ‘mate’ can be positively interpreted in some contexts, but negatively interpreted in other contexts. The paper will address this issue by examining where ‘mate’ occurs within

3

naturally occurring interactions, and what might ‘mate’ achieve when it is used in such positions.1 2.0 ‘Mate’ as a term of address ‘Mate’ is an extremely versatile form of address. It is a friendly term, useful for both addressing people we know and those we don’t know. It is generally seen as a positive term, although it can be negatively interpreted within some contexts, for example, when used to show sarcasm, irony or dissatisfaction with the other person. It is useful for addressing children and adults, especially if we do not know their name or have forgotten their name. However, some of the traditional associations with the term ‘mate’, such as, the masculine connotation, the solidarity connotation, the working class connotation, the rural connotation, seem to be undergoing change (Rendle-Short, frth). ‘Mate’ is used in a variety of contexts, including addressing family and friends, workplace interactions, sporting events, talkback radio, on public transport. However, although the use of ‘mate’ is commonplace within contemporary Australian society, there is a sense in which ‘mate’ is unexpected and that in some contexts it can even be unwelcome or inappropriate (as for example in the Parliament House incident). As pointed out by Lerner (2003), when we are just talking to just one other person, the use of an address term, such as ‘mate’, is in a sense unnecessary. This is because address terms are generally used to attract the attention of the other person. However, when we are already talking to the other person (as in a two-party interaction), there is no need to attract the other person’s attention. As a result, choosing to use ‘mate’ represents a marked choice, that tells us something both about the speaker themselves and their attitude towards the recipient of the talk (Durnati, 1992). This means that when we hear the term ‘mate’, it immediately tells us something. However, understanding what this ‘something’ is within the particular context in which ‘mate’ emerges, is not always straightforward as one has to take into account the sequential positioning of ‘mate’, the meaning of ‘mate’ and how this intersects with the prior talk, and the way in which ‘mate’ is prosodically produced. In terms of its sequential positioning, a number of issues arise. First, in terms of the sequence as a whole, does ‘mate’ predominantly occur during the opening and closing sequences of an interaction or does it equally occur throughout the interaction? Second, does ‘mate’ occur both as a first turn and as a second turn? Third, does ‘mate’ occur as a complete turn by itself or within a turn? And if it does occur within a turn, does it occur at the beginning of a turn construction unit (TCU), in the middle of a TCU, or at the end of a TCU? It is only by understanding the sequential organisation of ‘mate’ that we can begin to understand how ‘mate’ is being heard and understood by the participants themselves. However, just understanding its sequential positioning is not sufficient in and of itself, because the sequential positioning of ‘mate’ intersects with the semantics of the address term. Even though the semantics of the term may (at least for younger women) be changing from a more traditional meaning of equality, camaraderie and 1 The paper limits itself to only focussing on the interactional aspects of ‘mate’ as a term of address. As such, it does not address the power dimension associated with using ‘mate’, although recognising that this is also part of the complexity surrounding ‘mate’ as a term of address. This latter dimension is an area for further research.

4

solidarity to a more recent meaning of fun and friendliness, the meaning of ‘mate’ still broadly carries a sense of ‘open friendliness’ towards the other person.2 But ‘mate’ is always heard (and therefore interpreted and responded to) within the context of surrounding talk, particularly the preceding talk. Therefore, in understanding what the address term is doing, and what it might mean within a particular context, one must examine what it is that the prior talk is doing and how that might be influencing the way in which ‘mate’ is being heard, and thus interpreted, including its prosodic information.3 Just like other terms of address, the way in which ‘mate’ is said, whether with falling, rising or continuing intonation, whether louder or softer, whether stretched out (elongated) or clipped provides the mate-receiver with a lot of information as to how ‘mate’ should be heard and responded to. It may be that if the semantic and prosodic meaning contradicts the way in which ‘mate’ is being used sequentially, then ‘mate’ could be heard as hostile or antagonistic. So, ‘mate’ is an extremely versatile and popular term of address. It occurs in a wide variety of situations and carries with it a range of interpretations. It can frequently be heard not only between friends, but also between casual acquaintances who may never talk to each other again. It has even been heard when throwing a fish back into the water, ‘see ya mate’. However, understanding how it should be interpreted within a particular sequential environment is not straightforward. This is particularly relevant when it is used in an antagonistic environment. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to examine the sequential environment in which ‘mate’ occurs, both within the interaction itself as well as within the turn itself, whether that be at the beginning of the turn, in the middle of the turn or at the end of the turn. Through examination of the interactional context in which ‘mate’ is occurring it will be possible to begin to understand why ‘mate’ is sometimes interpreted as non-friendly, or even with hostility. 3.0 Data and methodology The data comprises 97 instances of talk in which one of the speakers uses the address term ‘mate’. The data have been collected from a variety of sources, including everyday interaction, talkback radio, television and the political news interview. The data have been analysed using conversation analysis (CA), a detailed, qualitative analysis of audio recordings of naturally occurring social interaction (ten Have, 2007). Through moment-by-moment analysis of talk-in-interaction, CA is able to identify regularities in terms of how participants use address terms within talk from both everyday conversation and institutional settings. The examples of ‘mate’ presented in the following analysis are representative of the types of sequential environments in which ‘mate’ occurs. They have been chosen in order to present most clearly the phenomenon under discussion, starting from the most straightforward to the more complex instances. The data have been transcribed using CA transcription conventions (see Appendix).

2 Because ‘mate’ has a wide range of meanings, and means different things to different people, this paper will use the basic meaning of ‘open friendliness’ when discussing the semantics of the term. 3 Although extremely important, detailed prosodic analysis of ‘mate’ is not the focus of this paper. Such a study remains an area for further research.

5

4.0 Post-positioned ‘mate’ ‘Mate’ most commonly occurs at the end of a turn, in the post-TCU position. The following analysis will examine where such post-TCU ‘mate’ turns are most likely to occur, both within the interaction as a whole and within individual turns, in order to understand what it is that ‘mate’ achieves when occurring in such positions. 4.1 ‘Mate’ at the beginning and end of a conversation Addressing another person by name or with a term of endearment frequently occurs in the opening stages of a conversation due to the strong and overt recognition work achieved by naming (Schegloff 1979, 2007). Depending upon the address term used, participants can demonstrate whether they are intimates, such as through a term of endearment, or more distant, such as through title and last name (Ervin-Tripp, 1972). It is therefore not surprising to find the address term ‘mate’ at the beginning of conversations, either as part of the greeting sequence, as in ‘hi mate’ or ‘g’day mate’, or in response to the ‘how are you’ request, as in ‘doing just fine mate’ or ‘well thanks mate’. The following face-to-face interaction shows ‘mate’ being used in the greeting sequence. Example 1: Opening 1. Son morning Dad, 2. Father → hi mate, how are you. 3. Son not too bad, 4. Father what time did you get home last night? 5. Son probably about elevenish. something like that. yeah. Example 1 shows the son using the kin term, ‘Dad’, to both indicate that visual recognition has taken place and to provide information as to the nature of their relationship. The father returns the greeting, followed by the address term, ‘mate’, again orienting to successful recognition and to the open and friendly nature of their relationship. The vocative ‘mate’ form is also frequently heard in the opening sequences on talkback radio, as in the following example. Example 2: Opening 1. Host Michael. good morning. 2. Caller uh good morning. how are you doing.= 3. Host → =doing just fine mate. 4. Caller oh good. 5. .h got a few things I’d like to sell, 6. Host yes, The host already knows that the name of the caller is ‘Michael’ as demonstrated by his use of the address term to both attract the caller’s attention and to indicate that this particular caller is next in line to speak.4 Through the reciprocal greeting in line 2, the caller indicates that he is indeed ‘Michael’. Thus, because identification has already been achieved, any further use of an address term in this dyadic interaction is optional

4 See Hutchby (2006) for discussion of openings on talkback radio.

6

and represents a marked choice. This means that the host’s use of the address term, ‘mate’ in line 3, is doing something other than recognition. The question that then arises is, what is the address term ‘mate’ doing in this instance if it is not attracting the attention of the other person and it is not doing recognition? One could argue that the host is presenting an open and friendly attitude towards the caller, because use of an address term provides information about the host, and about his attitude towards the recipient of his talk (Duranti, 1992). But even then, the question arises as to why present such information at this point in the talk? Understanding why one might use ‘mate’ in this environment requires closer examination of the sequential position of ‘mate’ at the end of the response to a ‘how are you’ question. Because on talkback radio there is the institutional requirement to get to the business of the call as quickly as possible, callers tend not to phone in about personal or private issues (Hutchby, 2006), and so ‘how are you’ questions are not common in talkback radio. Thus, by choosing to respond to a possibly misplaced ‘how are you’ type question with a post-TCU ‘mate’, the host is doing a number of things. He is both providing the necessary second part to the ‘inquiry after health’ question typically found at the beginning of non-institutional phone calls (Schegloff, 1979), as well as, through the marked use of the address term ‘mate’, retrospectively indicating that such a question is not really necessary on talkback radio. As argued by Clayman (frth) address terms are recurrently associated with talk that is “designed to stand out from the background of the turn in progress” (p. 14). Therefore, although ‘doing just fine’ would have been perfectly adequate second part, by adding the address term, ‘mate’, the host is able to simultaneously make the prior talk stand out and to express an attitude of open friendliness to put the novice caller (as indicated by his ‘how are you’ question) at ease. Additionally, as shown by Jefferson (1973), address terms frequently occur within the closing environment as participants ensure the ongoing relevance of their relationship even if they may soon no longer be talking. One way to demonstrate their attitude towards the relationship is through the use of address terms, whether they be names, nicknames or special terms of endearment. ‘Mate’ is particularly useful for doing such work as it emphasises open friendliness between participants, as demonstrated by the following example taken from a call to a talkback radio program about films. Example 3: Closing 1. Host I hate it when (0.3) >you know<, 2. you and the (0.2) you and the caller laugh 3. and I’m left out, 4. Caller [heh hehe he he he 5. Film expert [heh heh heh 6. Host thanks a lot Marshall, 7. Caller → no worries mate. 8. Host see you later. 9. hopefully Mark will mention a film I know 10. and you don’t. although it is incredibly unlikely. 11. Host Mark? hello?

7

Example 3 shows the caller using the post-positioned address term in the second turn position in the closing environment, ‘no worries mate’ (line 7). Using reciprocal address terms is common in the closing environment as participants manage the interactional demands of closing their line of communication. ‘Mate’ is additionally useful on talkback radio, especially for the caller, as it can indicate a relaxed open friendliness without appearing too familiar by calling the host by name. ‘Mate’ is also useful when the speaker does not know or cannot remember the other person’s name. As stated by Bob Hawke, a former Prime Minister of Australia, “It gets you out of all sorts of embarrassing situations. It's got a nice neutrality about it. I mean, it doesn't imply any intimacy, it shows a reasonable level of respect. I think it's one of our great words.” (The Age, 2005). However, this does not mean that ‘mate’ is only used as a substitute for someone’s name. As demonstrated in the following example, it is possible to find both a name and ‘mate’ being used in the same environment. Example 4: Closing 1. Host .hh (0.3) yeah it’d be good. 2. → alright Simon, nice to talk to you ma:te, 3. Caller → good on ya mate, 4. Host what do you drive? 5. Caller u::h Western Star. [( )] 6. Host → [Western Star] mate. 7. Caller yep. 8. Host: → alright mate, good onya, 9. (0.5) 10. Caller → good onya mate 11. Host thanks for your call Simon, 12. Caller → no worries mate. 13. Host b:ye. 14. Caller see ya.

As Example 4 shows, the host knows that the caller’s name is ‘Simon’ (line 2). However, in this closing environment, the host also addresses the caller by ‘mate’ three times, and the caller addresses the host by ‘mate’ three times. Therefore, it can be assumed that if addressing the caller by the name ‘Simon’ demonstrates that the host still knows the caller’s name (recognition), and thus uses the address term to close the conversation, ‘alright Simon’ (line 2) and ‘thanks for your call Simon’ (line 11), multiple uses of the term ‘mate’ are doing other interactional and/or affiliative work. Such multiple uses in this example might be because neither host nor caller indicate that they are in a hurry to break the line of communication, as evidenced by the moving out of closing in line 4 and the slow move towards the terminal exchange in lines 13 and 14. Thus, by adding the address term ‘mate’, it serves not only to exemplify the closeness of their relationship, but also to delay closing. 4.2 ‘Mate’ following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements and appreciations

8

One of the most common places for ‘mate’ to occur is following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements and appreciations.5 The following example shows ‘mate’ following an assessment near the beginning of the call when a male contestant rings his father after he got through to the next round of Australian Idol contest. Example 5: Assessment 1. Contestant oh Dad. (0.2) I’m in. I’m in. 2. Father → o::h well do::ne mate. (0.3) well done. 3. Contestant oh it’s ‘cos of you:: mate. you and the kids. 4. Father na:: mate. you did this. good on ya. Adding ‘mate’ to the end of the assessment in line 2, ‘well done mate’, does a number of things. On the one hand, it confirms that recognition has been successful and that just as the son has recognised the father’s voice, so too has the father recognised the son’s voice. However, the father has multiple options in terms of how he could address his son, of which ‘mate’ is only one. Therefore, by choosing ‘mate’, he is also showing open friendliness to his son. However, as we have begun to see, an additional function of attaching ‘mate’ to the preceding turn (in this case an assessment) is to make it stand out from the background talk in progress. That the speaker wants to ensure that the assessment stands out is confirmed by the speaker himself when he repeats the assessment, with additional intonational emphasis, in the next TCU. The following example shows ‘yeah’ followed by ‘mate’ as a football player responds to an interviewer’s comment at the end of a game. Example 6: Agreement 1. Host here with me uh Arwin, what a way to go out.= 2. =what a way to play your last game at 3. uh Mount ( ) stadium. 4. Player → yeah mate. i- it was a lot of fun. you know? hh 5. great crowd, perfect day for footy, Following the host’s initial assessment, ‘what a way to go out’, and upgraded assessment, ‘what a way to play your last game at uh Mount ( ) Stadium’, the player responds with ‘yeah mate’ before giving a series of assessments (‘a lot of fun’, ‘great crowd’, ‘perfect day for footy’). Once again, in a two party interaction, there is no need for the speaker to add ‘mate’ to the end of the minimal agreement token. And, although adding ‘mate’ can be heard as ensuring that their relationship is open and friendly, it is doing more than that. In order to understand the effect of the ‘mate’ it is useful to initially make a number of noticings. First, in terms of the turn itself, ‘mate’ follows the agreement token, rather than occurring before the token. In the current data set, there are no instances of ‘mate’ occurring in the pre-TCU position when used with agreement tokens, as in ‘mate yeah’. Second, ‘mate’ occurs on the first TCU of the player’s turn rather than being attached to the following assessments. Of course it would be possible to add

5 ‘Mate’ can occur following any action, but the four mentioned here are the most common.

9

‘mate’ to an assessment, as shown in Example 5, but this is not what occurs. The data shows that in multi-TCU turns, as in the above example, if ‘mate’ is used, it is generally attached to the first TCU and not to later TCU’s. Third, by attaching ‘mate’ to the short one-word agreement token, it functions to elongate the first TCU. Finally, although ‘mate’ could be added to any of the assessments, it would not be possible to add a post-positioned ‘mate’ to the first assessment, ‘it was a lot of fun’, because a tag question ‘you know’ has already taken the post-position slot.6 So what is the effect of attaching ‘mate’ to this agreement token, the first TCU of a multi-TCU turn? As shown above, attaching ‘mate’ to the agreement token makes the first bit of talk longer thus making it stand out. Why might a speaker want to make the first TCU stand out rather than a later TCU? Because the first TCU, according to the preference for contiguity (Sacks, 1987), responds directly to the previous talk, in this case the upgraded assessment in lines 2-3, by attaching ‘mate’ to the first TCU, it emphasises the close connection with the prior speaker both sequentially (because this first TCU is responding to the prior speaker’s talk) and also in terms of their openly friendly relationship. A similar argument can be made when ‘mate’ is attached to acknowledgement and appreciation tokens, as shown in the following two examples. Example 7: Acknowledgement 1. Host good on ya Gaz. have a good day? 2. Race expert righto mate. I’ll be in the yard all day. Example 8: Appreciation 1. Host good. maybe next week. 2. thanks, [mate? 3. Caller [fine art thing. ye[ah. 4. Expert [yes.= 5. Host =he he he 6. .hhh it’s nineteen after eleven. 7. here at triple jay? The above examples (Examples 5, 6, 7 and 8) show ‘mate’ occurring following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements and appreciations, as in, ‘lovely mate’, ‘yeah mate’, ‘righto mate’, ‘thanks mate’. They demonstrate how ‘mate’ as an address term does more than just ensuring recognition or showing recipiency. They demonstrate how the preceding TCUs, ‘lovely’, ‘yeah’, ‘righto’ and ‘thanks’, are sufficient in and of themselves, so ‘mate’ is not required in order to make sense of the prior talk. However, by adding the post-positioned address term, it elongates these short turns, thus making the preceding assessment, agreement, acknowledgement or appreciation stand out from the background talk. Finally, the above examples demonstrate how in a multi-unit SPP turn, ‘mate’ is generally attached to the first TCU which has the effect of emphasising both the sequential connection to the prior talk, as well as the connection of an open friendly relationship between the two speakers.

6 Jefferson (1973) also notes how address terms frequently occur in the tag position.

10

The fact that so much information is carried on one small address term highlights the complexity surrounding the address term ‘mate’. However, this complexity is further enhanced when the illocutionary force of the preceding TCU requires some form of mitigation. 4.3 ‘Mate’ as mitigator Because of the positive attitude of open friendliness associated with ‘mate’ it can play a mitigating role when attached to a TCU that carries an illocutionary force that might negatively impact on the addressee, such as when making a request, giving unsolicited advice or instructions. The following example shows ‘mate’ being used within the context of making a request for permission to use a recording of a conversation. Example 9: Request 1. P → now. before you go, mate, 2. uhm (0.2) Anna just wants to:: 3. get your permission if she can u::se 4. this °conve::rs[a::tion. ° 5. H [OH MY GOD,[NO:::. 6. P [huh he he he huh 7. okay, I’ll tell her no. 8. H no no::. of course she can. In this example P uses the address term ‘mate’ to mitigate the force of the request. However, ‘mate’ is not added to the request itself; rather it is placed following ‘now. before you go’ (line 1), before H would have any idea of what might follow. P does a number of things by setting up the talk in such a way. First, she indicates that more talk is going to follow. Second, although it is not yet clear what this further talk will be about, by setting it up in such a way, P even at this early stage, opens up the possibility that the subsequent talk may be ‘difficult’ due to the delaying effect of preface and the address term, ‘mate’. Third, whatever is to come in the further talk is presented within the context of their open and friendly relationship. In other words, if the delaying is evidence of difficulty (Pomerantz, 1984), then the difficulty should be heard within the context of a relationship that allows a person to call the other person ‘mate’. As the transcript shows, P does find it difficult to ask for permission as demonstrated by the delaying ‘uhm’, the delaying pause, and the setting up of the request as belonging to Anna rather than being P’s own request. There is also delaying through the elongation of the words ‘to’, ‘use’ and the final quieter ‘conversation’. Such delaying shows that the request is not made easily, and at the first hint that H does not want the conversation to be used, P responds with ‘okay, I’ll tell her no’ (line 7). Therefore, in this example, the effect of the early use of the address term ‘mate’ functions to put the difficult request within the context of an open, friendly relationship. Additionally, by using ‘mate’ before she actually makes the request, the illocutionary force of the request is mitigated, making it more difficult for H to refuse the request.

11

Similarly in the following example, as the host gives unsolicited advice in the form of an instruction to the caller, she adds on the post-positioned address term, ‘mate’ on the first TCU of a multi-TCU turn. Example 10: Giving unsolicited advice 1. Host and Trisha, where does the woman fit 2. into your vision of stoneage life. 3. Caller we:ll? I actually sandpapered. (0.6) this window si:ll? 4. (1.0) this morning? 5. Host °hhh° y(h)es? 6. Caller that he’s painting? (1.0) so you see, I:’m still the:re¿ 7. but I’m- I’m in the background. 8. I’m not the main rock p- person. I don’t pick the rocks, (0.6) 9. I just- (.) get- I’m I’m occasionally allowed to paint, 10. but only the undercoat. (0.3) because I’m not (.) quite (.) good 11. enough yet (.) to paint (.) the second one. 12. Host → Trisha, you just keep working on it mate¿ and you just go for -any 13. piece of that house you like and have a renovate. 14. Caller excuse me Julie, I’m smarter than that. I don’t want to. 15. Host a ha ha ha ha [ha ha ha 16. Caller [thank you anyway. 17. Host thank you very much now, .hh I’ve got a Paul from Brisbane This example again shows ‘mate’ doing multiple work. First, it is clear that ‘mate’ is not doing recipiency work, because there are only two participants in this interaction, and also because even within the same TCU, the host addresses the caller by name, ‘Trisha’ (line 12). So whatever work ‘mate’ is doing, it is not needed to ensure that the caller is hearing the talk as addressed to her. Second, ‘mate’ is added to the first TCU so that additional subsequent advice giving is heard within an open, friendly context. Therefore the function of ‘mate’ serves to mitigate the force of the imperative so that it is not interpreted as being ‘too strong’. Additionally, however, ‘mate’ also seems to emphasise the solidarity between women. By directly addressing the caller by both ‘Trisha’ and the traditionally male address term ‘mate’, the female host is able to show support towards the caller within a context in which gender is being made relevant. The caller’s response in which she reciprocally addresses the host by name, ‘Julie’, demonstrates her positive response to the intimacy invoked by the use the of the address term ‘Trisha’ and the term ‘mate’ in this context. Finally, ‘mate’ also works to mitigate ironic or humourous comments, as shown in the following example taken from the radio. Example 11: Irony and humour 1. Host A coach Trevus Hampshire joins us on line now. 2. good morning Trevus. 3. Coach g’day boys, how are you going? 4. Host A [we’re well ] 5. Host B [good Trev ] 6. Host A Trev we understand that this will be a breeze for you 7. ‘cos you conduct media interviews on- 8. in person on the phone

12

9. just about every day of the week 10. in your role as senior coach. 11. is that corre[ct? 12. Coach [heh heh heh 13. → o::h not quite mate. 14. we u::h (0.4) th- they’re few and far between really. 15. we get our head in the paper every now and then, 16. but uh uh this is a bit different, I think, Host A presents an extreme case formulation, by suggesting that the coach does media interviews every day of the week. In response to ‘is that correct?’ (line 11), the coach initially laughs and then corrects the formulation by saying ‘oh not quite mate’ (line 13). The laughter and ‘oh’ response indicates that he hears this extreme formulation as humourous. At the end of this first TCU, he adds the address term ‘mate’ to mitigate the force of his correction. He then goes on to provide a different account as to how often they give media interviews. By attaching ‘mate’ to the first TCU, it has the effect of emphasising both the sequential connection to the prior talk, as well as the connection of an open friendly relationship between the two speakers. The use of ‘mate’ in this context, therefore, works to both mitigate the response and to emphasise the open friendliness associated with joking and laughing at, and with, each other. 4.4 ‘Mate’ in disagreements So far, we have talked about how the post-positioned ‘mate’ has the effect of making the preceding talk stand out against the surrounding background talk, evident in assessments, agreements, acknowledgements or appreciations. We have also seen how in the context of face threatening acts, in the both mid-TCU and post-TCU positions, ‘mate’ can have the effect of mitigating the force of the speech act to which it is attached. In both these contexts, the open friendly attitude expressed by ‘mate’ is generally interpreted in a positive light. However, in disagreements, ‘mate’ can be heard in two ways. Either it can be heard positively as mitigating the force of the disagreement or it can be heard negatively as a distancing mechanism. The following example of ‘mate’ being used within the context of two interactants discussing ‘Les Boyd’, and his behaviour on the football field highlights this tension. Example 12: Disagreement 1. B Les Boyd was my hero. 2. I didn’t go out on the field on the weekend 3. and elbow people in the face like Les Boyd did. 4. cos I knew that was wrong. 5. K and and because you know why? 6. because he got- he got blasted out of the game for goo::d. 7. B yeah yeah yeah. but- 8. K so you knew that if you were going to do it, 9. then you were going to get 10. uh uh (have) taken away [as well.] 11. B → [now co ]me on Kev mate. 12. → settle down mate. settle down. 13. K no. Les Boyd broke people’s jaws and cheeks.

13

The example shows K giving an alternative view as to why B didn’t behave as badly as ‘Boyd’. B responds in overlap by giving three imperatives in a row ‘now come on Kev mate. settle down mate. settle down’. (lines 11, 12). The first two imperatives have post-positioned ‘mate’ terms. As before, it is clear that ‘mate’ is doing much more than recipiency because the first address term ‘mate’ is added immediately following the name of the fellow participant, ‘Kev’. However, the effect of ‘mate’ in this disagreement context can be heard in two opposing ways. On the one hand, as in Example 10, ‘mate’ can be heard as mitigating the force of both imperatives, by presenting the imperatives in such a way that they are heard through the context of an open friendly relationship. On the other hand, ‘mate’ can be heard not as a mitigator that brings the participants closer together, but as a way of emphasising the distance between the participants. The distancing effect is created through the juxtaposition of the disagreement with ‘being a mate’. Because of the preference for agreement in talk-in-interaction (Sacks, 1987), attaching ‘mate’ to the disagreement turns, the imperatives, makes them stand out even more strongly. So whereas the two participants can call each other ‘mate’ in friendly situations, in the context of a disagreement, using ‘mate’ emphasises the fact that at this particular point in time they are not mates because they are not behaving like mates. This second possible interpretation creates a tension when ‘mate’ is used within disagreement contexts. How the ‘mate’ is interpreted (whether friendly or antagonistic) will partly depend on how ‘mate’ is actually said and the power relationship between the two interlocutors. The following example of another disagreement similarly shows the tension between hearing ‘mate’ as a mitigator and as a distance enhancer. Example 13: Disagreement 1. A the union does. 2. B but- uh you speak to the university about that.= 3. A =no but it’s- 4. B talk to me.= 5. A =but= 6. B → =I don’t give away degrees mate. 7. I haven’t been given that honour.= 8. C =they’re not giving away degrees. In the context of who is responsible for deciding who gets a university degree, B says ‘I don’t give away degrees’ (line 6). This extreme case formulation plays on the unlikely scenario that degrees are ‘given away’ and that such ‘giving away’ might lie in the hands of one person. B emphasises the improbability of these events in his subsequent TCU, ‘I haven’t been given that honour’. But by attaching ‘mate’ to ‘I don’t give away degrees’, it can be heard in two ways, as (a) mitigating the force of the disagreement within the context of an open friendly relationship, or as (b) increasing the distance between B and A because it emphasises the disagreement and by so doing emphasises the non-mate like behaviour at this point in time. In summary, as shown in the above examples, because ‘mate’ is seldom required for recipiency or recognition, its use represents the marked case. In other words, use of ‘mate’ says something about the speaker and their attitude towards the recipient of the

14

talk. What the ‘something’ is can be worked out (in part) by the sequential positioning of ‘mate’. The post-positioned ‘mate’ can occur in a variety of environments, including openings, closings, following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements and appreciations. It functions to both emphasise the relationship between the interlocutors and to make the prior talk stand out from the rest of the talk. ‘Mate’ can also mitigate the prior talk if the prior talk is perceived as being in some way face threatening. However, when used within a disagreement context,7 ‘mate’ can potentially be heard as antagonistic or hostile, when it increases the distance between the interlocutors. 5.0 Pre-positioned ‘mate’ In contrast to the post-positioned ‘mate’, something quite different happens when ‘mate’ is pre-positioned. Because we don’t expect to hear ‘mate’ as the first word of a TCU, it is heard differently and so it immediately tells us something. This next section will focus on what this ‘something’ is. One common place to find pre-TCU address terms is in multi-party interactions where participants use address terms at the beginning of their turn to attract the attention of the recipient (Lerner, 2003). The following example of a multi-party interaction, shows ‘mate’ being used as an attention-getter at the beginning of a turn. Example 14: Summons in multi-party interaction 1. Dicko I don’t know what to say. I really don’t. That was uh 2. Audience ( ) 3. Dicko serious. (0.5) .hh 4. Contestant >heh heh heh< 5. ((laughter)) 6. Dicko well listen. It’s uh. (0.4) I think that’s probably 7. the finest performance I’ve seen on that stage 8. in two years. [Ser ]iously. 9. Marcia [yes.] 10. ((cheering)) 11. Dicko and (2.4) 12. → mate.(2.5) this competition is all about defining 13. moments. uhm. you just had yours. 14. because you may only be two feet tall 15. but >tonight you’re a giant.< In the above example, taken from the television show called Australian Idol, there are multiple participants (Dicko, Marcia, Kyle, the audience and the contestant) and so multiple possible recipients to any turn at talk. Therefore when Dicko commences his turn in line 12 with ‘mate’, it is functioning to gain the attention of (in this case) the contestant. The transcript shows how Dicko is finding it difficult to be heard above

7 Similarly when ‘mate’ is attached to ironic, sarcastic and generally antagonistic comments. It should be noted that disagreements are easier to analyse because they display disagreement characteristics within the talk itself. Sarcasm is more difficult to analyse because it is predominantly displayed through the tone of voice. For example, ‘thanks mate’ could either be said positively, as in Example 8, or it could be said sarcastically when in response to some prior talk or action, such as someone purposefully bumping the speaker. Adding ‘mate’ in this second instance, as for disagreements, enhances the distance between the interlocutors. Hence its negative interpretation.

15

the cheering, laughter and general noise of the audience. In line 6 Dicko says, ‘well listen’ orienting to the difficulty of getting himself heard. He then gives his assessment of the contestant’s singing (lines 6-8). In line 11, he says ‘and’ indicating that he has more to say, followed by a 2.4 second pause. He then uses the attention-getting address term ‘mate’ which is stressed to ensure it is heard above the clapping, again followed by a 2.5 second pause, before launching into his TCU, ‘this competition is all about defining moments’. Another example from the radio shows how radio hosts use address terms to manage the interview. Example 15: Managing the interview by the radio commentator 1. Host 1 Jackson, the action movie. 2. It’s called snakes on a plane. 3. Nathan >snakes on a plane.< 4. and he tells us, uh first hand, 5. there <are actually [snakes on the plane.> 6. Host 2 [sn- 7. Nathan <snakes on the plane.> 8. Host 2 heh heh 9. Host 1 → mate. so well done. 10. and congratulations. 11. cos’ we love it when Australians [start doing well = 12. Nathan [oh= 13. Host 1 =overseas, man, 14. Nathan =thank you, beautiful people, 15. Host 1 good work ( [ ). 16. Host 2 [thanks a lot Nathan, In this example two hosts are briefly discussing a new film called ‘Snakes on a Plane’, starring Samuel Johnson. Host 1 uses the address term ‘mate’ to manage the interview structure.8 By commencing his turn in line 9 with ‘mate’, Host 1 simultaneously indicates his open friendly attitude towards the interviewee as well as indicating that it is time to close the interview. His closing moves are evident by the use of ‘so’ followed by a series of assessments. These are treated as closing implicative by Nathan through the appreciation, ‘oh thank you’ (lines 12 and 14). However, ‘mate’ frequently occurs in the pre-TCU position when it is not being used to gain the attention of the recipient nor is it being used to manage the organization of the talk as a whole. The following example shows two radio hosts (A and B) talking to someone called ‘Blake’ about buying tickets and signing a petition in Canberra. Example 16: Mate it’ll be done 1. A or go to the uh house of heroes in Phillip 2. and bu:y your tickets, 13 bucks a throw.

8 See also Rendle-Short (2007) for a discussion of how address terms are used by journalists to manage the political news interview.

16

3. and while you’re there sign a petition 4. or go online and sign it 5. and we’ll get Kevin Smith to come. 6. C that’s right . we’ll get him here a week before the preview. 7. how’s that? 8. A everybody wins. 9. C exactly. 10. A it’s a beautiful thing. 11. Blake. thank you so much for having a chat to us, 12. B thank you, 13. A best of luck with the petition. 14. oh oh we::’ll get you- 15. uh how’s a billion signatures sound? 16. B a billion sounds good.= 17. =but come on. we’ve got to start with yours. 18. A → mate, it’ll be done. 19. B done. 20. A it’ll be done in the next ten minutes. 21. B excellent. 22. A → mate. it’s been emotional. 23. B it has. 24. A look after yourself, 25. and uh we’ll see you on the thirty-first at the big preview. 26. B no worries. th[anks guys. 27. A [it’s a done deal. 28. A cheers, Blake. 29. B thanks Canberra, The above example is near the end of a call to the radio from Blake. In line 11, A starts to close the call with an address term prefaced TCU, ‘Blake. thank you so much for having a chat to us’. Then in response to an extreme suggestion that they’ll get ‘a billion signatures’ (line 15), Blake says ‘but come on. we’ve got to start with yours’ (line 17). This could be heard as a request that they sign the petition or even a criticism that they haven’t yet signed the petition. Such a request (or criticism) requires a response. But instead of simply agreeing, A responds in such a way as to give his turn first status (Heritage, 2007), with the promise, ‘mate it’ll be done’. This turn is treated as a first by Blake when he confirms the promise with ‘done’ (line 19). That the sequential ordering has been altered is confirmed by the fact that the next sequence is an adjacency pair, ‘it’ll be done in the next ten minutes’ followed by ‘excellent’. What is the advantage of giving something first status as in ‘mate, it’ll be done’? By presenting something as a first, it raises the stakes because it then requires the other person to respond to the first, rather than being responded to (Heritage 2007). Therefore, by re-presenting the talk as a first, it shifts the sequential organization of the talk, for some interactional end. For example, it might be advantageous to change the sequential organisation in order to avoid giving a contentious answer. In the above example, in presenting the talk as a first A is able to avoid giving a direct response to the request to sign the petition now. By giving the response (a promise) first status (through the pre-positioned ‘mate’) and by putting it in the passive ‘it’ll be done’, A

17

successfully avoids answering the request and so avoids saying who will actually sign the petition and whether it will be done straight away. This is in direct contrast to the ‘mate’ in line 22, where A says ‘mate. it’s been emotional’, where ‘mate’ is not changing the sequential organization of the talk, but is simply being used to manage the radio interaction by moving towards closure. The following example from a political news interview between journalist Laurie Oaks and the then leader of the Labor party, Mark Latham, shows how the interviewee, Latham, used ‘mate’ in the pre-TCU position to give his response first status. Example 17: Political news interview 1. IE: Well >Laurie< I've answered your question. 2. I've answered your ques[tion¿ 3. IR: [oka:y, °wull-° 4. IE: I’ve shown you THE CABINET DOCUMENTS¿ 5. I'VE SHOWN YOU THE GOVERNMENT'S WEBSITE 6. I've tried to explain to you the nature 7. of the family debt crisis¿ 8. → mate. if you don't get it¿ 9. if you don't get it, I can assure you:_(.) 10. one point four million Australian families ↑do:¿ 11. (.) Coz they'[ve got the nightma:re= 12. IR: [Okay, 13. IE: =of having to deal with Centrelink 14. >to deal with this problem<? 15. If journalists don’t get it, well bad luck;= 16. =>the AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE DO:, ((talk continues)) In his response, the interviewee (IE) makes it clear that he has answered the question (lines 1 and 2), shown him ‘the cabinet documents’ (line 4), shown him ‘the government’s website’ (line 5) and tried to ‘explain the nature of the family debt crisis’ (lines 6 and 7). In other words, he has done his best to provide a second to the IR’s question. He then changes his response in order to give it first status (line 8), by presenting a challenge ‘if you don’t get it, I can assure you one point four million Australian families do’. He ensures that this challenge has first status by prefacing it with the address term ‘mate’. This changes the normal institutional roles whereby interviewers ask questions and interviewees provide responses. Instead, the IR is put in the position of having to respond, which he does in line 12, when he says ‘okay’. In the above example, the politician changes the sequential ordering of the talk after making it clear that he has already answered the question. However, the speaker may upset the sequential ordering by giving a turn with first status in a second turn slot in order to avoid giving a response, as in the following example. Example 18: Avoiding a response 1. M check my hair. 2. (0.5)

18

3. nuh it’s good. thank you. 4. B well according to you it’s good. 5. M heh heh heh 6. M → mate. I’ve got to do the gags here. 7. alright? 8. B well there you go. that’s …. In this example, M makes a joke (lines 1 – 3) after which B makes a second joke (line 4). At this point an expectation has been set up in the talk that both M and B are telling jokes. M laughs but then he changes the sequential expectation. Following the laugh in line 5, the next action is either for B to provide a further turn (if the laugh was treated as a sufficient response to B’s joke in line 4) or for M to provide a further response (if the laugh was treated as a preliminary to a response, but not an adequate response). Instead of doing either of these next actions, M changes the sequential ordering by producing a turn of first status. In order to ensure that this comes off, he prefaces his turn with the address term ‘mate’, then makes a statement ‘I’ve got to do the gags here’, then adds a tag question ‘alright’ to again ensure that his statement is heard as a first turn that requires a response. B responds by closing the interaction ‘well there you go’ (line 8). Thus, this type of pre-positioned ‘mate’ (or other similar address terms) works to change the sequential ordering; but such a change doesn’t occur just anywhere. It only occurs in a situation in which the prior talk is treated as being in someway ‘problematic’. Otherwise why would a speaker want to change the sequential ordering of the emerging talk? The nature of the ‘problem’ is not necessarily available to the other participant (or the analyst). But what the pre-positioned ‘mate’ does is to alert the other participant to the fact that there was something in the prior talk that was ‘problematic’. It is then up to the other participant to monitor the subsequent talk to ascertain what the nature of the problematic prior talk might be (see also Wootton 1981). Just as in the case of disagreements or antagonistic comments, depending on the nature of the ‘problem’, a pre-positioned ‘mate’ can also enhance the distance between the speaker and the other participant in the interaction. 6.0 Reported speech ‘Mate’ is frequently found in reported speech, when a speaker incorporates another person’s talk into their own talk. Similar to non-reported uses of mate, in reported speech, ‘mate’ occurs in both the post-TCU and the pre-TCU position, as would be expected when emulating the use of ‘mate’ in everyday talk. The following example shows Sam telling a story about what he said to another person. Example 19: Post-TCU Reported Speech 1. Jill: and I’v::e said o:h 2. → “how was your day mate.” 3. you know? uh. 4. an’ he’s gone. (0.4) you know. like, In reporting what was said to another person (whether or not it is actually what Jill said), Jill presents a classic opening in terms of ‘how was your day mate’. Just as in an actual conversation, ‘mate’ is not ‘required’ in this reported opening. Just as in

19

everyday conversation, it has the function of adding information concerning the attitude of Jill to the other person. Similarly, ‘mate’ can occur in the pre-TCU position in reported speech, as in the following example. Example 20: Pre-TCU Reported Speech 1. Downer: as you can imagine 2. everywhere I go in Australia 3. there’s always somebody who says to me 4. → “mate I’m just thinking of going to Bali” 5. or [so(h)me(h)]where Puhket or wherever it may be.= 6. Reporter: [heh heh ] 7. Downer: =.hh “uhm do you think I should go?” 8. and my answer to that, is …. In this example, the politician Downer, as the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, is reporting how people come up to him to ask if they should travel to Bali or Puhket. Such generic questions are presented as being prefaced by ‘mate’, whether or not they are actually prefaced in such a way. The rationale behind the pre-positioned ‘mate’ is the same as for actual conversations when someone wants to interrupt the flow of whatever else a person might be doing at the time. One way of interrupting is to initially attract the attention of the person, with an address term such as ‘mate’, before presenting the question. A final example again shows ‘mate’ in the pre-TCU position in order to ensure that the turn is heard with first status. Example 21: Pre-TCU Reported Speech 1. C do you lie in bed when the alarm goes off 2. and think “I can’t face this”. 3. or do you set yourself personal bests 4. “how many houses can I do today”. 5. B oh no. you’ve gotta take the emotion out of it. 6. C yup, well it’s not your fault. 7. B well it’s not. 8. C that’s right. 9. B yeah. 10. C do you say the words. 11. → “mate. I’m just doing my job.” 12. B oh many a time, 13. C yeah. 14. B yeah. 15. C does it work, ever? 16. B not always, no. In this conversation between two people concerning job satisfaction, C asks the question of B, do you ever say the words ‘mate I’m just doing my job’. As in actual

20

conversations, this reported speech question presents the statement with a pre-positioned ‘mate’ in order to ensure that it is heard with first status. But as discussed above, this utterance, ‘I’m just doing my job’ would only be presented as needing first status if there was something problematic in the prior talk. In this instance, although we are not privy to the exact nature of the problem, by pre-positioning the ‘mate’ it presents the statement as reacting to a prior problem. 7.0 Concluding remarks ‘Mate’ is a flexible address term that occurs in a wide variety of contexts, both post-positioned and pre-positioned. Because it is generally not required for recipiency or recognition, mate-recipients have to attend to its sequential positioning and carefully monitor the prior and subsequent talk in order to ascertain why it has been used in that context and what it is the mate-speaker is achieving through the use of the address term. One of the reasons ‘mate’ is so flexible is that does a number of things depending on its sequential environment. As well as indicating an attitude of open friendliness towards the other person, when attached to an assessment, agreement, acknowledgement or appreciation, ‘mate’ elongates the turn and makes it stand out from the surrounding talk. When used in the context of a potential face-threatening act, ‘mate’ functions to mitigate the effect of a request, a command, unsolicited advice, an ironic comment etc. When used within a context of disagreement, ‘mate’ can either be heard as mitigating the disagreement or as exacerbating the disagreement (or irony or hostility) by increasing the distance between the interlocutors. When not attracting the attention of another person and when not being used to manage the institutional nature of the interaction, the pre-positioned ‘mate’ gives the turn first status. This normally occurs within the context of some ‘problem’ and the marked nature of the talk is such that the mate-recipient needs to monitor the talk to ascertain the nature of the prior ‘problem’ that resulted in such an action. Use of ‘mate’ in reported speech confirms these ‘mate’ environments. On the one hand therefore, ‘mate’ can be interpreted positively, for example, when used in opening and closing environments, when attached to assessments, agreements, acknowledgements or appreciations, or when mitigating a speech act. The main effect of ‘mate’ in such contexts is to promote an open friendly attitude towards the addressee. However, the previous statement requires an immediate caveat. Although ‘mate’ predominantly carries the meaning of open friendliness, for some people it also carries the meaning of egalitarianism, solidarity, masculinity, an Australian cliché, working class attitudes (for additional meanings, see Rendle-Short, frth). Therefore, if the mate-recipient does not think that the term applies to them, then regardless of the context in which it is used, it will be interpreted negatively. For example, an older woman may never want to be called ‘mate’, regardless of the sequential positioning, because she thinks that being addressed by ‘mate’ is inappropriate. On the other hand, ‘mate’ might be negatively interpreted if it increases the distance between the interlocutors. This might simply be because of the inappropriate use of ‘mate’, as discussed above due to the overt masculinity of the term or when there is a power differential; alternatively it might be because ‘mate’ is being used to respond to something that is ‘problematic’ in the talk. The problematic talk might involve disagreement, hostility or irony. ‘Mate’ can overtly highlight such problematic talk by

21

making it stand out from the surrounding talk, thus increasing the distance between the mate-speaker and the mate-recipient. The distance is further increased when the address term is used when the participants are not behaving like mates. Alternatively, ‘mate’ can more subtly highlight a ‘problem’ in the prior talk if it results in the mate-speaker adjusting the sequential arrangement of the talk by raising the status of a turn to a first. This can be negatively interpreted if such ‘mate’ use is not seen within the context of an open friendly attitude towards the other person. It is because of this tension that can occur when ‘mate’ is used in problematic, or even unproblematic, contexts that enables us to begin to understand why ‘mate’ is sometimes interpreted as antagonistic or hostile. When asked about whether they like ‘mate’ younger women in particular seemed to be particularly sensitive to the context dependent nature of the term (Rendle-Short, frth). Yet people who want to sound Australian often say that being able to use ‘mate’ in the right context is one of the key indicators of whether they feel they can be accepted as Australian or not. If one were to give instructions as to how to use ‘mate’, they would have to incorporate a number of parameters in order to account for the different contexts in which one finds the address term. For example, just saying that ‘mate’ is used to show open friendliness is insufficient; one should also indicate in what sort of environments one is most likely to find the term, such as openings, closings, following assessments, agreements, acknowledgements, appreciations. One should also indicate that ‘mate’ can be found in disagreements, when giving orders, instructions or commands in order to mitigate the illocutionary force of the turn to which it is attached. But more importantly, ‘mate’ can be used to ensure first status of a turn. More generally, ‘mate’ can be used instead of names or as well as names. ‘Mate’ can be used in conjunction with other address terms such as ‘man’, ‘guys’, ‘bro’ although these are much less common in the Australian context. Although ‘mate’ still has a masculine flavour, it can be used by both men and women. Additionally, one should listen carefully not only to where ‘mate’ is being put in the interaction, but to the way in which ‘mate’ is being said as this can also change the way in which it should be understood. ‘Mate’ can be addressed to most people, whether you know them or not, but one should be more cautious addressing women over fifty by ‘mate’ as they report that they do not like the term. One can even address animals by ‘mate’ and when showing increased affection, one can use the diminutive form, ‘matey’, especially in the post-TCU position. In conclusion, therefore it appears that ‘mate’ is particularly versatile and well-suited to the myriad of situations in which it finds itself. It is possibly for this reason that it is so popular and can frequently be heard not only between friends, but also between casual acquaintances who may never talk to each other again. Understanding the sequential environment enables us to understand why this flexible term is sometimes positively interpreted as a friendly term and other times negatively interpreted as non-friendly or even with hostility.

22

APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS Transcription conventions are based on Gail Jefferson’s notation in Atkinson and Heritage (1984). hello. falling terminal hello, slight rise hello¿ rising intonation, weaker than that indicated by a question mark hello? strongly rising terminal hel- talk that is cut off HELLO talk is louder than surrounding talk °hello° talk is quieter than surrounding talk < > talk is slower than the surrounding talk > < talk is faster than the surrounding talk he::llo an extension of a sound or syllable hello stressed syllable giving emphasis (1.0) timed intervals (.) a short untimed pause .hh audible inhalations hh audible exhalations he heh laughter pulses [ ] overlapping talk = talk is latched to the prior talk ( ) transcriber uncertainty → point of interest References ABC News, 2005. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/08/18/1440979.htm

[accessed 10 October, 2008]. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, Heritage, John, (Eds.) 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in

Conversational Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clayman, Steven, frth. Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of

News Interview Talk. Discourse and Communication. (Special Issue. Foregrounding the Personal in Broadcast News (Eds.) Marriott, S., Thornborrow, J.).

Delbridge, Arthur, (Ed.) 2005. The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary (4th Edition). Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd., North Ryde, NSW.

Duranti, Alessandro, 1992. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1972. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In: Gumperz, J.J., Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. Holt, Rheinhart & Winston, New York, pp.213-250.

Heritage, John, 2007. Constructing and Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Progressivity, Agency and Resistance in Initial Elements of Responses to Yes/No Questions. 10th International Pragmatics Association Meetings, Gothenberg, Sweden.

Hutchby, Ian, 2006. Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Open University Press, Berkshire.

Jefferson, Gail, 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9, 47-96.

23

Lerner, Gene H., 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organisation. Language in Society 32, 177-201.

Moore, Bruce, (Ed.), 1999. The Australian Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oxford English Dictionary, 2006. 3rd Online Edition Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pauwels, Anne, 1998. Women Changing Language. Longman, London. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of

preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.57-101.

Poynton, Cate, 1985. Terms of address in Australia. In: Collins, P., Blair, D. (Eds.), Australian English: The Language of a New Society. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, pp. 55-69.

Ramson, Arthur, (Ed.) 1988. The Australian National Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Rendle-Short, Johanna, 2007. "Catherine, you're wasting your time": Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1503-1525.

Rendle-Short, Johanna, frth. Is ‘mate’ still a masculine term? Australian Journal of Linguistics.

Sacks, Harvey, 1987. On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Button, G., Lee, J.R. (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 54-69.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.) Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, Irvington, pp. 23-78.

Schegloff, Emanuel, A., 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Spry, I.C.F., (Ed.) 2005. The hostile use of ‘mate’ and ‘mateship’. National Observer. Quarterly Journal of the Council for National Interest 66 (Spring), 11-12.

ten Have, Paul, 2007. Doing conversation analysis (2nd Edition). Sage, London. The Age, 2005. 'Pomposity gone mad' claims Hawke: 19 August 2005.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pomposity-gone-mad-claims-hawke/2005/08/19/1123958210566.html [accessed 10 October, 2008].

Turner, G.W., 1972. The English Language of Australia. Longman, London. Ward, R.,1966. The Australian Legend (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press,

Melbourne. Wierzbicka, Anna, 1997. Understanding Cultures through their Key Words. Oxford

University Press, Oxford. Wilkes, Gerald, A., 1985. A Dictionary of Australian Colloquialisms (2nd Edition).

Sydney University Press, Press Building, University of Sydney. Wootton, Anthony J., 1981. Children’s use of address terms. In: French, P., Maclure,

M., (Eds.), Adult-Child Conversation. Croom Helm, London, pp.142-158.