Dialogue particles

Dialogue particles,⁴³ such as já ‘yes,’ nei ‘no,’ and nú, are highly conventionalized ways of expressing recipiency. They can occur as a single turn or they can be accompanied by other elements, including other dialogue particles (cf. ISK 2004:

773). By using dialogue particles, interlocutors index a response to a prior turn. In other words, these particles are intersubjective and stretch across turns. ISK (2004:

774) lists the following three classes of dialogue particles: a) dialogue particles that register the prior talk, b) dialogue particles that receive the prior talk as news, and c) dialogue particles that request a clarification. Table 3.3 shows some Icelandic dialogue particles categorized according to their basic function:

Table 3.3: Icelandic dialogue particles and their functions Registering the prior talk Receiving the prior talk

as news Request for clarification

When two particles from two different categories are compared, such as já ‘yes’ and nú, it is usually fairly easy to make a distinction between them. However, when it comes to explaining the difference between two particles within the same category, the task becomes harder. There are, nevertheless, some subtle differences between different dialogue particles within each category. Sorjonen (2000) suggests three different parameters for delineating the function of dialogue particles: 1) epistemic assumptions, 2) level of affiliation, and 3) who has the right or obligation to speak after the particle has been produced.

43 Dialogue particles are also known as response particles (Sorjonen 2001). Within backchannel studies such words are referred to as backchannel messages (Yngve 1970), listener responses (Oreström 1983), and linguistic feedback (Allwood et al. 1992). For more discussion of backchannel studies see Sorjonen (2001: 19–23).

By using a dialogue particle, speakers can display their epistemic assumptions.

They can produce a continuer (Schegloff 1982; Sacks 1996b: 410; Green-Vänttinen 2001: 157–75) or an acknowledgement token to mark prior talk as incomplete.

Furthermore, the producers can show whether the information delivered in the previous turn is new or not (cf. Heritage 1984a; Green-Vänttinen 2001).

The second parameter proposed by Sorjonen (2000) is to what extent the response is affiliative or non-affiliative. By using an affiliative response, the recipients not only show that they understand the message to which they are responding, but also that, having understood the message, they feel the same way (Sorjonen 2001: 26).

Affiliation can be marked both by the choice of dialogue particle (já and mm) and by prosodic means, such as intonation, vowel length, or loudness (cf. Müller 1996).

The third and last parameter involves the assumptions concerning the trajectory of talk, in other words, what should happen next and who should be the next speaker (Sorjonen 2000). An obvious example is when the recipient requests a clarification. If the recipient responds with a particle that indexes a request for clarification, the co-participant is expected to comply with that request in the next turn. Otherwise the response would be considered “noticeably absent” (cf. Sacks 1992b: 62). Other examples are dialogue particles which have eliciting functions. Just as with particles that request clarification, eliciting particles call for a response from the previous speaker (Linell 1998). Consider the following example borrowed from Sorjonen (2002: 172, glossing and translation in original):

(3.4) Sorjonen [FN August 1996]

1 a Hei mä kuul-i-n yhe-n hyvä-n jutu-n PRT I hear-PST-1 one-ACC good-ACC story-ACC

‘Hey I heard a good story’

→ b No:.

3 a ehkä te oo-tte kuul-lu se-n maybe you(PL) be-PL2 hear-PPC it-ACC

‘Maybe you have heard it’

→ b No.

5 a Se on semmonen nais-juttu.

it is such woman-story

‘It’s like a women’s story’

In the excerpt above, speaker B uses the go-ahead marker no to elicit a continuation from A. No is used as a response to a preliminary, and it invites A to go on to the main

activity, telling the story. Similar instances can also be found regarding nå in Swedish (Lehti-Eklund 1992: 178), nu in Russian (Multisilta 1995: 386), and no in Polish (Kryk-Kastovsky 1992: 205; 1997).

In addition to eliciting functions, in some languages, such as Polish and Danish, nú/no/nå have clear non-eliciting functions. The following Danish extract is borrowed from Steensig (2001: 263):

(3.5) Steensig [EMR:99:ligekommet:l]

1 A Det har været så kano:n:=

It have.3.PT be.PPT so great It has been so great

→ B =•tk fNå::hf (.) Fedt.

NÅ (.) Cool Cool

In the extract above, nå occurs in a turn responding to an assessment. B responds to A’s positive statement by producing the particle nå, with a prolonged vowel and a smily voice. After a micro-pause, B also adds an assessment signalling that A shares B’s joy.

As I have shown in this section, dialogue particles are highly indexical words which show recipiency in conversation. As these tokens typically form a turn of their own, they often have a dynamic intonation contour. As I will show in Chapter 9 when I address the Icelandic dialogue particle nú, this prosodic feature plays an active role in conversation.

3.5 Summary

In this chapter, I have discussed indexicality and how it is manifested in temporal deictics and in particles. Following Silverstein (1976), Hanks (1996), and Sorjonen (2001), I have made a distinction between referential and non-referential indexes.

The chapter began with a discussion of referential indexes. In the first section (3.1), I briefly discussed time and temporality, and how European languages typically encode these notions by metaphorically mapping them as a unidirectional line. In the next section (3.2), I introduced the notion of indexicality and deixis, with particular emphasis on the temporal origo, nú and núna. In my discussion, I emphasized that

deictics are not static and objective frameworks, but, rather, are socio-cultural in nature expressing, meanings that are jointly constructed and under constant negotiation. Thus, as I will show in the empirical part of this study, the temporal deictics nú and núna have a set of meaning potentials, ranging from brief moments to long periods of time. Their situated meanings are contextually and socially bound (see Chapter 6).

In section (3.3), I discussed non-referential indexes, that is, indexes which do not contribute to the referential meaning of an utterance, but, instead, index some aspects of the speech context. These linguistic units are also known as particles.

In the section that followed (3.4), I discussed particles and their functions. After a general overview and description of eleven different subcategories, I addressed three which are specifically relevant in the case of nú: tone particles (3.4.1), utterance particles (3.4.2), and dialogue particles (3.4.3). These three categories are distinguished according to mainly syntactic criteria. Tone particles are units which are syntactically integrated, while utterance particles are only loosely connected to the utterance, typically occurring at the beginning or end of turns. Dialogue particles, by contrast, can form turns of their own, although they are sometimes followed by other elements, in particular, other dialogue particles. These syntactic and sequential differences indicate that these types of nú have different functions, or that their different functions create syntactic differences. In the following chapter, which addresses the methodology of this study, I will take a closer look at how utterances are constructed.

4 Methods

In Chapter 4, I will outline the methodological framework of this study. I will begin by briefly discussing interactional linguistics (4.1) and one of its main sources of inspiration, ethnomethodological conversation analysis (4.2). After a brief discussion of the methodological issues, I will introduce concepts which are central to the study of talk-in-interaction.First, I will address the sequentiality of conversation (4.3), that is, the notion that utterances shape and are shaped by the environment in which they occur. Following this discussion, I will address issues regarding turn-taking and how interlocutors organize the jointly attended discourse floor (4.4). Finally, I will briefly address the role of prosody within conversational studies (4.5).