Utterance particles

Utterance particles, also referred to as discourse markers (cf. Schiffrin 1987), are words or phrases which speakers use to structure their turns and to give recipients cues as to how a message is intended to relate to the ongoing discourse (cf. ISK 2004: 776).

Unlike tone particles, utterance particles are not an integrated part of the syntactic structure. They typically occur at the beginning or end of turns but may also occur at other junctures (cf. ISK 2004: 776).

40 The rest consists mostly of the verb olla ‘to be.’

As many scholars have pointed out, the beginning and end of turns are particularly important from an interactional perspective (cf. Schegloff 1996; Hakulinen 1997: 43–

44; also Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974: 719). It is at these points that speakers may give recipients cues to ease the flow in the conversation. They may, for instance, call for their interlocutor’s attention, or they may produce signals which show how an utterance relates to the previous one with the use of connectives or other types of utterance particles. An utterance particle can signal that the upcoming turn is a return to a previous topic (Ottesjö 2005); it can signal that an upcoming turn involves reservation of some sort (Londen 2002); or it can signal that the speaker needs an extended turn to answer a question (H. Hilmisdóttir and Wide 2000).

ISK (2004: 777) divides Finnish utterance particles into five different subcategories: 1) question particles, 2) additive particles, 3) explicative particles, 4) affective particles, and, 5) the catch-all category of particles with other functions.

These categories, however, do not reflect accurately the use of particles in Icelandic, and thus, in my study, I have chosen to use slightly different categories which are based on my analysis of Icelandic conversational data. These categories are presented in Table 3.2:

Table 3.2: Functions of utterance particles

Particle class Icelandic particles from study data

Connective particles (connectives) Explicative/conclusive particles Affective particles

Problem marking particles Affiliative particles

o:g: ‘and,’ og hérna:: ‘and ehm,’ en: ‘but’

sko ‘you see,’ semsagt ‘that is,’ altso ‘that is’

vá:: ‘wow,’ he:i: ‘hey,’ ha:: ‘what’(nú::)

‘oh’

nú: ‘oh,’ ó: ‘oh,’ ha: ‘what,’ hm: ‘ehm’

heyrðu ‘listen,’ þúveist ‘y’know,’

skiluru ‘you understand,’ ekki satt ‘isn’t it,’

sjáðu til ‘you see,’ sko ‘you see’

Connective particles show how the upcoming turn relates to the previous one, for instance, by showing that the turn is a direct continuation of a previous turn or by

showing that it involves some kind of reservation or protest (cf. Londen 2002). These particles are often referred to as connectives.

Particles with explicative or conclusive functions, as their name suggests, mark some kind of explanation. These particles occur in different positions. The particle sko

‘you see,’ for instance, is often used turn-initially, projecting a long and detailed answer to a question (cf. H. Hilmisdóttir and Wide 2000). The particle semsagt ‘that is,’ by contrast, is used before or after explanations which are typically inserted in the utterance as a parenthetical comment (cf. Lehti-Eklund 1997 on alltså in Swedish).

Particles with affective functions project a strong response to a prior turn, signalling surprise, awe, or disgust. These particles have many similarities with interjections (cf. Ameka 1992). However, instead of being a self-contained responsive exclamation, the affective utterance particle introduces a longer turn, as in æi en gaman! ‘oh, how great!’ The function of the particle is to show how the upcoming turn relates to the previous turn rather than, as does an interjection, carrying the whole message itself.

Particles with a problem marking function show that the previous turn is problematic or unexpected in some way, and, thus, they show that something in a prior turn needs to be explained or confirmed, as in nú, ertu búinn að reyna mikið?

‘NÚ, have you tried a lot?’ These instances occur turn-initially and project an identification of a trouble source.

Finally, affiliative particles function as appeals to co-participants. They function as “recompleters” or turn allocation devices (cf. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974:

718). Some of these particles were originally imperatives or questions, such as the particle skilur(ð)u ‘do you understand?’ which is an example of the latter (H.

Hilmisdóttir 2000). As an utterance particle, skilur(ð)u functions like a tag question.

What all utterance particles have in common is that they are used as part of a longer utterance. In other words, they do not occur as self-contained turns, and their occurrence projects a continuation. However, many of the particles which are used as utterance particles may also occur as a separate turn as dialogue particles (see section 3.4.3). Hence, the boundary between utterance particles and dialogue particles is, at times, rather blurry. In these cases, prosody plays an important role (cf. Chapter 9).

The temporal marker now is often used as an utterance particle, marking shifts between different units. This is illustrated in (3.1), borrowed from Schiffrin (1987:

233). In this excerpt, the speaker uses now to construct a turn consisting of many units (see also excerpt 2.1): ⁴¹

(3.1) Schiffrin

A They aren’t brought up in the same way.

B Now Italian people are very outgoing.

They’re very generous.

When they put a meal on the table it’s a meal.

C Now these boys were Irish.

They lived different.

The first statement (A) is an explicit identification of the main unit (or topic), i.e. the characteristics of people from two different cultures. Now is then used to introduce two new subtopics: Italian Americans (B) and Irish Americans (C). The two instances of now in this extract display that what is coming next in the discourse is a subpart of a larger cumulative structure and is to be interpreted accordingly.

In SAOB (nå interj.), the Swedish particle nå is described as being potentially a side form of nu ‘now.’ The following example, which is borrowed from Lehti-Eklund (1992: 179), shows clearly how nå in Swedish is used as a turn initiator, while at the same time it signals a transition from one topic to another:

(3.2) Lehti-Eklund [SAM:V2]

1 Monika: ni få- ni får kaffe å sånt på (1.3) å te you ge- you get coffee and such on (1.3) and the you’ll get coffee and things like that (1.3) and the

(8.5)

→ Tove: nå Asta hu mår ditt barnbarn NÅ 1nameF how feel your grand child NÅ Asta how is your grandchild?

3 Asta: jå riktit bra ja va just där PRT very well I be.PT just there oh very well I was just there

In (3.2), nå occurs after a long lapse in the conversation. Here, the speaker Tove uses nå in a turn-initial position, and, thus, she both initiates a new topic and appoints a new speaker. The transition therefore exists on multiple levels. This function of

41 The extracts in this chapter that are borrowed from other studies are reproduced here exactly as in the original text, and, thus, the symbols and the precision of the transcripts may vary. English glossing and translation have been added for transcripts from other languages.

transition is also mentioned in studies on similar particles in other languages, such as Finnish no (Raevaara 1989) and Russian nu (Multisilta 1995).⁴² The shift may involve a shift back to the main line of talk, or it may show transitions within different units in larger activities such as storytelling.

In addition to showing transition, as in the previous excerpt, nå is also used, as is Icelandic nú, to show some kind of reservation or objection (Lehti-Eklund 1992: 178;

Londen 2002). In these cases, nå is comparable, although not identical, to English well:

(3.3) Lehti-Eklund [SAM:RS2]

1 Göran: de fanns såna riktiga såna hederliga esbo[svenskar it exist.3.PT such real such honest Esbo[swedes there were such real honest Esbo[swedes

→ Erik: [nå de finns fortfarande [NÅ they exist.3 still

[NÅ they still exist

In (3.3), Göran states that, in the old days, there existed “real honest” Swedish-speaking people in the city of Esbo (line 1). In a terminal overlap, Erik objects to Göran’s use of the past tense by stating that they still exist (line 2). The objection is prefaced with nå.

In this section, I discussed the concept of utterance particles, or particles which show how a turn relates to the surrounding discourse. As I have shown, utterance particles have many different functions, including operating as discourse structural devices (connectives and planning markers); activity projecting particles (problem marking particles); as well as in more interpersonal functions, such as showing affiliation to the interlocutor. In the empirical part of this study, I will show that the utterance particle nú functions both as a discourse structurer and as a problem marking particle. The latter type has many similarities with nú when it occurs as a turn of its own in the form of a dialogue particle.

42 Kryk-Kastovsky (1997: 323) suggests that in Polish and other Slavic languages, in which the temporal origo is indexed with teraz, the discourse particle no is a remnant of an archaic word which has the same historical roots as the Proto-Germanic nú.