1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, I will explore how the temporal markers nú and núna are used in conversational Icelandic. Both words refer to the ongoing moment, which is also known as the temporal deictic centre (Fillmore Reference Fillmore1997 [1971]) or the temporal origo (see Hanks Reference Hanks1996), and both could be translated into English with the temporal adverb now (for a discussion of now, see Schiffrin Reference Schiffrin1987; Aijmer Reference Aijmer2002; and for studies on comparable words in other languages, see e.g. Hakulinen & Saari Reference Hakulinen and Saari1995; Grenoble Reference Grenoble1998). Thus, Icelandic seems to have two words which have the same, or at least very similar, meaning.Footnote 1 The similarities are clearly reflected in dictionary definitions of the two cognates. According to the authoritative dictionary Íslensk orðabók (2002), nú is a temporal adverb referring to the ongoing moment: á þessari stundu, á líðandi stundu ‘at this moment, in the present moment’. In addition to the temporal meaning, nú also has other, non-temporal functions, for example, to give the utterance a tone of determination (Hvað er nú þetta? ‘What is THIS?’, Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2010), as a structuring device which signals continuity (Fyrst borðaði ég. Nú, svo fór ég í bíó. ‘First I ate. NÚ, then I went to the movies.’, Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:230‒268), or as a response to somewhat unexpected information (A: Ég er mjög reið. B: Nú? A: Tölvunni minni var stolið. ‘A: I'm very angry. B: NÚ? A: My computer has been stolen.’ Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:269‒323). Núna, by comparison, is only used to index temporality, and it is glossed in the dictionary with the temporal phrase nú, einmittá þessari stundu ‘now, exactly at this moment’ (my emphasis). In other words, núna is considered to index a narrower time frame than nú. This dichotomy can be compared to Fillmore's (Reference Fillmore1997 [1971]:48) suggestion that now refers either to time periods (I live in Chicago now, my example) or to time points (Turn now!, my example). However, in this paper, I will argue that the difference between nú and núna cannot be adequately addressed merely by looking at the time frame.
Previous studies that focus on the differences between nú and núna include Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1982), Wide (Reference Wide and Lehti-Eklund1998), and Hilmisdóttir (Reference Hilmisdóttir2007). Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1982) focuses on the origin and function of the suffix -na. The suffix can be found in the near-synonymous word pairs nú ‒ núna ‘now’, hér ‒ hérna ‘here’, þar ‒ þarna ‘there’, and svo ‒ svona ‘so’. As Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1982:233) points out, these suffixed forms are found in medieval Icelandic manuscripts and can be traced back at least to the 13th century. In medieval Icelandic, -na was mainly used as a general marker of emphasis, following not only deictic adverbs such as those mentioned above, but also pronouns (þatna ‘it’) and verbs (varna ‘was’). However, in contemporary Icelandic, the pairs þar ‘there (anaphoric)’ – þarna ‘there (deictic)’ and svo ‘so’ – svona ‘like that’ have developed discrete lexical meanings, while the pairs hér – hérna ‘here’ and nú – núna ‘now’ are often used, as it seems, interchangeably.
In cases in which nú and núna are not interchangeable, Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1982:221) argues that, in addition to temporal precision, the choice between the two types is mainly a matter of stylistics. Hence, the primary form, nú, has traditionally been considered to belong to a more formal register, while the secondary form, núna, has been considered to be more common in colloquial language.
In this study, however, I will argue that there are other explanations for the co-existence of the two types nú and núna. One of the keys to understanding the difference between them is to investigate their sequential and syntactic distribution in spontaneous conversation. As Jónsson (Reference Jónsson1982:257–258) points out, there is a considerable difference between nú and núna in respect to their syntax; whereas nú tends to occur in a sentence-initial position, núna tends to occur sentence-finally. Jónsson's study is not based on empirical data, but, nonetheless, examples which would support his claim can easily be found in naturally-occurring conversations. Consider the following excerpt, drawn from a radio phone-in program The Soul of the Nation (see Table 1). The excerpt immediately follows an introduction and greeting sequence.
Table 1. Database of modern Icelandic spontaneous conversation.
The key for transcription symbols and glossing abbreviations can be found in the Appendix. All instances of nú and núna are left untranslated and are marked in boldface, and the focus of interest is marked with an arrow in the left margin (see also Section 2 on data and methods).
(1) I’m getting fed up; Soul database, 07.06.96
(A = a caller; M = the moderator)
In (1), the caller begins by referring to his previous conversations with the moderator, and thus establishes himself as a ‘regular’ on this radio show (line 1). When the moderator has acknowledged his assertion, the caller produces an utterance which projects that something important is coming up (line 3). This utterance is then followed by an announcement in which the caller gives the reason for the call: a complaint (lines 4–5). This particular turn begins with a nú and ends with a núna, both referring to the temporal origo. The moderator responds to this new piece of information by producing nú with a prolonged vowel which the caller treats as a go-ahead signal, and, as a result, explains the reason for his complaint (lines 7–8) (see Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:302ff. on nú as a dialogue particle; see also Heritage Reference Heritage, Atkinson and Heritage1984; Local Reference Local1996 on the English oh).
The two instances in lines 4 and 5 are in many ways representative of nú and núna in conversational data, and their co-occurrence raises some questions regarding not only the syntactic distribution but also potential functional differences. Why does the speaker use both nú and núna in the same turn? Does the syntactic position of the tokens affect their semantic or interactional functions? Do either nú or núna have any other function apart from anchoring the event in the present moment or any other meanings?
In this paper, I will present an empirical study of the use of temporal nú and núna in naturally-occurring conversations. The study offers an analysis of two frequently used adverbs which have thus far not been investigated systematically from an interactional perspective (with the exception of Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007). The study will include a quantitative and qualitative analysis addressing the following two questions: (i) Where in the syntactic structure do temporal nú and núna occur? (ii) To what extent can the syntactic positions be linked to different interactional functions?
Since the two types are on the border between being function and content words, it is necessary to include in the analysis a discussion of their semantic content as it manifests itself in the interaction. Thus, I will argue that núna refers to a static time period the duration of which has to be interpreted by the interlocutor in situ, while the temporal nú behaves in a more dynamic fashion and typically involves a new situation. I have divided the temporal nú into three categories: (i) nú that introduces a temporal comparison (‘now’ vs. ‘then’); (ii) nú that indexes a transition; and (iii) nú that, in addition to anchoring the utterance in time, conveys an affective stance. As I will show, the semantic or functional differences of nú and núna can be linked to specific sequential positions.
The article is organized as follows: In the second section, I introduce the data and the methods used in the study. In the third section, I discuss the construction of turns and address the syntactic position of nú and núna in the utterance. In the fourth section, I examine the syntax and function of nú and núna, and, in the final section, I summarize the results and discuss their significance.
2. METHODS AND DATA
The theoretical and methodological framework for the study is interactional linguistics (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting Reference Couper-Kuhlen and Selting1996a; Steensig Reference Steensig2001; Hakulinen & Selting Reference Hakulinen and Selting2005; Lindström Reference Lindstöm, Verschuen and Östman2006). Hence, the methodology and most of the central terminology regarding turn taking and the organization of talk is taken from the conversation analytic tradition (see e.g. Hutchby & Wooffitt Reference Hutchby and Wooffitt2008), while some of the terminology has its origin within traditional linguistics, in particular syntax and pragmatics.
Interactional linguistics has been described as a study which takes theoretical interest in uncontrolled and non-experimental daily speech. Thus, the analysis below presents the results of an inductive and in-depth analysis of conversational data. The data on which this study is based consists of about 14 hours and 11 minutes of naturally occurring conversation recorded between 1996 and 2003. In order to get a broad representation of modern Icelandic interaction, the database includes several different conversational contexts. Table 1 lists the recordings included in the database and provides information on the form of interaction, situational context, number of participants, and the duration of the recording (see also Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:81ff.):
As seen in Table 1, the database includes a wide range of conversational contexts including informal dinner parties, institutional and non-institutional telephone conversations, radio programs for teenagers, a radio phone-in program, and a political debate on television. In other words, the database includes conversations which vary with respect to degree of formality, number of participants and modes of communication.
The conversations were transcribed by the author. The transcription conventions that are applied here are first and foremost based on a system which was developed by Gail Jefferson for American English (see Hutchby & Wooffitt Reference Hutchby and Wooffitt2008:69ff.), with a few additions in respect to prosody (namely, the symbols ↑, ↓, →, /, and \). As noted earlier, transcription conventions are listend in the Appendix.
It is necessary to bear in mind that these transcriptions are a selective representation of the primary data, the conversations themselves. The aim was to make the transcripts easily accessible without omitting anything that could potentially be relevant for the analysis of nú and núna in interaction.
In the following section, I will describe how turns are constructed in conversation and present other central concepts used in this study.
3. CONSTRUCTING TURNS
Turns are composed of at least one turn-constructional unit (TCU). A TCU consists of a single lexical item, a phrase, a clause, or a syntactically organized utterance (see Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson Reference Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson1974:702). Each TCU is followed by a transitional relevance point (TRP), and at every TRP, the discourse floor is open and a speaker-change may occur. If other participants do not claim the floor, the same speaker may continue talking. As a result, a turn can consist of anything from a single word to a series of TCUs containing more than one syntactic construction as in many narrative sequences (see also Linell Reference Linell1998:158).
As numerous studies have shown, speakers rely primarily on syntax, prosody and contextual relevance to determine whether a turn is coming to a completion (see Sacks et al. Reference Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson1974; Ford & Thompson Reference Ford and Thompson1996). In this paper, particular attention will be given to the syntactic aspect of the turn construction, and a distinction will be drawn between TCUs that use syntax to project a turn-completion and TCUs that do not.
As I will show, the temporal nú and núna tend to occur in different syntactic positions. These positions can be described in terms of the theory of syntactic fields (Diderichsen Reference Diderichsen1962 [1946]; Bjerre et al. Reference Bjerre, Engels, Jørgensen and Vikner2008; see also Thráinsson Reference Thráinsson2007:19 for an application to written Icelandic). In this study, I rely mostly on Auer's (Reference Auer1996a, Reference Auerb) integration of the field analysis and the theory of interaction (see also Lindström Reference Lindström2002:85–86 for an application to Swedish talk-in-interaction).
Thus, in this study, I will parse the turn into five different fields. The term front field (or the foundation field) refers to the slot before a finite verb, middle field (or the nexus field) refers to the finite verb, subject and the adverbial, and end field (or the content field) refers to the reminder of the syntactic structure. The slots surrounding the core syntax are referred to as the pre-front and the post-end fields, respectively. These two fields are typical slots for interactionally sensitive items such as particles and terms of address, and consequently these slots have been a focus of interest within interactional linguistics (see e.g. Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:230–266).
Auer's ideas are based on the assumption that during the production of a TCU the interlocutor is looking for a syntactic juncture at which the ongoing utterance can be treated as syntactically complete (given that the utterance is also pragmatically and prosodically complete). The anticipated juncture is referred to as a possible syntactic closure (Auer1996b:56 for German). Until the TCU reaches a syntactic closure, it follows a certain projectable pattern (i.e. syntax).
Table 2 shows examples of syntactically organized TCUs from the database containing an instance of (i) nú in the front field, (ii) nú in the middle field, and (iii) núna in the end field. It should be pointed out, however, that the syntactic formula presented here is a working definition. In the conversations themselves, the speakers do not rely completely on syntax, but, instead, their sense for a turn-completion is based on a holistic evaluation of syntax, prosody and the contextual relevance of the proposition.
Table 2. The syntactic positions of nú and núna.
The bold lines between the columns in Table 2 represent important syntactic junctures. The first one represents the weak syntactic projectability of the pre-front field (see Auer Reference Auer1996b:297 on the pre-front field in German), and the second represents the juncture which follows a possible syntactic closure. In the case of Icelandic, the closure occurs after the last word in the middle field or after an object in the end field. This means that the temporal marker nú is always an integrated part of the core syntax, while núna is often produced after a possible syntactic closure.
In addition to differences regarding the syntactic distribution, nú and núna show a difference regarding their abilities to occur independently. While the temporal nú never occurs on its own, núna can function as a TCU as a turn of its own or as a part of a phrase without a finite verb. In this study, such cases are referred to as non-integrated instances. Here, it is worth noting that non-integration does not mean that núna is used independently of the surrounding discourse. As always in conversation, each turn is produced in a certain sequential environment. In many cases, the temporal adverb núna can be understood as being an extension of a prior turn, although the prior turn may seem to have reached a completion. Thus, by using the term non-integrated, I am referring to instances of núna which are in some way separated from the finite verb. This separation may be manifested by a pause, a speaker change or an inserted utterance.
I now turn to the results of my study.
4. SYNTAX AND FUNCTION OF NÚ AND NÚNA
In the data, there are 174 instances of temporal núna and 82 of temporal nú. By comparison, 574 of the instances of nú have a non-temporal function (see Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:149). That is to say, the non-temporal nú occurs much more frequently in the data than the temporal one. (For more detailed information on the distribution of the temporal nú, see Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:96). The instances of nú and núna are distributed relatively equally in the data across both formal and informal situations, which suggests that the use of the two words is not specific to a certain type of conversation. Also, there is no indication that the difference between the two words in contemporary spontaneous speech can be assigned to different stylistic registers.Footnote 2 Thus, in order to identify a potential functional difference between nú and núna, a different approach is needed. In this study, I use the syntactic distribution of the two types as a basis.
When the syntactic distribution of nú and núna is analyzed, a striking pattern emerges. Table 3 presents the distribution of the two adverbs in the database. As seen in this table, nú shows a very strong tendency to occur in the front field. Out of 82 instances, 76 occur in this position, which equals 93% of all instances in the database. Núna, on the other hand, shows a clear preference for occurring in the end field. Out of 174 instances of núna, 153, or 88%, are uttered after the possible syntactic closure. This distributional difference between nú and núna gives a fairly strong indication that the two words may serve different interactional functions.
Table 3. Syntactic distribution of temporal nú and núna.
In the remainder of this paper, I will present sequential analyses of individual instances as they appear in the database. Due to limited space, I will focus on the syntactic slots that are typical for each token, and, therefore, I exclude examples of núna in the front field. Such instances occur in the same type of contexts as nú in the front field and the database shows that speakers have a clear preferance for choosing the latter token. The organization of the study is based on syntactical positions. First, I will discuss núna in the end field (4.1), which is followed by an analysis of non-integrated núna (4.2). Then, I will look at nú in the front field (4.3). In the section that follows, I will discuss nú in the middle field (4.4), and, finally, I will show an instance of nú in a conventionalized phrase (4.5).
4.1 Núna in the end field
The overwhelming majority of núna, 88% of all instances, occur in the end field. In these cases, núna is uttered after a possible syntactic closure, as the last piece of information before the speaker yields the floor. The first excerpt in this section is drawn from a telephone conversation between a computer technician working at a help desk and a caller seeking advice. When the excerpt begins, the caller has already explained that she has problems connecting to the internet, and the technician poses his first question in order to identify what is wrong (line 1).
(2) Fixing the computer; ITC database, 02.08.03
(C = computer technician; E = a caller seeking help)
After hearing the caller's answer to the opening question (line 3), the computer technician begins to give her instructions on how to fix the problem (line 6). The technician initiates his turn with the planning marker hérna ‘lit. here’, which indicates that he is thinking and gives him more time to plan his next turn. The planning marker is followed by the imperative farðí ‘go to’, which creates a slot for instructions on what to click on next. However, in the subsequent talk, the computer technician does not produce his anticipated instructions, and, instead, he inserts a parenthetical question in order to verify that the caller's internet browser is actually open. Here, the computer technician uses the temporal marker núna in the end field (line 6). It is only after the computer technician has received a positive answer from the caller (line 7) that he completes the anticipated instructions; he acknowledges the caller's positive answer with the particle ókei ‘okay’, repeats the imperative farðí ‘go to’, and continues with further instructions regarding what to click on next (line 9).
The temporal reference of núna in the computer technician's utterance is narrow and corresponds to the dictionary definition mentioned above: ‘exactly at this moment’ (see Íslensk orðabók 2002). The time which is indexed by núna (partly) overlaps with the moment at which the adverb is uttered. However, my database shows that such instances are not particularly common. In fact, the majority of instances of núna have a more open time frame, such as in the excerpt in (3) below. This stretch of talk is drawn from the database Friends. Here, three women are sitting around a kitchen table gossiping and sharing their personal stories. Just before the excerpt begins, Hólmfríður was telling the other women that she was reading the annual wedding supplement which comes with one of the largest newspapers in Iceland. The other women tease her about reading this supplement, and Hólmfríður responds by trying to justify herself (line 1):
(3) The 35th anniversary; Friends database, 14.6.96
(H = Hólmfríður; S = Sunna; N = Nanna)
In (3), Hólmfríður explains that her aunt and her mother were wondering what a 35th wedding anniversary is called (lines 2 and 4). After providing this information, Hólmfríður produces a parenthetical insertion at a faster tempo and a softer voice than the surrounding talk (see the discussion in Mazeland Reference Mazeland2007:1837–1838). This unit is a ‘because’-prefaced account. The account delivered as a parenthetical insertion is anchored in time with the temporal marker núna, uttered in the end field. Following the parenthetical, Hólmfríður returns to her story and explains that the two women did not agree about what to call this anniversary (line 7).
When Hólmfríður anchors the anniversary in time by using núna, she is not providing a very precise time frame. The time indexed by núna does not necessarily coincide with the moment at which Hólmfríður tells the story. In fact, we do not know when exactly the wedding anniversary was, but we know from Hólmfríður's use of the past tense that it took place sometime in the past, most likely in recent past. In this case, the time frame is open, since the actual day of the wedding anniversary is not particularly important in the context. What is important, rather, is to explain why the question about the 35th anniversary is relevant now for Hólmfríður's mother and aunt.
The openness of núna is also manifested in other temporal words or phrases that often co-occur with núna. In the present data, almost every third instance of núna in the end field, or 31%, was followed (and preceded, on rare occasions) by temporal markers which indicated everything from an exact moment, such as in núna á þessari stundu ‘in this moment’, to a very broad and open time frame, such as núna undanfarna áratugi ‘the last decades’ and núna undanfarin þrjú til fjögur ár ‘the last three or four years’. Thus, it seems clear that the claim that núna refers to a narrow time frame such as suggested in the dictionary does not hold in contemporary conversational Icelandic. By comparison, the temporal nú is modified in only two instances out of 82. Both instances can be seen as conventionalized phrases: nú þegar ‘right away’ and nú fyrst ‘not until now’.
The temporal núna in (2) and (3) are positioned in the end field. Both instances anchor in time the proposition in which they occur. As I have shown, núna can in some cases refer to a precise moment, such as in (2), where the computer technician asks the caller whether her internet browser is open, but, in other cases, such as in (3), the temporal frame can be open and imprecise. In other words, núna has an open meaning potential, and the actual meaning of the adverb has to be negotiated and interpreted on a case-by-case basis.Footnote 3 What these cases have in common is that they occur after a possible syntactic closure. Thus, there seems to be a somewhat loose connection between the beginning of the utterance and the temporal marker núna. This loose connection is even more evident in the following section, in which I will discuss non-integrated instances of núna.
4.2 Non-integrated núna
In addition to occurring in the end field, núna occurs in some cases without a finite verb. Such instances, which are referred to as non-integrated núna, can occur either as turns in their own right or within a phrase. The non-integrated núna forms a relatively small category; only six instances are found in the database. These instances are important for the comparison of nú and núna and therefore included in the analysis. Consider (4), which is also drawn from the phone-in program The Soul of the Nation. When the excerpt begins, the caller is introducing the reason for the call:
(4) Watching the television; Soul database, 31.05.96
(B = a caller; M = the moderator)
The caller's turn at the beginning of (4) is constructed as an introduction to a story, and therefore it is still pragmatically incomplete. After a pause, the moderator provides a continuer indexed as mm, which acknowledges the proposed topic and signals to the caller that he can continue (line 5). However, instead of taking the floor again, the caller only produces an affirmation which is again followed by a brief pause (lines 7–8). By so doing, the caller yields the floor one more time, although an explanation for what he saw on television is still anticipated. The delay seems slightly odd here, and it is perhaps caused by an attempt by the caller to create suspense. At this point, the moderator takes the floor before the caller and produces a one-word turn containing only an instance of a temporal núna (line 9). The caller treats this turn as a request for verification, and his next action is to specify when he saw the news broadcast (line 11).
Prosodically, núna is produced as a one-word turn, initiated with a clear beginning intonation and completed with a terminal contour. Also, although the caller uses the word núna in a prior turn (line 1), the moderator is not using the word as a question repeat (see the dicussion in Jefferson Reference Jefferson and Sudnow1972). She is not questioning the fact that the caller claims that he is ‘calling NÚNA’. Instead, she is questioning his second statement about watching the news, which is temporally ambigious (lines 1–2). The word functions as a full question (‘Was it now?’). Here, núna is used as a repair initiator whose function is to request more precise information regarding time. Subsequently, the caller responds by giving the moderator the requested information.
It is worth pointing out that, in this particular slot, the speaker could not have used the adverb nú with the same result. As I have shown elsewhere (Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2007:269ff.), nú as an independent turn is typically used to prompt an explanation or an account of some sort without identifying a particular word that causes the problem (compare the English oh?) (see also excerpt (1) line 6).
In addition to occurring as a turn of its own, núna can also occur as a syntactic expansion. Syntactic expansions are units that are added to a seemingly complete turn. These units are syntactically symbiotic with their mother-utterance and can be understood only in that context (see Auer Reference Auer1996b). Nonetheless, the two related units are separated, either due to their timing or because of turns interspersed by co-participants. Such symbiotic instances of núna could in theory be considered a part of the end field. However, since they are clearly added to a turn that the speaker and co-participants have treated as syntactically, prosodically and pragmatically complete, I have classified them here as instances of a non-integrated núna.
Consider (5), which is drawn from the everyday conversation Reunion. In this excerpt, a group of women are discussing musical styles. Earlier in the conversation, Brynhildur referred to the music which was being played as classical and Lína objected to this by pointing out that the piece is relatively new (not shown in the excerpt). After some exchanges between Lína and Brynhildur, Magga, who positions herself as the expert, makes an attempt to settle the disagreement (line 1):
(5) Composing classical music; Reunion database, 15.8.98
(M = Magga; E = Erna; B = Brynhildur; V = Vala; two silent participants)
At the beginning of (5), Magga points out that it is ‘possible to compose something in classical style’ (lines 1–2). What Magga seems to be getting at is that classical music is not only restricted to an era, but instead it should be viewed as a style. Her wording in the beginning of the excerpt could be seen as slightly vague, since she does not explicitly say that she is speaking about contemporary compositions. However, after backchannels from the other interlocutors (lines 3–5), Magga addresses the temporal issue by uttering the word núna (line 6). By producing this utterance, Magga highlights the fact that she is talking about composing contemporary classical music.
This instance of núna is produced as a non-beginning (see Schegloff Reference Schegloff1996:73–77 on non-beginnings), which suggests that this unit is designed as a syntactic expansion of a previous turn. In this case, núna ties back to Magga's own turn, and the function of the word can only be understood in that context. Since the word is not produced adjacent to the prior turn, the co-participants have to do extra work in connecting the two parts together. Again, we have an example of núna which is disconnected from the mother-utterance by time. In this case, the other co-participants have added acknowledgment tokens before Magga expands her turn. Again, a choice of nú instead of núna would seem out of place and not provide the temporal information which is offered by núna.
A somewhat similar case can be found in the following excerpt, in which a temporal phrase containing núna is produced after a parenthetical insertion. In (6), a caller is discussing the declension of the noun peningaþvætti ‘money laundering’ in Icelandic. In the excerpt, she explains that she heard a reporter use the word, in her opinion, ungrammatically:
(6) Declining ‘money laundering’; Soul database, 07.06.96
(S = a caller; M = the moderator)
At the beginning of (6), the caller produces an utterance that is pragmatically incomplete and projects an upcoming story (compare line 4 in (4)). This story preface mentions a reporter by name. After a short pause and an acknowledgement from the moderator (lines 3–4), the caller produces a parenthetical unit that contains a positive assessment about the reporter (lines 5–6). This unit is produced in a slightly faster tempo and with a softer voice than the pre-parenthetical unit. It is followed by a 1.1 second pause and a temporal phrase anchoring the event in time (line 6).
Note here that the temporal phrase does not refer to the immediately preceding unit, i.e. the assessment of the reporter. Instead, it refers to the caller's story preface, in which she informed the moderator that she heard this particular reporter talk on the radio. In other words, the caller has produced a parenthetical unit between the mother-utterance and the temporal phrase. It is curious that the caller adds a parenthetical unit within something that would normally be produced as one TCU. Here, I suggest that the explanation for the parenthetical unit can be found further along as the conversation starts to unfold and when the caller starts showing hesitation and uncertainty more explicitly (lines 9–11). Due to her plans to question the language skills of the reporter, the caller may feel that it is important to show as early as possible that she thinks highly of him. As Auer (Reference Auer2005:81) has pointed out, interlocutors need constantly to make decisions about whether to prioritize new and important information or whether they should first establish a common ground that forms the basis on which the recipient can process the information. In this instance, the completion of the first unit is delayed in time, and so the temporal phrase is treated as less urgent information than the assessment. As a result, the temporal phrase containing núna is produced disconnected from the mother-utterance, and it is the co-participant who must put the pieces together.
In excerpts (4)–(6), I have shown examples of non-integrated núna. In (4), núna occurred as a turn of its own, and in (5), núna was designed as a syntactic expansion and added to an already complete turn. Finally, in (6), núna occurred in a temporal phrase that was produced disconnected from the proposition it anchored in time. What all these instances have in common, together with the núna cases in excerpts (1)–(3), is that núna has a referential function and indexes a time unit in the physical world. Hence, núna can occur without a verb or be temporally disconnected from a verb. Nú, as I will suggest in the following section, does not have such a clear referential function and occurs almost exclusively adjacent to a finite verb.
4.3 Nú in the front field
The temporal nú has a strong tendency to occur in the front field, before the finite verb. In the present data, 76 out of 82 instances (93%) occur in that position. As I mentioned earlier, nú also has other, non-temporal functions, and the data shows that the temporal and non-temporal instances of nú have a different syntactic distribution (see also Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2010). Table 4 shows the numbers of temporal and non-temporal nú and the syntactic distribution for each category. As Table 4 illustrates, 93% of temporal nú occur in the front field while 93% of non-temporal nú occur in the middle field. Also, a more in-depth analysis of the data shows that temporal nú only occurs in the middle field in very specific contexts, and these will be discussed in the following section. In this section, however, the focus will be on instances of temporal nú which occur in the front field. Such instances seem to occur mainly in three different contexts: (i) in temporal comparisons (‘now’ vs. ‘then’), (ii) in transitions, and (iii) in utterances in which a speaker uses temporality to express an affective stance.
Table 4. Syntactic distribution of temporal and non-temporal nú.
Nú in the front field is often used to present a current event or situation as different or opposite to another event which took place in the past or will take place in the future. In other words, nú in the front field is used for temporal comparisons. Consider the excerpt in (7), drawn from the data Reunion. Six women are gathered in a kitchen, cooking dinner and chatting with each other. When this excerpt begins, the women have been talking for a while about the dress Guðrún is wearing. Then, Vala points out that Guðrún had never worn this dress before although she has had it for a while. Following this statement, both Lína and Guðrún take the floor simultaneously (lines 1–2):
(7) Nice dress; Reunion database, 15.8.98
(L = Lína; G = Guðrún; B = Brynhildur; three silent particpants)
Guðrún acknowledges that she had never worn the dress before (line 2), and, after Lína has yielded the floor, Guðrún explains that the reason is that the dress was too large for her (line 4). This explanation is acknowledged by Lína in a terminal overlap (line 5). After a 1.2-second pause, Brynhildur adds a final assessment on the dress (line 7). The topic is then exhausted and someone in the group poses a question regarding the cooking (line 8).
Brynhildur's comment in line 7, initiated with a temporal nú, functions as a comparison between how the dress was before and how it is ‘now’. The two words nú and flottur ‘cool’ are stressed, and they contradict the two aspects in Brynhildur's comment (var ‘was’ and víður ‘wide,’ see line 4) that are different from Guðrún's comment.
In (7), nú occurs in the front field, before the finite verb. Moreover, this instance occurs turn-initially and it is therefore the first item that the interlocutors hear when the speaker takes the floor. By initiating a turn with nú, the focus is placed on the present moment, and this sets the temporal context from the very beginning. The situation is presented as a comparison to a situation in the past which was addressed in the prior utterance.
In other cases, the comparison is not made explicit, but, instead, there is a clear sense of transition involved. Consider (8), which is also drawn from the data Reunion. In this excerpt, the women are taking photos of each other. When the excerpt begins, the women have been taking photos for some while and at the moment it is Vala's turn. The only sounds that can be heard are quiet laughter and clicking sounds from the camera (lines 1–3):
(8) Photo session; Reunion database, 15.8.98
(B = Brynhildur; L = Lína; M = Magga; G = Guðrún; two silent participants)
After a few minutes of posing for the camera, Guðrún takes the floor and utters the particle jæja ‘well’, which strongly suggests either a topic change or some kind of transition (see Íslensk orðabók 2002). This particle is then followed by a statement which is initiated with a temporal nú (line 4).
The temporal nú initiates a TCU in which Guðrún announces that a new situation has come up: she has had enough of posing for the camera. At the same time, Guðrún's announcement functions as a warning to the other women who are made aware that Guðrún is no longer going to participate in the joint activity of taking a photo (see the discussion in Clark Reference Clark1996:28–58). Thereby, Guðrún has given the other women a chance to protest, which they also do (line 5–6).
Again, nú is positioned in the front field. Note that nú is not produced turn-initially in this case; it is preceded by the dialogue particle jæja ‘well’, which also adds to the feeling of transition. Jæja, however, is produced in the pre-front field and it is thus not a part of the core syntax in the same way that nú is. In other words, the speaker could potentially yield the floor after jæja, but after she utters nú in the front field, she has signalled that a syntactically organized TCU is in progress, and the interlocutors have to wait until she reaches a possible syntactic closure.
The third and final category comprises instances which, in addition to showing temporality, also show emotional intensity, or affective stance (see the discussion in Ochs Reference Ochs1996:410 on affective stance). I refer to such instances as temporal-affective. Such an instance is found in (9), which is also drawn from the data Reunion. When this excerpt begins, the women have finished cooking and they have just sat down and started to eat. They are putting food on their plates and music can be heard in the background. After a relatively long lapse in the conversation, Magga takes the floor and addresses Erna with a firm tone in her voice (line 2):
(9) I want the CD; Reunion database, 15.8.98
(M = Magga; E = Erna; four silent participants)
Magga firmly states that she will stop by Erna's place after the dinner nú and demand that Erna lend her the CD (line 1). Erna makes a demonstrative sound by inhaling, .hu::h, and hence displays a very strong response to Magga's statement. The inhale is then followed by the particle j↑á↓: ‘yes’, which signals a sudden recollection or a realization of some sort (line 4). In the next few seconds, this short exchange evokes laughter. When the laughter dissipates, Magga explains the reason for these strong reactions: Erna has been promising to lend Magga a particular CD for quite a while but she never remembers to bring it when they meet.
Magga's emotional intensity is encoded both in her choice of verb kref ‘demand’ and in the temporal-affective nú, uttered in the front field. In this case, nú is preceded by a term of address in the pre-front field, in which Magga singles out the recipient of her firm statement.
By using nú in the front field, the present moment is put in focus right from the beginning. However, in this instance, the temporal meaning of nú is less prominent than in the instances found in previous excerpts. Note how Magga combines both a temporal nú and the phrase á eftir ‘later’. Thus, compared to the instances of nú which I have discussed so far, this example seems to have a less specific time frame. Instead, the use of nú seems to index emotional intensity, and it emphasizes Magga's firm commitment to stop at Erna's house later in the evening to pick up the promised CD. The temporal-affective use of nú in the front field resembles the use of non-temporal nú in many ways (see Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2010), and, in fact, it seems reasonable to assume that such use has triggered the developement of nú into a semantically bleached particle.
In excerpts (7)–(9), I have shown examples of nú in the front field. In (7), nú occurred in an utterance which compared a current state to a situation in the past. In (8), nú introduced a transition from one state to another, and in (9), nú was used in an utterance in which a speaker was showing emotional intensity. As I will suggest in the following section, temporal nú in the middle field serves the same functions.
4.4 Nú in the middle field
Only a small minority of temporal nú occur in the middle field: five instances out of 82 (6%). By looking more closely at these instances, it becomes clear that they occur only in specific contexts: (i) in TCUs with interrogative syntax; (ii) in TCUs with subordinate syntax; and (iii) in TCUs containing conventionalized phrases, such as nú þegar ‘right away’ and nú fyrst ‘not until now’. To gain some idea of what these instances look like, let us look at an example of a TCU which is constructed as syntactically subordinate to a previous turn. In (10), which is drawn from a radio program for teenagers, DJ Sólrún is visiting the studio and chatting with the two hosts. Sólrún is prompted by Elín, a program presenter, to tell the listeners what she is doing núna, and Sólrún responds (line 1):
(10) It's called Heaven; Teens database, 26.7.98
(S = DJ Sólrún, a studio guest; B = Björn, program presenter; E = Elín, program presenter)
Sólrún responds to Elín's question by telling her about a hip hop evening she is organizing (line 1–2). Then she specifies a time and location of the event, which according to Sólrún is going to be held on Thursday night in a place called Tunglið. In the following turn, Björn, the second program leader, takes the floor and makes a repair by stating that the club is ‘called NÚ Heaven’ (line 3). In this instance, nú is stressed and has a slightly prolonged vowel. Björn ends his turn with an affiliation-seeking tag. Sólrún's response is quite marked: she laughs (line 6) and tells Björn that the name does not make any difference to her (not shown in the excerpt).
In (10), the temporal marker nú occurs in the middle field, after the finite verb. The word is used to emphasize two different names: once the club was called Tunglið, and ‘now’ it goes by the name Heaven. In other words, this instance has a function comparable to the one shown in (7), in which the women were comparing how the dress fitted one of them now and then. The difference in this case, however, is that Björn's turn in line 3 is constructed as syntactically subordinate to Sólrún's prior turn. Björn's turn is an add-on to, or direct continuation of the preceding turn, and it could be described as an ‘other-initiated expansion’ (see Lerner Reference Lerner2004). The subordinate TCU is introduced with the increment initiator sema ‘which that’, and since the verb must occur in the second place (the Icelandic verb-second rule), the speaker has to place the temporal nú in the middle field.
As the above example shows, temporal nú does not only occur in the front field but sometimes also in the middle field as an exception. However, there are clear reasons for these exceptions to the general tendency. The middle field position can typically be explained by the Icelandic verb-second rule or by rules for interrogative syntax (i.e. verb in the front field). Hence, it can be argued that the syntactic position for temporal nú is the front field, with the exception of the very specific contexts mentioned above. In both cases, however, nú occurs adjacent to the finite verb, i.e. either right before or right after.
4.5 Nú in a conventionalized phrase
The close ties between the temporal marker and the finite verb seem to be one of the main differences between nú and núna. The strong ties between nú and the finite verb are established by the fact that nú has a clear tendency to occur in the front field, and it consequently occurs most of the time right before the finite verb. However, in this section, I will discuss a deviant case which shows the only instance of nú in the database that occurs without a finite verb.
The excerpt in question is drawn from the data PTC. In this telephone conversation, Arnar is telling his friend, Erna, about problems he is having with his computer. They are both sitting in front of their computers, and Arnar has been reading error messages in English that appear on the screen. Just before the excerpt begins, Arnar displays his annoyance by swearing at the computer in an angry tone. This is followed by a long lapse in the conversation, during which keyboard sounds and mouse clicks can be heard:
(11) Problems with logging in; PTC database, 03.08.03
(A = Arnar, the called; E = Erna, the caller)
After the lapse, Arnar takes a deep breath and lets out a big sigh, again displaying that he is unhappy with the current situation (line 1). Then he takes the floor and produces a TCU which he cuts off before completion. Although the TCU remains incomplete in a number of ways – syntactically, pragmatically and prosodically – certain continuations can be projected, i.e. that Arnar explains what error notice he is getting. Yet, instead of repairing the previous TCU, Arnar asks himself two questions regarding a message that is popping up on his screen (lines 2–3). Arnar's second question is cut off before completion, and it ends with a planning marker, a pause, and, finally, another sigh.
It is unlikely that Arnar expects an answer from Erna, since she cannot see his screen. Nevertheless, Arnar has clearly indicated that he is annoyed with how the computer is responding. Erna response shows that she needs a clarification from Arnar. She produces the interrogative particle hva ‘what’ with a falling contour (line 4). Despite Erna's attempt to prompt an explanation, Arnar does not respond and an account is noticeably absent. In fact, the particle is followed by a 5.2-second pause, during which neither party enters the floor. After this noticeable delay, Erna makes a second attempt to prompt an explanation. She repeats the same interrogative particle, hva, which is now followed by an instance of nú (line 6). Even this time Erna's attempt to prompt an explanation is followed by an extended pause. After 1.2 seconds, Arnar finally responds to Erna's request (lines 8–10). However, this response is ambiguous as to whether Arnar is addressing the content of his last TCU (i.e. the question) or whether he is finishing the first part of his turn.
In the excerpt in (11), nú occurs in a slot in which the speaker is repeating a request for a clarification. On the one hand, Erna is asking what is happening at the present moment. She has noticed that some kind of new situation has come up at the other end of the phone line, and, therefore, she wants to know what is going on. By using a temporal nú, Erna foregrounds the relevance of her question (i.e. a new situation). On the other hand, Erna's use of a temporal nú also displays an affective stance, and thus she upgrades her pursuit for a response. Note that Erna does not use nú the first time she prompts Arnar to explain what is going on. It is only after one failed attempt that she repeats the interrogative and adds an instance of nú after it.
In (11), nú follows an interrogative pronoun, hva(ð) ‘what’, and it is a part of a TCU which does not include a finite verb. As mentioned above, this instance is different from any other instance in the present data because it does not occur as a part of a syntactically organized TCU, directly adjacent to a finite verb. Here, I would argue that the phrase hva(ð) nú ‘what now’ could be considered as a conventionalized phrase, and, therefore, nú can in this case occur without being a part of a syntactically organized TCU. In the same way, other conventionalized phrases that I have mentioned earlier (nú þegar ‘right away’ and nú fyrst ‘not until now’) could potentially occur without a finite verb.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have applied an interactional approach to two Icelandic words, nú and núna. Traditionally, these two temporal adverbs have been viewed as synonymous, and in most cases, interchangeable. However, by analyzing conversational data, I have shown that there are significant differences between the two cognates, including differences in semantic content, syntactic positions, integration, and their interactional functions.
In my database, the overwhelming majority of núna tokens occur in the end field. In contrast, nú with a temporal meaning occurs in most cases in the front field. The only exceptions to this rule are instances which occur in conventionalized phrases and in utterances which are structured either as subordinates or questions. In both cases nú occurs in the middle field. Furthermore, I have shown that nú and núna do not have the same relation to core syntax. While nú almost exclusively occurs as a part of a syntactically organized TCU (with the exception of nú in conventionalized phrases), núna has a more loose relation to the finite verb and is even used as a turn on its own. Furthermore, I argued that these distributional differences reflect previously unnoted functional differences between nú and núna.
By providing examples of usage in context, I have shown that núna is deployed as a referential index, one which indexes a period of time. The time frame partly overlaps the moment at which the word is uttered, but its duration is interpreted on a case-by-case basis depending on the context in which the adverb is used.
By contrast, the referential function of nú is not as prominent as that of núna. Instead of anchoring an event to a stretch of time, nú is used in a more dynamic fashion. Nú typically refers to a point in time which indexes a transition or a comparison between different situations, and, in some cases, this anchoring has the effect of emphasis. In such cases, nú works equally on the semantic level and the functional level (see also Aijmer Reference Aijmer2002:27). Hence, it is the temporal meaning used in a specific sequential environment which causes the affective function, and, consequently, affective stance is a part of the meaning of nú (Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2010; see also the discussion in Ochs Reference Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson1996:419 and Aijmer Reference Aijmer2002:95 on now in English).
The temporal-affective function of nú is an important link between the temporal use of nú and the particle function of nú (Hilmisdóttir Reference Hilmisdóttir2010). I suggest that it is the temporal-affective use of nú which first triggered the grammaticalization process of the adverb. As soon as nú acquired functions other than anchoring events in time, the process of semantic bleaching was made possible, and, instead of referring to the present moment, nú acquired new interactional functions.
Discourse particles are never totally void of their original semantic meaning, and such is also the case in respect to the non-temporal nú. Therefore, in studying the particle functions of nú, it is essential first to investigate the lexical meaning of the adverb and then consider its potential non-lexical functions.
Lexical (or lexico-functional) words such as nú and núna, however, present a challenge to the methods of interactional linguistics. The method is easier to apply when studying phenomena which have less lexical content and clearer interactional functions (for example the particle functions of nú). When studying lexical words such as nú and núna, one of the problems is that it is not feasible to focus only on the interactive functions, while ignoring the semantic features as they manifest themselves in conversation. It is often the semantic content which makes a certain interactional function possible. Hence, in this study, I have made observations regarding syntax, lexicon, and interactional functions in order to show how these three levels interact and affect each other.
In conclusion, as this study shows, words that are on the border between lexical and function words can be meaningfully addressed by using methods of interactional linguistics on conversational data. The differences between nú and núna are subtle and not easily identified or explained using only the methods of theoretical linguistics. By analysing conversational data in a systematic way, I have shown that speakers do make distinctions between the two near-synonymous adverbs nú and núna. This distinction is manifested in the ways speakers position the two adverbs in different sequential and syntactic slots. The choice of word and syntactic position is by no means random, but, instead, it shows a highly organized interplay between lexicon, syntax, and function.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Anne-Marie Londen, Camilla Wide and Mirja Saari, who were my supervisors when I conducted the research on which this paper is based. I am also most grateful to Jacek Kozłowski for comments and language help throughout the process. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Ewa Jaworska and three anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments.
APPENDIX
Transcription symbols
Abbreviations used in glosses
A note on glossing. If there is an equivalent form in English it has been used. In such cases, the grammatical category is not glossed. The following forms are not indicated in the glosses: (i) nominative case and forms which are identical with the nominal case; (ii) gender of nouns, adjectives, participles and pronouns; (iii) plural of nominals; (iv) singular of verbs; (v) infinitive; (vi) present tense; and (vii) active voice.
- 1, 2, 3
1st, 2nd, 3rd person
- ACC
accusative
- DAT
dative
- DEF
definite
- GEN
genitive
- IMPER
imperative
- INTERJ
interjection
- MV
middle voice
- PL
plural
- PP
past participle
- PRT
particle
- PT
past tense
- REF
reflexive pronoun
- SUBJ
subjunctive
- VPRT
verb particle
