1 The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation Galina B. Bolden Department of Communication, Rutgers University, USA [email protected] Bolden, G. B. (in press). The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation. In P. Auer & Y. Maschler (Eds.), Nu and its relatives: A discourse marker across the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation
Galina B. Bolden
Department of Communication, Rutgers University, USA
Bolden, G. B. (in press). The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation. In P. Auer & Y. Maschler (Eds.), Nu and its relatives: A discourse marker across the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
2
The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation
Galina B. Bolden
1. Introduction
The discourse marker nu is one of the most common words in colloquial Russian and one of the
two most commonly used discourse particles (with vot, see Table 1) (Sherstinova 2010;
Zemskaia 1979). The ubiquity of Russian nu makes explicating its functions a formidable task.
Nu is generally characterized as having exhortative meanings (e.g. Vasilyeva 1972); however,
this general characterization is not applicable – and, as I will argue, should not be applied – to all
nu usages. This chapter, by necessity, is limited in its scope and focuses only on those uses of nu
that are most prevalent in my corpus of everyday Russian conversation.
Table 1: Most frequent words in a 35-hour corpus of Russian colloquial speech (Sherstinova
2010)
Rank Russian word Translation Word frequency
1
ja
‘I’ 2.63%
2 ne ‘not’ 2.40%
3 vot PRT 2.34%
4 nu PRT 2.31%
5 da ‘yes’ 2.13%
A comparison of nu-usage across genres makes it quite clear that nu is characteristic of
modern colloquial speech. Table 2 shows the distribution of nu in the National Corpus of the
Russian Language ( Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo yazyka [National Corpus of Russian
3
Language] 2003–2012), which demonstrates that nu is much more common in speech than in
writing. Even though one can find instances of nu in written sources (both fictional and
nonfictional), those examples primarily come from quoted conversations to represent
colloquialism. (Examples of nu from a nonfiction corpus include informal blog-style writing as
well as quoted speech in biographies.) These data indicate that the use of nu is largely restricted
to – and indicative of – informal, colloquial registers.
Table 2: Nu across genres
National Corpus of Russian Language
Nu-frequency per sentence Corpus size (sentences)
Written corpus (18th century–current; fiction & nonfiction)
1.1% 16,205,733
Newspaper corpus (1990–current)
0.38% 8,553,495
Speech corpus (public, private, movies)
6.59% 1,536,190
Multimedia corpus (movies 1930–current)
4.15% 124,219
2. Introducing the functions of nu
Nu has been described in several dictionaries (e.g. Dal’ 1880–1882; Efremova 2000; Ozhegov
1949), and a number of studies have attempted to characterize the functions of nu on the basis of
its use in literary texts, speech corpora, and/or researcher intuitions. Often, nu is described by
lists of seemingly unrelated functions, each illustrated with a few decontextualized (or thinly
contextualized) examples, not unlike a dictionary entry. For instance, Vasilyeva (1972), in a
4
manual for Russian language learners, uses literary sources and invented examples to provide the
following list of nu functions:
• Exhorting the hearer to say or do something
• Expressing subjective attitudes and strengthening emotive influence
emphatic yes and categorical no
impatience, disagreement, excitement
• Emphasizing the expressed position
• Expressing displeasure, disagreement, refusal, reservation, etc.
• Discourse functions (often, nu vot):
to mark boundaries in narratives
in word searches
to summarize/conclude
Zemskaia (1979), working with a corpus of colloquial speech (Zemskaia and Kapanadze
1978), indicates that nu can be used as a pause filler, in emotional expressions, and, as a stand-
alone interjection, to mark surprise or as a neutral receipt token. Multisilta (1995) and
Kuosmanen and Multisilta (1999) analyze a corpus of interview talk to examine (following
Schiffrin 1987) the usages of nu (and another discourse marker vot) for signaling turn, topical,
situational, and information transitions. They list the following environments in which nu is
relatively common in their corpus: beginning an answer, a question, a request, a new topic or
subtopic, an addition, or explanation/evaluation; returning to an earlier topic; shifting from one
event of narration to another; finding the information sought; emotive function; and as a filler.
Kuosmanen and Multisilta (1999) also examine prosodic shapes of nu, attesting the fact that it
5
can be both stressed and unstressed, produced with level or rising intonation, and sometimes
followed by a pause.
These early investigations into nu have, thus, documented its multiple diverse uses.
Given the diversity of nu functions, how do interlocutors figure out what nu is supposed to
accomplish on each occasion of use? To answer this question, a systematic investigation of
contexts of nu deployment needs to be conducted, something that early research has failed to do.
One exception to the prior studies’ tendency to overlook the context in which nu is deployed is
Paukkeri’s (2006) work on nu as a stand-alone response token, a study that was carried out on a
corpus of conversational materials. By limiting her investigation to a particular sequential
environment and deploying the conversation analytic methodology (Sidnell and Stivers 2013),
Paukkeri is able to account for nu’s exhortative function. She shows that nu (in contrast to two
other discourse markers, da and tak) is used to urge the recipient to get to the main point (e.g.
following the provision of some parenthetical information), an analysis not dissimilar to the one
presented in this chapter (see the section on stand-alone nu).
Overall, prior research has shown that nu has a wide range of usages – some having to do
with what conversation analysts refer to as action formation (Schegloff 2007), i.e. contributing to
an understanding of what action is being accomplished by a turn at talk (e.g. urging,
emphasizing, etc.; Paukkeri 2006; Vasilyeva 1972), and some having to do with the turn’s
placement in conversation (e.g. marking transitions; Multisilta 1995) or its sequential
organization (Schegloff 2007). With the exception of Paukkeri (2006), however, prior studies
did not systematically examine contexts of nu uses. Yet research in the conversation analytic
tradition has shown that the organization of sequences and larger activities is a crucial resource
for building and understanding actions and for understanding what a particular discourse marker
6
is deployed to accomplish (Bolden 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2009b, 2009c, 2010; Heritage 1984,
1998, 2002b, 2013b; Mazeland and Huiskes 2001; Nevile 2006; Park 2010; Raymond 2004;
Schegloff and Lerner 2009).
In this chapter, I use conversation analytic methodology to examine how nu is used in a
number of different sequential positions. My analysis of nu functioning centers around two
themes: urging (which relates to the action formation dimension) and marking disjunction
(which relates to the sequential organization). On the one hand, nu may be used to urge the
addressee on or to exhort pressure on the addressee to produce a relevant next action. On the
other hand, nu may serve as a general alert to the recipient that what comes next is not the
appropriate, projected, or unproblematic next action. Sometimes these two general functions
appear to operate concurrently. As with many other discourse markers (e.g. English oh; Heritage
1984, 1998, 2002b), what nu accomplishes needs to be figured out (by the interlocutors, in the
first place) on each occasion of use by reference to its general semantics as well as the specifics
of local context in which it is deployed.
In order to introduce the kinds of nu functions that will be considered in this chapter, let
us examine excerpt 1. Alla is talking on a mobile phone with her mother, Dusya. Prior to this
excerpt, the two women dealt with the reason for Alla’s call. In line 1, Dusya initiates a new
topic. (For a description of the Russian transcription system deployed here, see Bolden 2008a.)
Excerpt 1: Chiropractor (GM15; 0:35)
01 DU: Ty gde?/ you where ‘Where are you?’ 02 (0.2) 03 AL: Ja vyshla at xajrapraktera/ I left from chiropractor ‘I just left the chiropractor’s office’
7
04 → DU: Nu kak,/ PRT how ‘NU how was it’ 05 (0.2) 06 DU: Sho sde?lali shtota/ what did something ‘Did they do something?’ 07 → AL: Nu on mne pa tochkam prash[o:lsja:,/ PRT he me on points went-through ‘NU he worked through the points’ 08 DU: [Hm mm/ 09 → DU: (m)Nu,/ 10 AL: E:ta samae zdelal mne tvaë ljubimae,/ that very did me your favorite ‘((word search)) He did your favorite’ 11 DU: t!=Da::?/ yes ‘Really?’ 12 AL: Krutilku:/ ‘twist’ 13 DU: Hm mm¿/ 14 AL: I: pa-pamasiraval nemn[ozhka/ and massaged a-litte ‘And gave a short massage’ 15 → DU: [t! Nu xarash^o,/ PRT well ‘NU okay’
As this segment illustrates, in Russian, nu can be used as a stand-alone lexical turn
constructional unit (as in line 9) and as a preface to turn constructional units (as in lines 4, 7, and
15) (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). Furthermore, nu-prefacing is not restricted to
particular sequential positions. As can be seen here, nu can preface sequence-initiating actions or
first pair parts, such as the question in line 4, conditionally relevant responsive actions or second
pair parts (e.g. the answer in line 7), as well as sequence-closing turns (as in line 15) (Schegloff
2007). The stand-alone nu (as in line 9), on the other hand, is significantly more limited in how
8
and where it is deployed. Additionally, there is variation in how nu is produced prosodically: It
can be stressed (as in line 15) or unstressed (lines 4, 5, 9); we will also see that nu can be
lengthened and produced with a variety of pitch movements (e.g. rising or level intonation). We
will return to this case as we examine different uses of nu.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. I first discuss the data and methodology
used in this study. I then turn to the analysis of nu as a stand-alone interjection, followed by an
examination of nu-prefacing in different sequential positions: in initiating actions, in responses
(to polar and content questions), and in sequence-closing turns.
3. Data and methodology
This study is based on an analysis of a large corpus of Russian conversational data collected over
the past ten years from several sources. The corpus includes approximately 40 hours of audio-
recorded telephone conversations and 40 hours of video-recorded face-to-face interactions. The
participants are family members and friends; most are recent Russian immigrants living in the
United States, some were Russian residents at the time of the recording.
The study employs the methodology of Conversation Analysis, which aims to provide a
systematic and detailed examination of interlocutors’ understandings of the ongoing talk-in-
interaction (Sidnell and Stivers 2013). In accordance with the methodology, segments of talk in
which nu was used were identified, transcribed (for a discussion of transcription for Russian
conversation, see Bolden 2008a; Hepburn and Bolden 2013), and analyzed in their sequential
context. This chapter is based on an analysis of approximately 370 instances of nu that represent
its most common usages in the corpus. No attempt is made to account for other uses of nu or for
combinations of nu with other discourse markers, which are also quite common (e.g. nu vot, da
nu, nu a, or nu i).
9
4. Stand-‐alone nu: urging continuation
Stand-alone nu – the use of nu as a single lexical turn constructional unit (Sacks, Schegloff, and
Jefferson 1974) – is not as common as nu-prefacing: only 25 instances out of 370 overall in the
corpus. In line with Paukkeri’s (2006) analysis, I will show that the stand-alone nu accomplishes
a specific action – “urging continuation” – and is deployed in a particular sequential
environment: after the addressee produces a preliminary component of an action, a component
that projects a continuation or an expansion.1
Excerpt 2 illustrates this usage. Dusya is talking to a friend, Pasha. In line 1, Dusya starts
a new topic to report on a doctor’s visit. The first turn constructional unit (TCU) of her report (ja
byla sevodnja u nazhn^o,va ‘I went to the foot doctor today’) is a set-up for the announcement of
the doctor’s diagnosis (which comes in line 3).
Excerpt 2: Foot doctor (GM 19; 3:25)
1 DU: =<V[oschem/=Pasha ja byla sevodnja u nazhn^o,va/ generally NAME I was today at foot doctor ‘Anyways Pasha I went to the foot doctor today,’
2 PA: N[u,/
PRT 3 DU: [.hh Tak on mne skazal shto u menja vsët’ki perelom pal’ca/
PRT he me said that with me after-all fracture toe ‘He told me that I have a toe fracture after all’
4 (0.2)
5 PA: Perelo¿m/
‘fracture’
6 DU: Da/ ‘yes’
1 For similar functions of nu-like discourse markers in other languages, see Sorjonen (2001a) and
Maschler (2003, 2009). In some Russian dialects (not represented in the current data set), stand-
alone nu might be used more broadly, for example as a confirming response.
10
((goes on to talk about the doctor’s advice))
Note that nu (line 2) follows a TCU that is designed, both pragmatically and prosodically,
as a preliminary to further telling (Schegloff 2007). Pragmatically, “ja byla…” (‘I went to …’ or
‘I was at …’) appears to project some explication on what happened at the location (cf. Ford
2001). Prosodically, the speaker produces this component with a continuing intonation (indicated
by the comma on the transcript), strongly projecting continuation. The stand-alone nu (line 2)
serves to forward the activity in progress – specifically here, forward the telling of what
happened at the doctor’s. While this is a context where a continuer (such as hm mm) could have
been used, a continuer simply passes the turn back to the teller, conveying an understanding that
the action is incomplete (Schegloff 1982), while nu urges the teller to get to the point of the
telling. In other words, nu treats the prior turn not just as an incomplete action, but as a
projection of further talk. By producing the stand-alone nu, the speaker appears to be acting as an
invested, eager, or impatient recipient.
In the following two excerpts, the stand-alone nu urges the addressee to produce the
reason for calling. In Excerpt 3, Alla is calling her mother, Dusya.
Excerpt 3: Me again (GM15)
01 ((2 rings)) 02 DU: Alë?/ ‘hello’ 03 (.) 04 AL: Ma::?m/= ‘mom’ 05 DU: =A:¿/ 06 AL: Eta ja: apja:t’/= this I again ‘It’s me again’
11
07 DU: =Nu:¿/ 08 AL: A ty mne ne m↑ozhesh dat’ Katin {ce:↓llar phone}/ PRT you me not can give NAME cell ‘Could you possibly give me Katya’s cell phone’ 09 DU: .HH Magu dat’/ can give ‘I can’
Alla’s turn in line 6 (Eta ja: apja:t’/ ‘it’s me again’) indicates that Alla is calling (again) for a
particular reason and identifies herself as the person (here, the daughter – see line 4) who had
just recently called. In line 7, Dusya responds with nu, which urges Alla to articulate the reason
for her call, foreclosing further expansion of the conversation opening (cf. Schegloff 1986).
Excerpt 4 shows that in Russian the stand-alone nu can be reduplicated and used to
dismiss the necessity of the immediately prior action. Pasha is calling to check on whether Dusya
has accomplished what Pasha had asked her to do. This is a rather delicate action, hence the self-
deprecating apology in line 3.
Excerpt 4: Bothering again (GM16; 0:10)
1 DU: Alë?/ ‘hello’ 2 (0.2) 3 PA: Dusja ja apjat’ vam golavu marochu/=
NAME I again you head mess ‘Dusya, I am messing with ((=bothering)) you again’
4 DU: =Nu=[nu¿/ 5 PA: [Vy dazvani?lis’ da Lidy/=ºda¿º/=
you got-through to NAME yes ‘Did you get in touch with Lida? right?’
6 DU: =A:?/ PRT 7 PA: Vy dazvan[ilis’ ((a bit louder))
you got-through ‘You got in touch’
12
8 DU: [Da/ da/ da/ ‘yes yes yes’
Dusya’s reduplicated nu (line 4) urges Pasha to articulate her reason for calling and
simultaneously dismisses the self-deprecation and the apology conveyed by ja apjat’ vam golavu
marochu/ (‘I am messing with you/bothering you again’; line 3). Note that using a continuer in
this sequential context would have constituted a tacit agreement with the self-deprecation.
Returning to Excerpt 1 (shown above), let us focus on Dusya’s use of stand-alone nu in
line 9. Alla’s report about her visit to the chiropractor (line 7) is designed, at least prosodically,
to project further talk. Notice that Dusya first receipts it with a continuer (hm mm; line 8), which
treats the prior as an incomplete action (here, an incomplete telling) and simply passes the turn
back to the teller. She then immediately goes on to add nu (line 9), which seems to urge (rather
than simply allow) Alla to extend her telling. In this way, Dusya acts as an active or invested
recipient of the telling.
The instances analyzed in this section indicate that the stand-alone nu accomplishes
something that other types of apparently similar receipts do not (as Paukkeri 2006 also showed).
Nu, in effect, treats the immediately preceding action as simply a placeholder or background for
further action and, in doing so, urges continuation – which is quite different from simply
allowing the addressee to continue (cf. Schegloff 1982). While this function of nu is limited to its
use as a stand-alone interjection, its traces can be found in the use of nu-prefacing in sequence-
closing contexts (as will be shown later).
13
5. Nu-‐prefacing
Nu-prefacing is extremely common in Russian conversation. Here I only examine the use of nu
in the three basic sequential environments: with sequence-initiating actions (or first pair parts),
responding actions (second pair parts), and sequence-closing turns (Schegloff 2007). These,
however, do not exhaust the environments of nu usage. As a preface, nu can be either a stressed
or unstressed component of the turn constructional unit in progress. Unstressed nu’s are typically
short and immediately followed by further talk. Stressed nu’s are often stretched, may be
followed by silence and produced with a number of different pitch contours. While the different
prosodic shapes likely contribute to and modulate the interactional import of the nu preface, this
topic cannot be systematically addressed here (but see Kuosmanen 1999; Kuosmanen and
Multisilta 1999).
Unlike stand-alone nu’s, which carry out a specific action (urging continuation) in rather
narrowly circumscribed contexts, nu-prefacing appears to be a very general conversational
device. I argue that nu-prefacing alerts the recipient that what is to come is not an unproblematic,
expected, or appropriate next. In other words, nu is employed for sequential import in order to
index some sort of a problem or disjunction between the immediately preceding context and
what is to come.2 The nature of this disjunction has to be figured out on each occasion of use. In
some contexts, nu-prefacing also carries the undertones of urging the addressee on (similarly to
stand-alone nu).
2 Cross-linguistically, indexing disjunctions or departments is a very common function of turn-
initial elements (Heritage 2013b).
14
5.1. Nu-‐prefacing in sequence-‐initiating actions
Nu can preface sequence-initiating actions that either start a new activity or are in some way
prompted by what has come before. In first pair parts that launch new courses of action or
activities, nu-prefacing alerts the recipient that the upcoming action is something that has been
on the speaker’s agenda rather than something that naturally emerges from what has come before
– and, in that sense, not the sequentially appropriate next action (cf. Bolden 2008b, 2009c on the
English discourse marker so; Keevallik 2013 on the Estonian no(h)). These nu-prefaced new
activity initiations are often “first topics” in a telephone conversation that are launched by the
caller as his/her reason for calling (Schegloff 1986). Similarly to what was observed for Estonian
(Keevallik 2013), nu-prefaced first-topic initiations in my data typically request an update on an
ongoing situation and thereby invoke a prior interaction between the participants, which
contributes to the “on agenda” character of these inquiries.
Excerpt 5 is from a conversation between Dusya and her daughter Katya. Katya was just
visiting Dusya with her baby granddaughter. Now Dusya is calling to find out how their ride
home went.
Excerpt 5: Got home [GM1; 0:20]
1 DUS: =Eta ja:/ this I ‘It’s me’ 2 KAT: Da:,/= yes 3 > DUS: =Nu kak vy doexali¿/ PRT how you rode ‘NU how was your ride home’ 4 (.) 5 KAT: N^u (.) nakapriznichali [nemnozhka. PRT we-whined a-litte ‘NU we ((=the baby)) whined a little bit’
15
6 DUS: [N- n- Nda:,/ NU-yes 7 DUS: Nu vobschem vy uzhe doma?/ .hh PRT generally you already home ‘NU you’re already home then’ 8 KAT: Da[:,/
yes 9 DUS: [N^u atdyxajte uzhe/
PRT rest already ‘NU go rest now/ ((moving into closings))’
Dusya’s question Nu kak vy doexali¿/ (‘How was your ride home’; line 3) invokes the prior
encounter between the interlocutors – their recent meeting at Dusya’s house – and requests an
update on what happened since they parted (cf. Keevallik 2013). The inquiry is presented as the
warrant for Dusya’s call and a rather urgent one, as Dusya rushes into it (see the latching
represented by the equal signs in lines 2-3) immediately after an identification sequence (lines 1–
2), foregoing a routine “how are you” inquiry (Schegloff 1986). The early placement of this first
topic initiation, its rushed delivery, and the nu preface all contribute to the sense that it has been
on the speaker’s (rather urgent) interactional agenda. In requesting an urgent update on the
addressee’s life, the speaker enacts her interest or concern for her interlocutor (cf. Bolden 2008b
on a similar use of English so).
In Excerpt 6, Gena calls a friend of his, Polina, and in line 3 asks her for an update on
something they had clearly discussed before, introducing this topic in the “reason for the call”
position.
Excerpt 6: That man (PF 33)
1 GEN: Zdraste/ hello 2 GAL: Zdrastvujte Gena/ hello NAME
16
3 → GEN: Nu vy tak i ne paluchi?li etava plana/=at etava ch:elaveka ta/ PRT you still not received this plan from this person PRT ‘NU you still haven’t received that plan? from that person’ 4 GAL: ↑Net/ Ja ne paluchila↓:/ no I not received ‘No I haven’t’ 5 GEN: °Nu:: RPT ((disappointed sound)) 6 (.) 7 GEN: .hNu ladna/.HH=[Ja ne- PRT okay I not ‘NU okay then/ I am not-’
As in the previous excerpt, the speaker rushes to introduce his reason for calling by curtailing a
routine, more expanded conversation opening. In constructing his inquiry, Gena uses a post-
positioned discourse particle -ta (the end of line 3) commonly used to indicate a delay in the
placement of the action and to invoke a prior conversation on the topic (Bolden 2008a, 2009b).
Furthermore, the inquiry invokes a prior conversation between the interlocutors in which getting
“that plan” from “that person” had been discussed. Thus, both the placement and the design of
Gena’s nu-prefaced question suggest its on-agenda character.
Thus, in both of the above extracts, the nu preface appears to alert the addressee that what
is to come is not connected to the immediately preceding talk but rather emerges from the
speaker’s own agenda – in other words, it is disjunctive. Similarly to the no(h)-prefaced topic
initiations in Estonian (Keevallik 2013), these nu-prefaced inquiries request updates on an
ongoing situation and, in doing so, enact continuity across social encounters.
Aside from inquiries that launch new courses of action, nu can also preface sequence-
initiating actions that are topically coherent with what has come before. In this context nu
prefaces inquiries that are touched off by the prior talk but do not pursue the course of action in
progress (cf. Bolden 2009b). In this sense, they are also disjunctive.
17
One environment for nu-prefacing is with updating inquiries that are touched off by the
recipient’s mention of an ongoing situation. In Excerpt 7, Rima is talking to her son Mark. As a
background, Rima has recently gifted her car to Mark. In line 1, Rima mentions that she had
called earlier but nobody answered; she then asks A gde? vy byli ta/ (‘Where were you?’), an
inquiry that can be understood as a complaint about the situation.
Excerpt 7: New car (RP 13)
1 RIM: A/=patamushta vas ne byla do,ma/=A gde? vy byli ta/ oh because you not was home PRT where you were PRT ‘Oh/ because you weren't home/ Where were you?’
2 MAR: Nu my uxadili/ a tebe papa ne skaza,l/
PRT we went-out PRT you dad not said ‘NU we were out/ Dad didn't tell you?’
3 [(Tanya) pa svai,m delam xadila/a ja (0.2) h xadil=
NAME on her errands went PRT I went ‘(Tanya) went to do her errands and I went’
4 RIM: [Da ja spalah.h./
PRT I slept ‘I was sleeping’
5 MAR: =mashinu my:l, tam [( )
car washed there ‘to wash the car’
6 >RIM: [Nu kak ana/
PRT how it ‘NU how is it?’
7 (.) 8 MAR: Nu kak ↑novaja/
PRT as new ‘NU like new’
9 (.) 10 RIM: X(h)ar(h)ash(h)o/
well ‘That’s good’
In response to Rima’s inquiry, Mark offers an account for their being away from the phone, part
of which is that he went to get his new car washed – the car that Rima had given him (lines 3/5).
18
At this point, the sequentially appropriate next action would be to pursue the complaint trajectory
by, for instance, accepting or rejecting Mark’s account for his whereabouts or requesting further
elaboration of what he did. But instead, in line 6, Rima shifts gears and inquires about something
that was mentioned as part of the account – the new car – using the locally subsequent reference
form (ana, here meaning ‘it’) to refer to the car (Schegloff 1996). This inquiry is touched off by
Mark’s mention of the car, but it does not extend the course of action in progress (i.e. the
complaint–account–acceptance/rejection sequence). Instead, it requests an update on the car (or
Mark’s feelings about it). The discourse marker nu flags the inquiry as not the sequentially
appropriate next but is a departure from what has come before.
Just prior to Excerpt 8 below, Rima asks her friend Bella whether she currently has a job
(data not shown). In lines 1–4, Bella accounts for why she does not have a job and mentions the
apartment renovations she has been involved in as a factor for why she currently does not work.
In line 7, Rima interrupts Bella’s account and inquires about the quality of the renovations,
prefacing it with nu.
Excerpt 8: Renovations (RP 3; 5:30)
1 BEL: Schas ja kak ras etim (.) vot posle remo,nta/ now I as once this PRT after repairs ‘Right now I- after the renovations’
2 remont zakonchili no vot my:: eschë nikak repairs ended but PRT we still nohow ‘the renovations are done but we still can’t’ 3 s trudom eschë nikak ne perestavim me::,bel’/ with difficulty still nohow not move furniture ‘we still have difficulty with getting the furniture moved,’ 4 vot eto vsjakae blagaustrojstva/ PRT PRT different improvements ‘do various improvements’ 5 RIM: Hm mhm,/=
19
6 BEL: =to=est’ zanimaet dast[ata|chna (vremeni) that is takes enough time
‘that is it takes a lot of (time)’ 7 → RIM: [.h |Nu a tak xara↑sho?↓ remont sdeºlaliº/
PRT PRT so well repairs they-made ‘NU are the renovations well done overall?’
8 (.) 9 BEL: Da:/ tak xarasho/ yes PRT well
‘Yes, overall good’ 10 (0.2) 11 RIM: Hm mh[m/ 12 BEL: [Ne ploxa/ Vsë narmal’na/ not badly all normal ‘Not bad, everything’s fine’ 13 N^u vot/ Paetomu:: takie vsjakie zaboty,/
PRT PRT so such various worries ‘Anyways/ That’s why various worries’
((returns to why she can’t work))
Rima’s nu-prefaced inquiry (in line 7) is touched off by Bella’s mention of apartment
renovations, but it does not extend the course of action in progress (pursuing why Bella does not
have a job). Rima does not, for example, assess Bella’s proffered account by reference to her job
situation, which would be a sequentially appropriate next action. In other words, Rima’s nu-
prefaced inquiry about the quality of the renovations is disjunctive. (This analysis is supported
by Bella’s actions in line 13, where she resumes the account for her not having a job with a
boundary marker nu vot ‘anyway’.) Further, the inquiry requests an update on the situation Rima
had clearly known about, tacitly acknowledging the interactional history between them. The nu
preface helps disengage the question from its prior context, so as to claim the speaker’s
independent motivation for posing it.
20
The nu preface may also alert recipients to other types of disjunction, such as the launch
of a parenthetical sequence (Grenoble 2004; Mazeland 2007; Schegloff 2007). Excerpt 9 comes
from a face-to-face conversation between four people: Mira, her granddaughter Lena, and two
other relatives. Just prior to this excerpt, Mira said that she used to have beautiful handwriting
when she was young. She now shifts to a telling about her mother’s handwriting.
Excerpt 9: Baba Fanya (I7; 25:30)
1 MIR: I: (.) ja tebe skazhu,/ (0.2) and I you will-tell ‘And I’ll tell you’ 2 ((to Aaron)) shto u maej mamy,/ (0.8) that with my mom ‘that my mom’ 3 ((to Lena)) u baby Fani/ with grandma NAME ‘grandma Fanya’ 4 LEN: (>Da<) yes 5 → MIR: Nu ty pomnish’ eë naverna/=da?/ PRT you remember her probably yes ‘NU you probably remember her, don’t you’ 6 (0.5) ((Ilana nods)) 7 MIR: U neë byl <kaligraficheski pocherk>./ with her was calligraphic handwriting ‘she had calligraphic handwriting’
In lines 1–2, Mira begins producing a turn constructional unit, but before bringing it to a possible
completion, replaces the person reference form “my mom” with “grandma Fanya” (line 3). This
reference form is now recipiently designed for her granddaughter Lena. In line 5, before
continuing her turn constructional unit in progress, Mira asks Lena to confirm that she
remembers “grandma Fanya”. This inquiry launches a parenthetical sequence, halting the
forward progress of Mira’s turn constructional unit. The preface nu serves to alert the recipient
21
that what is coming next is not the sequentially appropriate next action. Mira returns to her
halted telling in line 7.
To summarize, we have seen that nu can preface turn constructional units that function as
first pair parts of adjacency pair sequences. The present analysis has shown that nu indicates that
what is to come is disjunctive from what came before, that it is not the appropriate next action.
Nu-prefaced initiations of new topics (Excerpt 5 and Excerpt 6) are designed and placed so as to
indicate that they have been on the speaker’s interactional agenda: by requesting an (urgent)
update on an ongoing situation. When prefacing first pair parts that are topically coherent with
and prompted by what came before (Excerpt 7, Excerpt 8, and Excerpt 9), nu marks a disjunction
in the course of action in progress: i.e. the nu-prefaced inquiry launches a new course of action
and does not extend the ongoing action sequence. Thus, the nature of the disjunction the nu
preface alerts the recipient to is contingent on the local sequential environment.
5.2. Nu-‐prefacing in responding actions
We now turn to contexts in which the discourse marker nu prefaces conditionally relevant
responsive actions (i.e. second pair parts in adjacency pair sequences; Schegloff 2007). This
usage is extremely common in Russian conversation. A wide range of initiating actions
(including questions, requests, and offers) in a variety of formats can receive nu-prefaced
responses. Here, the focus will be on responses to initiating actions that do questioning, i.e.
responses to initiating actions that elicit information, confirmation, or agreement (which may be
done in the service of another action) (cf. Stivers and Enfield 2010). I will show that in this
sequential environment, nu-prefacing indicates that the upcoming response is in some way
problematic given what has come before: that it is not the sequentially appropriate or expected
22
next.3 We will first consider responses to polar (yes/no) questions and then responses to content
(or question-word) questions.
5.2.1. Responses to polar questions
Prior conversation analytic research on question-answer sequences has demonstrated that polar
questions set up a number of constraints on what can be relevantly and appropriately done in the
responsive turn (Bolden 2009a; Heritage 2003; Heritage and Clayman 2010; Raymond 2003,
2010; Sacks 1987). First, polar questions set up preferences that designate responses that agree
with the tilt of the question as “preferred” and others as “dispreferred”. Second, questions set up
topical and action agendas, and responses may or may not conform to these agendas. Responses
that do not conform to the action agenda may, in some way, resist the question’s terms or its
underlying presuppositions. Finally, questions indicate the speaker’s access to the information
being solicited, and responses may display a congruent or incongruent epistemic stance vis-à-vis
the question (for example, confirming or disconfirming that the solicited information is in fact
unknown to the questioner).
The analysis of nu-prefaced responses to polar questions shows that nu-prefacing is not
indicative of whether the upcoming response is preferred or dispreferred, in that both preferred
and dispreferred responses can be prefaced with nu. Rather, nu prefaces responses that do not
fully embrace the action agenda of the question or display an incongruent epistemic stance vis-à-
vis the question.
The particle nu can preface both preferred and dispreferred responses that do not conform
to the action agenda of the question. These range from responses that display relatively minor to
relatively severe problems with the terms of the question and include responses that reject the 3 Nu is thus quite similar to the English well in the same position (Schegloff and Lerner 2009).
23
question’s presuppositions. In Russian, a conforming response to a polar question will contain a
response particle – da (‘yes’) or net (‘no’) – or a partial repeat of the question (cf. Sorjonen
2001b for Finnish). Nu-prefaced responses typically do not include such markers of type
conformity. Rather, the respondent operates on the terms of the question in some way.
Excerpt 10 is taken from a telephone conversation between Rima and her adult son Mark.
Prior to this excerpt, Mark reported on an alimony-related investigation into his girlfriend’s ex-
husband (her lawyer had located the ex-husband’s place of work; data not shown). In line 1,
Rima confirms Mark’s report and, in line 4, pursues the topic by asking Mark to assess the news
(line 4).
Excerpt 10: Is this good (RP17; 4:15)
1 RIM: £Udalos' razve¿dat'£/ managed scout ‘((They)) managed to scout it out?’ 2 (0.8) 3 MAR: Da:/ yes 4 RIM: N(h)u::_ Xarasho/<Nu tak eto xarash↑o?/ PRT good PRT so this good ‘NU Okay/ NU so is this good?’ 5 (0.5) 6 → MAR: Nu^: (0.2) ne plo:xa/ PRT not bad ‘NU not bad’ 7 RIM: HH eh-heh-heh-heh-heh
Rima’s pursuit of this topic (line 4) is in the form of a polar interrogative that makes a
confirmation or disconfirmation of her candidate assessment of the news as “good” conditionally
relevant. Mark’s response (in line 6) is apparently a preferred one in that it agrees with the tilt of
Rima’s question (that the news is good). However, rather than embracing the proffered
24
assessment of the news (xarasho ‘good’), Mark alters its terms, replacing it (after a search) with
ne plo:xa ‘not bad’. So here, nu prefaces a non-conforming response (Raymond 2003) that
operates on the terms of the question, while generally agreeing with the question’s tilt.
Excerpt 11 is an example of a dispreferred, non-conforming answer that alters the terms
of the question. The excerpt is taken from a telephone conversation between two brothers, Greg
and Vic. In line 1, Greg is asking about the job situation of Vic’s son Misha.
Excerpt 11: How is work (RP 1; 7:40)
01 GREG: Nu:: kak u Mishi tvaevo na rabote/ PRT how with NAME yours at work
‘NU how are things at work with your Misha’ 02 VIC: Nu nichevo:/ PRT nothing
‘NU fine’ 03 (0.2) 04 GREG: Nichevo norma¿l'na/
nothing normal ‘Everything is fine’
05 VIC: Vsë tamzhe/ a ha= still same
‘Still at the same place/’ 06 GREG: =Ah ha:/ .h N:u yasna/<A on schas ne i:?schet/=Vit`/ PRT clear PRT he now not look-for NAME ‘NU I see/ He is not looking for a job now, Vic?’ 07 (.) 08 → VIC: Nu:: probuet (naj)
well tries fi- ‘NU he tries (to fi-)’
09 (.) 10 VIC: [(º º) 11 GREG: [Paglja?dyvaet/da¿/ glances yes
‘He keeps an eye out right’ 12 VIC: °Mm°
25
13 GREG: N:u panjatna/ PRT clear ‘NU I see’
Following Vic’s statement (line 5) that Misha still works at the same place, Greg inquires
whether Misha is looking for another job (line 6). Greg designs this inquiry as a polar
interrogative that prefers a negative response (see the negative polarity marker ne ‘not’; Heritage
2002a; Koshik 2002). Vic’s response (line 8) is dispreferred in that it rejects the assertion that
Misha is “not looking for a job” (line 6). However, Vic does not directly deny that Misha is not
“not looking” (e.g. by stating net, ischet ‘no he is looking’) but rather provides a non-type-
conforming answer in which he replaces Greg’s formulation i:schet (‘looking’) with probuet
(‘trying (to look)’). This type of response mitigates disagreement – and, at the same time, recasts
or reformulates what the son is doing. By saying probuet (naj) (‘he’s trying (to look)’), Vic
suggests a so-far failed and perhaps more casual job search. In line 11, Greg goes on to confirm a
more casual formulation of the job search (pagljadyvaet ‘keeping an eye out’), thus showing his
understanding that his initial formulation was not quite apt.
Excerpt 12 illustrates a case in which the respondent struggles to answer a question that is
massively problematic, providing a non-conforming, nu-prefaced answer. Prior to this excerpt
from a conversation between two friends, Rima announces that her son is buying a house. In line
1, Bella pursues an angle on the announcement – specifically, she sets out to confirm that the son
has obtained a job (and can, therefore, afford to buy a house).
Excerpt 12: He got a job (RP3; 5:45)
1 BEL: Nu >xarasho/To est’< on (.) .h eh ustro?ilsja na rabo[tu/
PRT good that is he obtained on job ‘NU okay/Meaning he has found ((started)) a job?’
26
2 RIM: [.H 3 → Nu (e-) on uzhe: emu uzhe vsë {offer} sde,lali/ PRT he already him already all made ‘NU he already they’ve already given him an offer’ 4 eh:: vsë/ No on v mae to- On i tak tam rabo:taet/ all but he in may he anyway there works ‘That’s done/ But in May- He works there anyway now’ 5 eh- On v gospitale zhe rabotaet/ [.hh he in hospital PRT works ‘He works at the hospital’ 6 BEL: [ºA:º/ 7 RIM: Nu vot (o:t) v`t n`schas tam rabo:,taet/ [no ne poln-
PRT PRT PRT PRT now there works but not full ‘He works there now, but not full-’
Bella’s question in line 1 is designed to strongly project a yes-answer – the best-case scenario for
somebody who is buying a house. Rima, however, does not simply confirm (or disconfirm)
Bella’s candidate understanding that the son has found a job. The situation is rather more
complex, making the terms of the question problematic. For instance, the question presupposes
that the son did not have a job before, which is not quite true. As Rima explains (lines 3–5), her
son is about to finish his medical degree and, as part of his education, already is in the job he will
have upon the completion of his degree. Rima’s complex response4 is nu-prefaced to flag a
problem with the answer – to indicate that it is not going to be a simple confirmation or
disconfirmation.
In Excerpt 13, nu prefaces a response that indirectly answers the question while resisting
the assumption that the question is in fact answerable. Greg (who is in the US) and Lev (in
Russia) are discussing upcoming Russian presidential elections.
4 In the response, Rima is able not only to explain what is happening with the complex job
situation but also to attempt to justify the timing of the house purchase.
27
Excerpt 13: Elections (RP2; 12:00)
1 GREG: Skol’ka kandidatav ta/ Chelovek shest’ sem’?/= how-many candidates PRT people six seven
‘How many candidates are there/ Six seven?’ 2 LEV: =O:j/ Da:/ Mno:ga/
oy yes many ‘Oy/ Yes/ A lot’
3 GREG: Mno¿ga/[=da/ many yes ‘A lot, huh’ 4 LEV: [(Mozhet) bol’she/=Da:/ maybe more yes 5 Gdeta trinacat’/ (ch[elovek)/ somewhere 13 people ‘Somewhere around thirteen’ 6 GREG: [Shto ty gavarish/ what you say ‘Really’ 7 LEV: Da/ mnoga/
yes many 8 GREG: Nu real’nyj adi?n/=da,/ PRT realistic one yes
‘NU only one is realistic right?’ 9 (1.0) 10 → LEV: Nu: eta tru:dna skaz[at’/
PRT that difficult to say ‘NU it’s difficult to say’
11 GREG: [Da,/=dazhe d-d-d- yes even ‘Really?’ 12 Eschë mesjac nazad byla: vrode- (0.2) shto only month ago was seemed that ‘Only a month ago it seemed that’
In line 8, Greg proposes that out of many candidates, there is only one ‘realistic’ (real’nyj)
candidate – a candidate who will certainly win. This proposal is in the form of a prosodic
interrogative followed by a tag question da (‘yes’ or ‘right’), a format that strongly prefers a yes-
28
type answer (e.g. Heritage 2012). Following a second-long silence (line 9), Lev responds with
Nu: eta tru:dna skazat’/ (‘NU it’s difficult to say’). This response implies that Greg is wrong in
suggesting that there is only one viable candidate. However, it does not directly confirm or
disconfirm Greg’s understanding of the situation. Rather, the response rejects the underlying
presupposition that one can adequately assess the situation. Nu, again, is used to flag the
upcoming answer as not conforming to the question’s action agenda.
Returning to Excerpt 1, in line 7, Alla responds to Dusya’s polar question (line 6) with a
nu-prefaced account of what the chiropractor did. By beginning to list medical procedures that
took place during the visit, Alla tacitly confirms that something was done by the chiropractor.
While this is a preferred response to Dusya’s question in that it agrees with the question’s tilt, it
does not fully embrace the question’s action agenda (Raymond 2003) in that it lacks an
agreement token (da ‘yes’). What might account for Alla’s resistant response? Dusya’s question
(line 6) suggests that there was a possibility that the chiropractor might not perform any medical
procedures during the visit (e.g. this might only be a preliminary appointment for discussing
future treatment options). Alla’s non-conforming answer treats the question as inapposite,
apparently for raising this possibility.
In Excerpt 14, the nu-prefaced response openly rejects the assumption that the inquiry
can be answered. Igor is planning his and his girlfriend Nadia’s trip out of town. This excerpt is
from a telephone conversation between Igor and his mother Rima. Prior to this segment, Igor
has been arguing with Nadia (who is in the room with him) about the arrangements.
Excerpt 14: Travel plans (RP15; 4:50)
01 RIM: .h Padazhdi tak ty u:dësh ra,n’she i pridësh dam↑o?j/ wait so you leave earlier and come home ‘Wait so you’ll leave ((work)) earlier and come home?’ 02 (1.0)
29
03 → IGO: Nu vot my eta resha:em/ PRT PRT we this decide ‘NU that’s what we are discussing’ 04 Ja [dumaju luchshe]vsevo priexat’ (0.3) I think better all come ‘I think it’s best to come’ 05 RIM: [A v principe] PRT in principle ‘In principle’ 06 IGO: [shtob Naden`ka zae,xala/= that NAME stop-by ‘that Nadia pick me up’ 07 RIM: [Ne:t Ig- no NAME 08 IGO: =i: my astavili v aerapartu mashinu,/ eta rabota aplachi`et/ and we left at airport car this work refund ‘and that we leave the car at the airport/ it’ll be reimbursed’
In line 1, Rima inquires about how Igor plans to travel to the airport, offering a candidate
understanding of their plans for confirmation. Rather than confirm or disconfirm this version of
the plans, Igor asserts that this is exactly what they are trying to decide. This response is a non-
answer in that it rejects the underlying assumption of the inquiry that plans have been decided on
(and can, therefore, be confirmed or disconfirmed). Nu alerts the recipient to the problematicity
of the response.
While a lot of the time nu prefaces responses that do not conform to the action agenda of
the question or do not answer the question at all (as in excerpts 10–14 discussed above), nu can
also preface responses that apparently conform to the question’s agenda. One common type of
nu-prefaced conforming response is nu da (nu + ‘yes’). I will show that responses of this sort
convey an incongruent epistemic stance vis-à-vis the question, indicating that the solicited
information is already known to the questioner (Heritage 2012, 2013a; Heritage and Clayman
2010). In other words, such responses confirm something the questioner already knows or should
30
know, rather than affirming or offering new information about the referenced state of affairs (cf.
Sorjonen 2001b).
In Excerpt 15, on Greg’s request (not shown), Vic is reporting on what his two
grandchildren (Dima and Malick) did during the school break (lines 1 and 4). During this report,
Vic mentions that Dima went out with his friends (t`varischami ‘comrades’).
Excerpt 15: Dima’s friends (RP1; 6:40)
1 VIC: [Dima tam s` svaimi xadil/ t`varischami/ NAME there with his went comrades ‘Dima hung out with his own/ comrades/’ 2 GREG: Ah hah/ 3 (.) 4 VIC: Malik s nami guljal/
NAME with us walked ‘Malick went out with us’ 5 GREG: N:u panjatna/=U Dimy tam druz”ja?/=da,/ PRT understood with NAME there friends yes ‘NU I see/ Dima has friends there right?’ 6 → VIC: Nu da:/ Pa klassu/
well yes in class ‘NU yes/ from school’
7 (0.4)
In line 5, in an attempt to expand on the topic, Greg launches an inquiry about whether Dima has
any friends. In line 6, Vic responds with nu da (nu + ‘yes’). This response conforms to the
question’s action agenda; yet the nu preface flags the answer as in some way resistant, apparently
due to the fact that the inquiry questions a just-mentioned (in line 1) piece of information that is
thereby known to both interlocutors, (i.e. Dima having friends).
To summarize, in responses to polar questions, nu alerts the recipient that the response is
in some way problematic, misfitted, or resistant – i.e. not the expected or appropriate next action.
31
Most commonly, nu-prefaced responses do not embrace the terms of the question or reject its
presuppositions. Nu may also preface responses that conform to the question’s action agenda
(e.g. nu da) but are epistemically incongruent.
5.2.2. Responses to content questions
Similarly to responses to polar questions, responses to content (or question-word) questions
(such as when, where, who, and how) can also be analyzed along several dimensions. Responses
may or may not conform to the action agenda of the question. In English, conforming,
straightforward responses provide the requested information in short and unexpanded form (Fox
and Thompson 2010). Schegloff and Lerner (2009) show that responses to content questions may
be designed in such a way as to alert the recipient to their non-straightforwardness: in English,
by prefacing the response with well. I will now show that, similarly to English well, nu-prefacing
characterizes the upcoming response as in some way problematic or not straightforward. Nu-
prefaced responses to content questions are either non-conforming (not responding on the
question’s terms) or epistemically incongruent (confirming previously established information).
Excerpt 16 (previously seen as Excerpt 5) illustrates nu-prefacing in a response that does
not conform to the action agenda of the question. The focus is on Katya’s nu-prefaced response
in line 5. Katya had just visited Dusya with her baby grandchild.
Excerpt 16: Got home [GM1; 0:20]
1 DUS: =Eta ja:/ this I ‘It’s me’ 2 KAT: Da:,/ yes 3 DUS: Nu kak vy doexali¿/ PRT how you rode ‘NU how was your ride home’
32
4 (.) 5 → KAT: N^u (.) nakapriznichali [nemnozhka. PRT we-whined a-litte ‘NU we ((=the baby)) whined a little bit’ 6 DUS: [N- n- Nda:,/ NU-yes 7 DUS: Nu vobschem vy uzhe doma?/ .hh PRT generally you already home ‘NU you’re already home then’ 8 KAT: Da[:,/
yes 9 DUS: [N^u atdyxajte uzhe/
PRT rest already ‘NU go rest now/ ((moving into closings))’
Dusya’s inquiry into Katya’s ride home is seeking an assessment of the trip (for example,
xarasho ‘well’ or tak sebe ‘so so’). Katya, however, responds in a way that implies that the ride
home was not smooth, but does so via a non-conforming answer: N^u (.) nakapriznichali
nemnozhka (‘we – meaning the baby – whined a little bit’; line 5). The nu preface alerts the
recipient that the response will not abide by the question’s action agenda, here specifically that it
will not provide a solicited assessment term.
In Excerpt 17, Rima asks her adult son Igor a favor: to come and take her dog out for a
walk “next Tuesday” (lines 3/5).
Excerpt 17: Next Tuesday (RP8; 0:55)
01 RIM: .hh Slu:shaj/=Igarëk?/ listen NAME
02 IGO: ºH[mº 03 RIM: [t! Esli pana:dabica vot va vto:,rnik/ v sleduschij/ .h
if will-need PRT on Tuesday on next ‘If it’s needed Tuesday, the next one’
04 IGO: ºT[a,kº/
PRT ‘yes’
33
05 RIM: [Esli pana:dabica vyguljat’ Dzhu:l’ku/
if will-need take-for-walk NAME ‘If it's needed to take Julie ((dog)) out for a walk’
06 Ty ne smo?zhesh vzjat' eta na sebja/=
you not can take that on yourself ‘Could you take it upon yourself?’
07 IGO: =Kako:j vtornik/
which Tuesday 08 → RIM: ↑Nu vot sleduschij↓/ vot predstaja:schij/
PRT PRT next PRT upcoming ‘NU the next one, the upcoming one’
09 (0.8)
The time reference “next Tuesday” is given in line 3 before the request is formulated and, in line
4, Igor acknowledges it. However, once the request is produced fully (line 6), Igor initiates repair
(Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977) on Rima’s turn with Kako:j vtornik (‘Which Tuesday’;
line 7). This repair initiation – unlike, for instance, a request for confirmation (‘next Tuesday?’)
– indicates that Igor has no knowledge about which Tuesday Rima is referring to. This is
especially problematic given that he had previously acknowledged the reference to “next
Tuesday” (line 4). Rima’s nu-prefaced response to this repair initiation is resistant, nu apparently
highlighting the fact that the information had already been given. Rima then goes on to
reformulate sleduschij ‘next’ (Tuesday) to predstaja:schij ‘upcoming’ (line 8), apparently in an
attempt to forestall a further misunderstanding of the time reference.
Overall, in responses to both polar and content questions, nu-prefacing indicates that the
upcoming response is, in some way, problematic given what has come before: that it is not the
sequentially appropriate or expected next. This includes responses that do not conform to or
problematize the action agenda of the question or its epistemic assumptions. In these cases, nu is
a marker of a disjunction between the initiating and responding actions.
34
5.3. Nu-‐prefacing in sequence-‐closing turns
Nu-prefacing is also common in sequence-closing environments: specifically, in ‘sequence-
closing thirds’ – turns designed to receipt a response and propose sequence closure (Schegloff
2007). When compared to unprefaced receipts (e.g. xarasho ‘good’), nu-prefaced receipts (e.g.
nu xarasho) appear to project more strongly a shift to a new course of action (cf. Jefferson 1984,
1993). This function of nu-prefacing seems to be connected to the exhortative or urging meaning
of the stand-alone nu in that such receipts urge the recipient to close the sequence and move on.
Excerpt 18 (previously seen as Excerpt 7) illustrates this differential use of un-prefaced
and nu-prefaced receipt tokens (lines 6 and 10).
Excerpt 18: New Car (RP 13)
1 MAR: =mashinu my:l, tam [( ) car washed there ‘to wash the car’
2 RIM: [Nu kak ana/
PRT how it ‘NU how is it?’
3 (.) 4 MAR: Nu kak ↑novaja/
PRT as new ‘NU like new’
5 (.) 6 → RIM: X(h)ar(h)ash(h)o/
good 7 MAR: (°mº) 8 RIM: .hhhh Nu ty davo?len/
PRT you glad ‘NU you are happy’
9 MAR: Da[:/
yes
10 → RIM: [Nu xarasho/<Maksjun’/ slushaj/ PRT good NAME listen ‘NU okay/<Mark listen’
35
11 .h Ty znaesh shto-eta:=ani tozhe ne pomnjat darogu/
you know what that they also not remember way ‘You know what they also don’t remember the way’
In line 6, Rima receipts Mark’s answer with a laughter-infused X(h)ar(h)ash(h)o (‘good’ or
‘okay’). While this token occurs in a sequence-closing environment, it does not strongly project a
shift to a new activity, conveying the possibility of sequence expansion (by either participant).
When Mark does not take this opportunity to produce further talk (line 7), Rima expands on the
topic with a follow-up question5 (line 8). As soon as Mark begins to respond (in line 9) and in
overlap with his answer, Rima produces another third-position receipt, now prefacing it with nu:
Nu xarasho (line 10). Note that immediately upon completion of this turn constructional unit,
Rima rushes to launch a new activity (the reduced transition space is marked with < on the
transcript), introducing her reason for calling (Schegloff 1986). Examples like this provide
evidence for the shift-implicative function of nu-prefaced receipts.
Nu-prefaced receipts may also project a shift into conversation closings (Bolden 2008a,
forthcoming; Schegloff and Sacks 1973). Just prior to Excerpt 19, we learn that Rima has called
to talk to her son, who is currently unavailable. Our focus is on Nu xarasho in line 6.
Excerpt 19: Call from university (NB4-‐10)
1 RIM: .hh Nu xarasho/=Ja pros`a xatela sprasit,=emu ne pazvani¿li PRT good I simply wanted ask him not called
‘NU okay/ I just wanted to ask did they call him’ 2 ish:o: i:z evo universiteta ta/<ja zabyla [sp-
yet from his university PRT I forgot a(sk) ‘yet from his university/ I forgot to a-’
5 The nu-prefacing on this inquiry (line 8) functions similarly to what was discussed in section
5.1 – the nu-preface disengages the question from its prior context, constituting its on-agenda
character.
36
3 NAT: [Ne:t/
no 4 RIM: .h [Ah hah/ 5 NAT: [Ne pazva[nili/
no called ‘They didn't’ 6 →RIM: [Nu xarasho/
PRT good ‘NU okay’ 7 RIM: .hh Nu la::dna/
PRT okay ‘NU okay’
8 NAT: Hm mm:,/ 9 RIM: Nu spi:t[e/=ne budu
PRT sleep not will ‘NU go to bed/ I won't’
10 NAT: [Spakojnoj no:chi/
good night
In lines 1–2, Rima introduces the reason for her call – to inquire about a phone call her son was
supposed to receive from the university. This characterizes Rima’s call as mono-topical, setting
up a subsequent move into conversation closings (Bolden 2008a, forthcoming; Schegloff and
Sacks 1973). When Natasha, the son’s girlfriend, answers the question, Rima accepts the answer
with nu xarasho (‘okay’; line 6) and immediately moves to initiate the conversation’s closure (in
line 7, with Nu la::dna, another form of ‘okay’). This supports the analysis that nu-prefaced
sequence-closing thirds are designed to curtail sequence expansion and to project a shift to a new
activity – in this case, a shift into the activity of conversation closing. Note also that nu-prefacing
is extensively used in the conversation-closing sequence itself (lines 7 and 9), a matter that
deserves further investigation (see Bolden forthcoming).
The last two examples thus indicate that nu is commonly used as a preface to sequence-
closing thirds, apparently to project a shift into a new activity, such as a shift to the ‘reason for
37
the call’ topic (as in Excerpt 18) or a shift into conversation closings (in Excerpt 19). It should be
pointed out, however, that this differential use of nu-prefaced and unprefaced sequence-closing
thirds is a tendency rather than a rule. Interlocutors have a variety of resources to negotiate
activity transitions, and may move in and out of the transitions. There might also be an individual
variation in the use of nu in this context (similarly to what Jefferson 1984, 1993 observed for mm
hm – yeah uses in this environment). It is possible that some speakers differentiate between nu-
prefaced and unprefaced receipts for projecting activity shifts while others do not.
6. Concluding remarks
The discourse marker nu is omnipresent in Russian conversation, and this chapter described only
some of its many usages. For instance, I have shown that nu-preface can be used in all positions
in adjacency pair sequences. However, nu-preface can also be found in other environments, such
as courses of action that are not organized via adjacency pair sequences, including storytelling
(Mandelbaum 2013) and various forms of topic talk (Schegloff 2007). Furthermore, the use of nu
is sometimes better described not by reference to sequence organization, as is done here, but by
reference to other forms of conversational organization. For example, nu is commonly used in
self-initiated self-repair (including word searches), which suggests that it plays a part in repair
organization as well (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Finally, nu is often combined with
other discourse markers (especially the untranslatable marker vot, as in nu vot) and is part of a
number of idiomatic expressions. These and other uses of nu await further investigation.
The extremely wide deployment of nu in Russian conversation, both in terms of
frequency and range of contexts, raises questions about the status of this discourse marker as an
interactional resource. In their discussion of the English omnipresent discourse marker well,
Schegloff and Lerner (2009) point out: “One general form of practice that one finds in various
38
incarnations in conversation and other forms of talk-in-interaction takes the following form: give
an alert of a general or formal sort and leave it to other(s)/recipient(s) to figure it out in situ”
(100). In Russian, nu is apparently this sort of ‘general’ or ‘formal’ resource. Especially in its use
as a preface, nu alerts other interlocutors to a problem or a disjunction of some sort, indicating
that what is coming up is not the appropriate, unproblematic, expected next – and the recipient
then has to figure out what it is that is inappropriate, problematic, or unexpected about it. In other
words, as a precursor of a disjunction, Russian nu is a rather “blunt instrument” (Heritage 2013b:
333). This chapter has outlined a range of issues that can be problematic regarding the next
action: The new course of initiated action might be a departure from what has been done up to
that point. Alternatively, the response might be out of line with the presuppositions or action
agenda of the question. What exactly Russian nu is deployed to accomplish has to be determined
on each occasion of use, using the resources of possibly several conversational organizations.
39
References
Bolden, Galina B. 2006. Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing
of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication 56(4): 661–688.
Bolden, Galina B. 2008a. Reopening Russian conversations: The discourse particle -to and the
negotiation of interpersonal accountability in closings. Human Communication Research 34: 99–
136.
Bolden, Galina B. 2008b. “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker “so” to launch
conversational business. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41(3): 302–327.
Bolden, Galina B. 2009a. Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation.
Communication Monographs 76(2): 121–143.
Bolden, Galina B. 2009b. Implementing delayed actions. In: Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation
Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, 326–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolden, Galina B. 2009c. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5): 974–998.
Bolden, Galina B. 2010. ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk.
Discourse Studies 12(1): 5–32.
Bolden, Galina B. forthcoming. Opening up closings in Russian. In: Geoffrey Raymond, Gene
Lerner and John Heritage (eds.), Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-In-
Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dal’, Vladimir Ivanovich 1880–1882. Тolkovyj slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka
[Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Online: http://vidahl.agava.ru/.
40
Efremova, Tatyana F. 2000. Novyj slovar’ russkogo yazyka [New dictionary of the Russian
language]. Online: http://www.efremova.info/.
Ford, Cecilia E. 2001. An the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next.
In: Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 51–
79. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fox, Barbara A. and Sandra A. Thompson 2010. Responses to wh-questions in English
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 133–156.
Grenoble, Lenore A. 2004. Parentheticals in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11): 1953–1974.
Hepburn, Alexa and Galina B. Bolden 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription.
In: Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 57–76.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Heritage, John 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: J.
Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, 299–345. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3): 291–334.
Heritage, John 2002a. The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question
content. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1427–1446.
Heritage, John 2002b. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying
agreement/disagreement. In: Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.),
The Language of Turn and Sequence, 196–224. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41
Heritage, John 2003. Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In: Phillip
J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron and Jenny S. Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in Language and Social
Interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heritage, John 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29.
Heritage, John 2013a. Epistemics in conversation. In: Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.),
Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 370–394. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, John 2013b. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57:
331–337.
Heritage, John and Steven Clayman 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and
Institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jefferson, Gail 1984. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’
and ‘Mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics 17: 197–216.
Jefferson, Gail 1993. Caveat speaker: preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 1–30.
Keevallik, Leelo 2013. Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No (h)-
prefaced initiations in Estonian. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 274–289.
Koshik, Irene 2002. A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed
polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12): 1851–1877.
Kuosmanen, Anne 1999. On the relationship between the melodic structure and discourse
functions of the particles nu and vot in spontaneous Russian. ETRW on Dialogue and Prosody.
Veldhoven, The Netherlands: ISCA Archive.
42
Kuosmanen, Anne and Teija Multisilta 1999. Nu and vot in spoken Russian: On discourse
functions and prosodic features. Scando-Slavica 45(1): 49–64.
Mandelbaum, Jenny S. 2013. Storytelling in conversation. In: Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers
(eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 492–507. Oxford: Blackwell.
Maschler, Yael 2003. The discourse marker nu: Israeli Hebrew impatience in interaction. Text
23(1): 89–128.
Maschler, Yael 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers.
Amsterdam/Philidelphia: John Benjamins.
Mazeland, Harrie 2007. Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1816–1869.
Mazeland, Harrie and Mike Huiskes 2001. Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a
resumption marker. In: Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in
Interactional Linguistics, 141–169. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Multisilta, Teija 1995. Pragmatic particles nu and vot in spoken Russian. In: Brita Wårvik,
Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen and Risto Hiltunen (eds.), Organization of Discourse: Proceedings from
the Turku Conference, 381–392. Turku: University of Turku.
Nevile, Maurice 2006. Making sequentiality salient: And-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots.
Discourse Studies 8(2): 279–302.
Ozhegov, Sergej Ivanovich 1949. Тolkovyj slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of
the Russian language]. Online: http://www.ozhegov.org/.
Park, Innhwa 2010. Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device.
Journal of Pragmatics 42(15): 3283–3299.
43
Paukkeri, Pirkko 2006. Recipient v russkom razgovore: O raspredelenii funkcij mezhdu otvetami
da, nu i tak [Recipient in Russian conversation: Division of tasks between the response words da,
nu and tak]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Raymond, Geoffrey 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/No type interrogatives and the
structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.
Raymond, Geoffrey 2004. Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 185–218.
Raymond, Geoffrey 2010. Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no type
initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In: Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds.), Why
Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, 69–107. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sacks, Harvey 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in
conversation. In: Graham Button and John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization, 54–
69. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson 1974. A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’
and other things that come between sentences. In: Deborah Tannen, (ed.), Analyzing Discourse:
Text and Talk, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9(2–3): 111–151.
44
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a
partial sketch of a systematics. In: Barbara A. Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, 437–485.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks 1977. The preference for self-
correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Gene H. Lerner 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses
to wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4): 289–327.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherstinova, Tatiana 2010. Quantitative data processing in the ORD speech corpus of Russian
everyday communication. In: Peter Grzybek, Emmerich Kelih and Ján Mačutek, (eds.), Text and
Language: Structures, Functions, Interrelations, Quantitative Perspectives, 195–205. Vienna:
Praesens.
Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers (eds.) 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena 2001a. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in
Finnish. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena 2001b. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In:
Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 405–
431. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
45
Stivers, Tanya and N. J. Enfield 2010. A coding scheme for question-response sequences in
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2620–2626.
Vasilyeva, Anna N. 1972. Particles in Colloquial Russian. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Zemskaia, Elena Andreevna 1979. Russkaja razgovornaja rech’: lingvisticheskij analiz i
problemy obuchenija [Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and instructional issues].
Moskva: Nauka.
Zemskaia, Elena Andreevna and L. A. Kapanadze 1978. Russkaja razgovornaja rech’:
Teksty.[Russian colloquial speech: texts]. Moskva: Nauka.
Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo yazyka [National Corpus of Russian Language] 2003–2012.
Moscow, Russia.
Related Documents
