The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle NOU

Full text

Harrie Mazeland
The positionally sensitive workings
of the Dutch particle nou
1 Introduction
The Dutch particle nou ‘now’ (in the following referred to as NOU) is used both as
a turn-initial discourse particle and as a word within a clausal turn-constructional
unit (TCU). Extract 1 below documents both types of use. In line 03 (nou en mooie
sandal’n ‘NOU and nice sandals’) and again in line 07 (NOU ze zsit nou aan de
maat vij:ftig ‘well she takes size fifty now’), NOU is used as a turn-initial operator.
The second NOU in line 07, produced in the middle field of the clause ze zit NOU
aan de maat vijftig ‘she almost takes size fifty now’, illustrates its use as a time
adverbial:
Extract 1: Phone call; Hetty is telling her sister Ella about the clothing she has
bought for their handicapped sister.
01 Hetty:
>EN ik had ‘r nog ‘n b
lAu
w vest:.< ‘n (lange
↑rE
:h?)
‘and I bought her also a blue cardigan. a (longer one)’
0.4
02 Ella:
(ºo::h jah.º)
‘oh yes.’
(...) ((6 turns left out))
03 Hetty:→ nou
[
en
mo
oie sand
a
l’n,
]
NOU ‘and nice sandals’
04 Ella: [
(was ze dan nog
]
niet gegr
oe
id?)
(was she then PRT not grown)
‘(didn’t she) gain weight then?’
0.3
05 Hetty:
HÈ?
huh?
(.)
Acknowledgments: I am grateful to Trevor Benjamin, Ad Foolen and the editors of this volume for
their comments on an earlier draft. I thank Trevor Benjamin also for checking my English.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33
In: Peter Auer, Yael Maschler (eds.) 2016.
NU/NÅ. A family of discourse markers across the language of
Europe and beyond. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 377- 408

378 Harrie Mazeland
06 Ella:
(p
a
st die) dan wel we
[
er (goed?)
]
(do-fit those) then PRT again well?
‘do they fit her well again then?’
07 Hetty:→ [
NOUh ze zs
]i
t nou aan de maat
vij
:ftig.
NOU she sits NOU near the size fifty
‘well she almost takes size fifty now’
0.7
08 Ella:
szo:!
‘wow!’
After a brief discussion of the use of NOU as a temporal adverb and as a modal
particle, I will focus on its use as a discourse marker. Extract 1 already shows the
two main types I will deal with:
(i) divergent NOU: NOU prefacing a second pair part turn in an adjacency pair
such as a question/answer sequence (the first NOU in line 07);
(ii) next-step NOU: NOU prefacing a turn or TCU in which the speaker makes a
next step in a larger course of action (line 03: the speaker is producing the
next item in a list of things she has bought).
I also discuss three other types of use of the discourse particle: NOU as a repair
preface, NOU as a constituent of the particle cluster nou ja, and stand-alone NOU.
I conclude with a few remarks about the importance of organizational position for
determining the interactional meaning of NOU as a discourse marker.
2 Data
The analysis is based on a case-by-case analysis of about 300 cases of the use
of NOU, mostly from informal conversations (both phone calls and face-to-face
data). More systematic data searches would easily yield a much bigger collection.
In order to get a rough impression of its frequency, I counted the use of NOU as a
turn- or TCU-initial operator in the transcription of the first half hour of a three-
person conversation. I found forty occurrences of the use of NOU as a discourse
marker in this period, and eight cases in which NOU is used within a clausal unit
2The sampling of the base collection was done during data runs for other phenomena in tran-
scripts of informal conversation data (in total approximately nine hours). The sampling criteria
were rather intuitive, and the sampling strategy was by no means systematic, let alone exhaus-
tive.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 379
(either as a temporal adverb or as a modal particle). This already indicates that
NOU may be used very frequently in certain types of talk.
Before moving on to an analysis of the discourse uses of NOU (Section 5),
I will first describe the lexeme’s origins and the division of labor it has with
the adverb form nu ‘now’ (Section 3), and then briefly touch upon its use as a
temporal adverb and as a modal particle (Section 4).
3 The origins of NOU
Dutch lexicons have traditionally treated the particle nou /nu/ as a variant form
of the particle nu /ny/ ‘now, at this moment’, and also ‘since’. It is only since the
1960s that the most prominent Dutch lexicon (Van Dale 1961) has dedicated a
separate entry to nou (Van As 1992: 1). Etymologically, these two forms are said to
go back to the same Old Dutch form nu ‘now, at this moment’, which is assumed
to go back to proto-German *nu, and proto-Indo-European *nu, *nū (EWN, entry
nu, nou). 
Nou /nu/ was originally a regional form from the province of Brabant south
of Holland (14th/15th century; Van der Sijs 2004: 195). It has now become the
unmarked form in talk, whereas nu /ny/ is still the unmarked form in the written
registers. The forms have different uses in Netherlands Dutch (excluding Flemish
Dutch):
– nu is primarily used as a time adverbial meaning ‘at this moment’, and
sometimes as a conjunction expressing a causal relationship that is similar
to English ‘since’ (not attested in my data)
– nou is used in most other environments; its temporal meaning has bleached
in its use as a discourse particle (cf. EWN, entry on nu, nou; see also Van As
1992).
3The following examples illustrate a few occurrences from written sources as listed in the Ety-
mological Dictionary of Dutch (EWN, Philippa etal. 2009; English translation mine):
– Ende nu kununga fornemt ‘and now, you-kings, listen’ (Old Dutch, 10th century, Wachtendonck-
se Psalmen);
– Mer nuo it [ug] allen is so lief ‘but since it you all pleases so much’ (Middle Dutch, early 13th
century, M.Gysseling (1977–1987) Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten).
4Interestingly, yet another very common Dutch particle is assumed to have the same root, the
adverb nog ‘until this moment’. According to the EWN its Old Dutch predecessor noch developed
from proto-German *nuh, which in turn is assumed to have originated from the combination of
*nu and the reinforcing particle *-(u)h ‘and, also’ (cf. EWN, entry nog; Ad Foolen, personal com-
munication).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

380 Harrie Mazeland
4 Syntactically integrated uses of NOU/NU
Both NOU and NU occur as a syntactically integrated part of clausal turn-con-
structional units (TCUs). Both NOU and NU function as deictic temporal adverbs
(‘now’), but NOU is also used as a modal particle indicating how the speaker’s
action is responsive to the preceding interaction (cf. Foolen 1993; Fischer 2007;
and Diewald 2013).
The examples in Table 1 illustrate both types of use. The sentence position of
the particle is classified according to the topological sentence schema that is used
in the Dutch reference grammar ANS (cf. Haeseryn etal. 1997). It defines sentence
positions – front, middle and end field – relative to the position of the finite verb.
The left brace separates front and middle field; it is defined by the position of
the finite verb in main clauses with declarative word order (verb-second). The
right brace separates middle and end field; it is defined by the position of the
non-finite parts of the verb phrase in independent clauses and the position of the
finite verb in subordinate clauses, respectively.
Table 1: Examples of syntactically integrated uses of NU and NOU.
FRONT
FIELD
LEFT
BRACE
MIDDLE FIELD RIGHT
BRACE
END
FIELD
temporal adverb

nou
NOU
heb
have
ik ‘t w
Ee
r nie
I it again not
ge
zie
n.
seen

nu
NU
wordt
gets
alles lekker l
e
e:g.
everything pretty empty.

‘t
it
is
is
nou mooi weer om te sch
il
der’n.
NOU nice weather for painting.

die
they
komen
come
nu
allemaal:.
NU all.
modal particle

hou
stop
daar nou mee op
.
there NOU with V-prefix

wat
what
heb
have
je d
aa
r nou
you there NOU
li
ggen?
lying?

wat
what
zei’
said
je
↑no
u:?
you NOU?
Interpretative translation:
1. Now I didn’t see it once again.
2. Everything is getting pretty empty now.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 381
3. It is nice weather for painting now.
4. They’re all coming now.
5. Stop it, will you?
6. What is this then?
7. What did you say again?
In its use as a modal particle, NU/NOU may only occur in the middle field, while
in its use as a deictic temporal adverb both words may occur in the front field
(rows 1–2) and in the middle field (rows 3–4). The adverb then refers either to the
‘present’ situation (speaking time included) or to ‘discourse’ time (cf. Schiffrin
1990, 1992; Imo 2010; Hilmisdóttir 2010). Extract 2 below documents an example
of NOU indexing discourse time (that is, the current discourse situation):
Extract 2: Ladies tea. The talk is about the use of an herbicide in the garden.
01 Els:
ik merk wel dat de plekken waar ik ‘t gebruikt heb, (0.4)
‘I discovered though that in the places where I’ve used it,’
02 ’
t volgende jaar: sommige planten (0.8) °*e::h*°
‘the year after some plants come up u::h’
03
beetje aangetast w
[
eer
o
pkomen.
]
‘again a bit affected’
04 Mina: [
ja toch wel?
]
‘yes they do indeed?’
05 Els: →
m
A
a:r: (0.7) nou moet ik zeggen
‘but NOW I have to say’
06
dat ik ‘t veel gecon(centreerder-) (0.4)
‘that I use it in a much higher concentr-’
07
geconcentreerder gebruik dan op de verp
a
kking staat.
‘concentration than the instructions say.’
NOU in line 05 refers to the point the speaker has arrived at with the complaint she
has just made (lines 01–03), and for which she will ‘now’ take some responsibility
herself. The interactional
progression
of the talk is the timeline to which NOU refers.
NOU used as a modal particle occurs only in the middle field. In my data, it
is most often used to intensify the action meaning of directives (row 5 in Table 1),
questions and requests (rows 6–7; cf. Foolen 1993; Vismans 1994; Van der Wouden
1998; Mazeland 2012). The temporal meaning has faded (cf. Hopper and Traugott
1993). Note, for example, that NOU as a modal particle does not conflict with the
past tense of the verb in the repair initiation wat zei je nou:? ‘what did you say
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

382 Harrie Mazeland
again?’ (row 7). However, a trace of its original core meaning is still palpable (cf.
Fischer 2006). The particle signals that the speaker’s action (reproach, request,
impatient repair initiation, etc.) is motivated or contextually warranted by the
situation that the action is responsive to (cf. Schiffrin 1987: 254–261; Fischer 2007;
Mazeland 2012).
5 Some prominent uses of NOU as a discourse marker
When used as a discourse marker, NOU prospectively indexes some aspect of how
the current turn or TCU relates to the preceding interaction. NOU as a discourse
marker is usually turn- or TCU-initial (compare lines 03 and 07 in Extract 1) and
is not integrated into the syntactic structure of the unit in which the speaker
organizes the next part of the TCU. In an early study, Pander Maat, Driessen, and
Van Mierlo (1986) investigated the use of NOU as a discourse marker. The main
types of use they discern are:
1. divergent NOU: warning the interlocutor that the upcoming action may con-
tradict the interlocutor’s expectations or preferences;
2. conclusive NOU – the type I will call ‘next-step NOU’: projecting continuation
with a next step in the ongoing course of action.
According to Pander Maat, Driessen, and van Mierlo (1986), divergent NOU
usually has a rising pitch contour, sometimes with vowel lengthening whose
duration may correspond with the degree of dispreferredness of the upcoming
action; next-step NOU usually has a falling pitch contour and its duration is short.
5.1 Type 1: Divergent NOU
The canonical case for Pander Maat, Driessen, and van Mierlo’s divergent NOU
is NOU prefacing a dispreferred second pair part (SPP) of an adjacency pair
sequence of actions. The first pair part (FPP) action promotes a choice between
a preferred and a dispreferred SPP action – like granting or declining a request,
and agreeing or disagreeing with an assessment. Dispreferred SPP actions are
frequently delayed, mitigated and evasively phrased, and they are often also
accounted for (cf. Pomerantz 1984; Schegloff 2007: 58–96).
NOU is the prototypical turn-initial particle Dutch speakers use as a practice
for anticipatorily marking – and delaying – dispreferred SPPs. This can be seen
in Extract 3, taken from a phone call to a travel agency. The caller plans to visit
the travel office in the evening hours. After the agent tells her that the shop is not
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 383
open then, she tries to solve the problem by inquiring whether the caller is able
to come on Saturday. The caller rejects this solution in a response that is prefaced
with NOU (line 17):
Extract 3: Phone call to travel agency
14 Desk:
>•h ‘k weenie
o
f je in de< gelegenheid bent
‘I don’t know whether you have the opportunity’
15
om (de)
za
terdag langs te kom↑eh?
‘to come by on Saturday?’
16 (1.1)
17 Mrs C:→
(m/)n:: nou
ne
e:h. °eh
[h
eh!°
‘NOU no. ((laughs))’
18 Desk: [
dat
l
ukt ook n
[
iet.
‘that isn’t possible either.’
19 Mrs C: [
mijn man
‘my husband’
20
die werkt in de
wi
nkel:. dus ja je kent de
tij
deh?
‘he works in his shop. so yes, you know the working hours?’
21 1.0
22
je
k
an daar nie
we
g.
‘you can’t leave there.’
23 0.5
24 Desk:
j:
a
h.
‘yes.’
The customer’s rejection of the agent’s suggestion is a dispreferred SPP action.
It is prefaced with NOU (line 17). At its position in the beginning trajectory of the
SPP turn, the particle signals that there is a problem with the upcoming action.
This is further indicated by cues such as the 1.1-second delay of the response turn,
and the deliberation display (m/)n:: preceding NOU.
The use of NOU in this environment is very similar to the use of English
well as a preface to dispreferred seconds (cf. Pomerantz 1984; Mazeland 2004:
109ff). However, it is too easy to say that Dutch NOU is a dispreference marker.
The particle also prefaces responses that do not fit into the preferred/dispreferred
dichotomy (Extract 4 below), or that are less clearly organized in terms of a choice
between a preferred and dispreferred alternative (Extract 5).
The interaction in Extract 4 immediately precedes the sequence in Extract3.
Although the travel agent at first confirms Mrs C’s question about whether the
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

384 Harrie Mazeland
booking of her holiday can be held, her response is nevertheless prefaced by NOU
(line 08):
Extract 4: Phone call travel agency (interaction immediately preceding Extract 3)
01 Mrs C:
eh j:
a
h. maar ik
↑
had
e
igenlijk ‘n: vr
a
a:gjeh?=
‘uh yes. but I had a small question actually’
02 Desk:
=j:
a
:h?
‘yes?’
(.)
03 Mrs C: al
s ‘t nog vrij is,
‘if it ((the trip)) is still free,’
0.3
04 Desk:
j:
a
h.
‘yes.’
05 Mrs C:
wilde ik e:h als ‘t
kan
morgenavond- (.) komen bespreken.
‘I wanted uh if possible to make the booking tomorrow
evening.’
06
kan je het v
a
sthouden dan.
‘can you hold it then.’
07 Desk: →
•h nou ik kan ‘t inderdaad vasth
o
u:deh, (0.4)
‘NOU I can hold it indeed,’
08
en dan heb ik e:h sowieso v
i
er da:gen om ’t vast te houden.
‘and then I have u:h four days to hold it anyhow.’
09
alleen wij zijn helaas niet ‘s
a
vonds open.
‘only we are not open in the evening hours unfortunately.’
0.8
10 Mrs C:
o:h.
The caller’s question in line 06 not only initiates a question/answer-sequence,
it also implements a request (cf. Schegloff 2007: 73–78). The travel agent first
answers the caller’s question. She is able to hold the booking (line 07) and she
5Note that the confirmatory answer in line 07 of Extract 4 is not shaped as a type-conforming
yes/no answer. Instead of answering Mrs C’s yes/no question with a straight yes or no, the agent
makes an assertion about the feasibility of the requested action (‘I can hold it indeed’, line 07).
Nonconforming answers display the speaker’s difficulty to answer a polar question with a simple
yes or no (cf. Raymond 2003; Stivers and Hayashi 2010).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 385
can do so for four days (line 08). Eventually, in the third turn-constructional unit
of the response turn, she points out there is a problem with the request (line 09).
This order enables the agent to inform the caller that there is a problem with her
plan to visit the shop in the evening hours without casting this as a rejection
of the request to hold the booking. NOU anticipates a complicated, compound
answer; it does not mark a dispreferred second pair part action.
NOU is also used as a preface to SPP turns whose design is not primarily
governed by participant orientations to preference organization. Not all types of
adjacency-pair sequences are ‘bipolar’ – that is, launched by a first pair part that
divides the response space into a preferred and dispreferred alternative such as
agreeing and disagreeing or granting and declining (Schegloff and Lerner 2009:
112–113). Other types of adjacency pairs structure the relevancies of the response
space differently. Compare the sequence that is initiated with a wh-question in
Extract 5 below (line 05). It is doing simple questioning and is not enforcing a
choice between a preferred and dispreferred alternative. The answer to this ques-
tion is NOU-prefaced (lines 06–07):
Extract 5: Phone call, soccer coach
01 Henk:
dag Wi
m
. •hH hee
Wi
m e::h- (.)
‘hi Wim hey Wim u:h’
02
kun’we morgen
i
ets
ee
r
↑
der?
can we tomorrow a bit earlier
‘is it possible to meet a bit earlier tomorrow?’
0.6
03 Henk:
ik heb
E
rw
i
n al geb
e
:ld, en da’s geen probl
e
em.=
I have called Erwin already, and that’s no problem.
‘I’ve called Erwin already, and this is not a problem.’
04
=dus ik hoop dat jij ook iets eerder
↑
k
a
n?
so I hope that you too a bit earlier can?
‘so I hope that you as well are able to come a bit earlier?’
05 Wim:
oh:. (°
↓
dan
[
:-
↓
°) (.)
]
ja hoe
lA
a:t
↑
da
[
n,
oh. (then) yes how late then,
‘oh (then) (.) yes what time then,’
06 Henk: →
[
•hH-
]
[
nou hij e:h- °om-°
NOU he u:h- at-
‘well he u:h- at-’
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

386 Harrie Mazeland
07 Henk: t
egen h
Al
f v
i
er=e::h >zijn we
[
d’r.<
toward half four=u:h are we there.
‘around half past three u:h we’ll be there.’
08 Wim: [
(da’s) go
e
d °jo(h.°)
‘that’s all right man.’
Soccer coach Henk has called Wim – who is on the board of the club – in order
to change a contract negotiation appointment with a player from Henk’s team.
Before Wim responds to Henk’s request to meet earlier (line 04), he initiates
an insertion sequence in which he inquires ‘how late’ this would be (line 05).
The answer to this question causes some difficulty (lines 06–07), and by begin-
ning his answer with NOU, the speaker seems to anticipate this. He abandons
two different set-ups (he u:h- at-), and after having produced a phrasal answer
(‘around half past three’), he changes to a clausal format (‘around half past three
u:h we’ll be there’). The result is an answer in which the terms of the question
are modified (cf. Stivers and Hayashi 2010): Instead of simply telling Wim what
time he should be there, Henk says what time he himself and the player from his
team (‘we’, line 07) will arrive. Perhaps he is trying to attribute the responsibility
for the change of their appointment to the player from his team, but whatever the
case may be, his tentative search for a suitable answer is clearly not guided by
an orientation to preference organization. A choice between a preferred and dis-
preferred SPP action is not at issue.
Thus, the types of SPP turns that Dutch speakers preface with NOU varies.
The discourse marker is not only used as a preface to a dispreferred SPP action.
Schegloff and Lerner (2009) make a similar observation for the use of well as a
preface to responses to wh-questions in English, and they characterize its general
function as a practice with which the speaker “alerts” the questioner that “the
response will be in some respect not straightforward” (Schegloff and Lerner 2009:
101). The general function of NOU-prefacing in SPP turns in Dutch can be sim-
ilarly described. The practice functions as a warning that the speaker is not going
to respond in a straightforward way, independent of whether NOU is prefacing a
dispreferred SPP (as in Extract 3), or because the speaker is anticipating another
type of problem (as in Extracts 4 and 5).
Schegloff and Lerner consider well-prefacing in responses to wh-questions
as an organization-specific type of alert. They exemplify the general character of
the practice by mentioning other types of alerts: cut-offs and open-class repair
6Fox and Thompson 2010 describe how a clausal answer to a wh-question that also could have
been answered with a phrasal answer may signal a problem with answering straightforwardly.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 387
initiations in the organization of repair (cf. Schegloff 1979; Drew 1997), and oh-
prefacing in responses to inquiries for the negotiation of epistemic status in ques-
tion/answer sequences (cf. Heritage 1998). Alerts have a general formal character.
Their shape and their positioning are organization-specific, they are non-
descriptive, and they leave it to the “recipient(s) to figure (...) out in situ” what
the speaker is warning of at that particular position in the interaction (Schegloff
and Lerner 2009: 100–101).
NOU functions as an alert when it is prefacing an SPP turn. In this environ-
ment of use, the particle is non-descriptively warning the recipient that there
may be a problem with how the speaker is going to continue the SPP turn and
the recipient must figure out what the problem is in the course of the turn’s
unfolding. In the organization of adjacency-pair action sequences, NOU-pre-
facing of SPP responses projects that the speaker may depart from a straightfor-
ward unproblematic formulation of the response.
5.2 Type 2: Next-step NOU
Next-step NOU does not preface second pair part actions. It works as a kind of
transition marker which signals that the speaker is going to initiate a next stage
(cf. Robinson and Stivers 2001; Keevallik 2010; Engbersen and Mazeland 2010).
Compare Extract 6, which is from the same phone call as Extract 5. Soccer coach
Henk is giving a detailed report about an evaluation meeting with the players of
his team the day before. The report is structured as a list of topics. In lines 01–02,
Henk closes the current topic, the demotion of two young players to a lower
team. He then announces the next item of his report by nominating it (‘u:::h the
training’). This announcement is prefaced with NOU (line 03):
Extract 6: Phone call, soccer coach
01 Henk:
maar dat-
da
t zit ‘r misskien nog niet in:.
but that- that sits there perhaps yet not in
‘but that’s perhaps not yet possible.’
02
daar zijn ze w:at:-, (°misschien°) te
jo
ng voor:.
there are they what- (perhaps) too young for.
‘they are a bit- (perhaps) too young for that.’
03 →
•hHHh nou: e:::h de::h- de tr
Ai
ning. ‘n
pA
a:r keer.
NOU u:::h the the training. a couple times
‘NOU uh the- the training. a couple of times,’
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

388 Harrie Mazeland
04
d- d
at
was wat s:l
A
p. en en e:h en
fe
it dat e::h
th- that was a-bit soft. and and u:h and fact that uh
‘th- it was a bit tame. and and uh and the fact that someone m-’
05
iemand m- de
ha
nd >bov’n ‘t hoofd gehoud’n< werd.
somebody m- the hand above the head kept was
‘was turned a blind eye to’
06
d
at
werd dan Manfred vaak (.)
t
och wel mee bed
oe
:ld,
that was then Manfred often yet indeed with meant
‘that was referring to Manfred indeed’
07 →
•hH nou dat e:h is
t
och redelijk goed uitgesprok’n
NOU that uh is yet rather well out-spoken
‘NOU this has been talked-through reasonably well.’
NOU not only marks the transition to the next report item – the speaker ‘now’ has
arrived at the next item on his agenda – but together with the mentioning of the
next topic it also displays the speaker’s move as warranted by the agenda of his
ongoing project.
The second NOU in this extract, in line 07, documents another instance of the
use of NOU at the beginning of a next step. This time it is not marking a transition
to the next report item, but a move within the discussion of the current item. After
having reported two complaints about the training (lines 04–06), Henk begins to
assess how this has been handled in the evaluation meeting (line 07). In this case,
NOU marks the speaker’s progression in an ordered succession of actions (from
reporting to evaluating).
Next-step NOU strongly resembles the use of English now as a discourse
marker as described by Schriffin in her study of discourse markers (1987: 230–
246): “... now marks the speaker’s orderly progression in discourse time through
a sequence of subparts” (237). The scope and the nature of the subparts vary
depending on the level of organization NOU is operating on. The recipient
must determine which order is invoked and/or reflexively (re-)created on the
basis of where the particle is used, and what kind of progression is conveyed in
the unfolding TCU. In the instances we have seen in Extract 6, the speaker first
invokes the ordering of topics in the ongoing report, and then the ordering of
actions within the discussion of a separate report item (from informing to assess-
ing).
The organizational format in which the participants coordinate the progres-
sion of the ongoing activity also varies. In Extract 6, we have seen a case in which
the primary speaker develops a part of a larger project in a multi-unit turn (cf.
Houtkoop and Mazeland 1985). But above the level of TCU and (multi-unit) turn,
progression is sequentially organized. Extract 7, for example, documents a case
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 389
in which NOU-prefacing marks the speaker’s progression from a pre-sequence
(lines 01–02) to the base sequence that was anticipated in the pre-sequence
(line03):
Extract 7: Phone call, soccer coach; Wim is a member of the board of the club.
01 Henk:
•H HEeft Theo je nog geb
e
l
↑
:d?
has Theo you PRT called
‘has Theo maybe called you?’
0.5
02 Wim:
n
E
e
↑
:
↓
h.
no.
03 Henk: →
•hH nou die heeft Jan e:h- die heeft gisterenavond
NOU that-one has Jan uh- that-one has yesterday evening
‘NOU he called Jan uh- he called Marcel yesterday evening’
04
op de mob
ie
le::h •t Marcel geb
e
ld (...)
on the mobile Marcel called
‘on his mobile phone (...)’
((Henk goes on with telling news that is relevant for the
soccer club’s contract negotiations with player Theo))
By prefacing the news telling in line 03 with NOU, the speaker takes the ‘go ahead’
in line 02 as a warrant for proceeding with the project that was anticipated in the
pre-sequence (cf. Schegloff 2007: 28–57).
NOU-prefacing also occurs in turns in which the speaker initiates a sequence
that was not projected in the prior one. Compare Extract 8, from a phone call
between college friends. Nathalie has been talking about all the things she still
has to do before moving to a new place:
Extract 8: Phone call, college friends (Harriet = H , Nathalie = N)
01 H:
=en
wa
nneer e:h is de planning dat jullie d’r hee-
and when uh is the planning that you-pl there to-
‘and when uh do you guys plan to move there’
02 ( [ )]
03 N: [( )] ze
s en zeven september komen de meubels
six and seven september comes the furniture
7See Lindström (this volume) for a similar use of Swedish nå. See also Kim 2013.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

390 Harrie Mazeland
04
en de vloerbedekking.
and the wall-to-wall carpeting
‘six and seven September the furniture and the carpeting
will come’
0.3
05 H: o
:h jah.
oh yes.
0.6
06 N:
(°>dus gaa
[
t snel.<°)
]
(so goes fast.)
07 H: →
[
nou:
]
dan kom ik d
a
n als ‘t klaar is,
NOU then come I then when it ready is,
08
‘n keer k
ij
:k
[
e.
some time look.
‘NOU then I’ll visit you and look at it then when it is
ready.’
09 N:
[
jah. (...)
yeah.
Harriet takes the possible completion of the sequence in which Nathalie has
given information about the time she will move (lines 01–06) as an opportunity
to initiate a new sequence in which she promises she will visit her friend then.
Note that the announcement of the visit is not only prefaced by NOU, but that
the clause itself begins with dan ‘then’: NOU dan kom ik dan als ‘t klaar is, ‘n keer
kijke ‘NOU then I’ll come look at it then when it is ready’ (lines 07–08). Dutch
dan is used not only as a time adverbial marking a relationship of either temporal
succession or temporal co-terminousness – as is the case for the second dan in
the clause (cf. Schiffrin 1987: 249) – but it may also frame the current action as
a consequence of the preceding interaction. By using the adverb in this way, the
speaker claims the current action to be warranted by the prior talk (cf. Schiffrin
1987: 259).
The combination next-step NOU followed by dan occurs more often in my
data. Whereas consequential dan ‘then’ operates backward, next-step NOU points
forward. It creates a starting point for moving to a next stage. The speaker resets
the co-ordinates of the interaction, while claiming that the preceding interaction
is a suited environment for doing so.
Next-step NOU is also used as a practice for marking a transition at the level
of the overall structural organization of the conversation. Compare Extract 9:
After a sequence with a typically closure-relevant topic (the call recipient’s per-
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 391
sonal situation before the call; lines 01–03), Hetty initiates the closing of the call
in a NOU-prefaced announcement that she is going to break up the call’s partic-
ipation framework (cf. Schegloff and Sacks 1973):
Extract 9: Phone call husband and wife
01 Hetty:
ik wou (ook) net naar de
Bo
ni
I wanted (also) just to the ((name supermarket))
‘I just wanted to go to Boni’s’
02
maar eh (.) toen ging ‘t telef
oon
tjeh.
but uh then went the phone
‘but uh (.) then the phone rang.’
(0.4)
03 Hans: o
:kido
↓
:.=
okay.
04 Hetty:→
=•h
N
OU: >ik ga verder dan.<
↑JA
H?
NOU I go further then. yes?
‘NOU then I go on. okay?’
05 Hans:
prima.
fine.
The order that Hetty invokes with the NOU-prefaced announcement in line 04
operates at the level of the organization of the conversation as an interactional
unit. The participants negotiate a coordinated entry into the call’s closing
trajectory. After a sequence in which closure has been made a relevant and agreed
upon option for doing next (lines 01–03), the speaker marks the current state of
the interaction – ‘now’ – as a suited position for making a next step in the closing
trajectory.
With next-step NOU, a speaker divides the ongoing interactional world into
two stages: the one the participants have arrived at and the next stage that is
launched from it. By beginning a turn or TCU in an environment that at least
retrospectively can be (re-)defined as closing a stage in an ongoing line of
activity, NOU-prefacing marks the current environment as a ‘progression-rel-
evant’ position. With ‘progression-relevant’ I refer to features such as the pos-
sible organizational completion and project saturation of the current stage
of the ongoing interaction. In Extract 7, for example, the NOU-prefaced news
telling is implicated by the outcome of the preceding pre-sequence; in 8, the
speaker is treating the date she has just heard as a good occasion for promising
a visit; and in 9 – the fragment we have just discussed – the sequence with the
closure-relevant topic is closed in a progression-relevant way with the recip-
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

392 Harrie Mazeland
ient’s aligning okido ‘okay’ (line 03). Next-step NOU indexes the possible com-
pletion of the current stage and orients the co-participant(s) to the speaker’s
project to move on to a next stage that is building on it in an orderly and
accountable manner.
Progression-relevant positioning explains why the practice is also used
in resumptions. We already saw an instance in Extract 6, the fragment with
the report of the evaluation meeting. The NOU-prefaced assessment in line 07
occurs at a boundary at which the speaker returns from a brief parenthetical
with a clarification of the identity of the person talked about in the previous TCU
(line06):
Extract 6: Detail
04 Henk:
(...) en en e:h en
fe
it dat e::h iemand m-
and and u:h and fact that uh somebody m-
‘and the fact that u:h someone m-’
05
de
ha
nd >bov’n ‘t hoofd gehoud’n< werd.
the hand above the head kept was
‘was given preferential treatment.’
06 →
d
at
werd dan Manfred vaak (.)
t
och wel mee bed
oe
:ld,
that was then Manfred often yet indeed with meant
‘that was referring to Manfred indeed’
07 →
•hH nou dat e:h is
t
och redelijk goed uitgesprok’n
NOU that uh is yet rather well out-spoken
‘NOU this has been talked through reasonably well.’
The scope of the resumption may be less local. It may even reach beyond the
boundaries of a conversation. Compare fragment 10, from the opening of a return
call, right after the greetings and the caller’s self-identification:
Extract 10: Return call, sisters
01 Hetty:
jAh. met
↓He
tty.
ha
llo:.
yes. with Hetty. hallo.
‘yes. this is Hetty. hello.’
0.3
02 Ella: ha
i!
hi.
0.4
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 393
03 Hetty:→
nouh. is ‘t g
oe
d gekom’n?
NOU is it well come?
‘NOU. has it gone all right?’
(0.4)
04 Ella:
jah hoo:r,
yes PRT
‘yes it did.’
Hetty’s opening question nouh. is ‘t goed gekomen? ‘NOU. has it gone all right?’
crosses the boundaries of the call by formulating its topic (‘t ‘it’) as something
that is still alive for both of them. In their previous call two days earlier, the sisters
had been talking about the clothes Hetty had bought for their handicapped sister
who is now staying for the weekend at Ella’s home. Hetty begins her call with an
inquiry regarding the outcome of her shopping efforts. NOU-prefacing anchors
the first topic of the current call into an ongoing line of activity. The speaker is
not inquiring out of the blue; her action is warranted by the concern that is taken
up in it. This kind of NOU-prefaced reason-for-the-call places the current con-
versation in a succession of exchanges within which the current inquiry can be
relevantly launched.
Thus next-step NOU marks a transition to a next stage in an ongoing line
of activity at variable levels of interactional organization. It may preface a move
toward a next item in a locally established order within an ongoing discourse unit
(see Extract 6), a next stage in a sequentially organized project (Extract 7), or a
next project in a new sequence that is building on the outcome of the preceding
one (Extract 8). It may mark ‘nextness’ at the level of the overall organization of
talk (Extract 9), and it is also used as a preface to resuming a line of activity within
(Extract 6) and across conversations (Extract 10). In all these different environ-
ments, NOU-prefacing displays the actual interactional co-ordinates as progres-
sion-relevant within an ongoing line of activity. By using the particle this way,
speakers still seem to exploit the ‘core meaning’ (cf. Fischer 2006: 441–442) or
‘meaning potential’ (Linell 1998: 118–126; Imo 2010: 48–52) of the lexeme NOU:
its temporal-deictic semantics indexing a proximal time space that includes
speaking time. However, the time scale on which the discourse marker operates
is not the world the participants are talking about, but a scale whose metric is
provided by the organization of the ongoing interaction.
8See Keevallik (this volume; 2013: 279) for a similar type of use of no(h)-prefaces in Estonian
reason-for-the-call turns.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

394 Harrie Mazeland
This difference between propositional NOU and discourse-organizational
NOU is nicely illustrated in the extract below. It is also from the soccer coach
phone call, and it comes a few TCUs after the interaction in Extract 7. Henk has
just told the news that the contract negotiations of a player from his team with
another club have been broken off, and he then proposes that they try to urge him
to stay with their club. He does this by acting out the script of the proposal as a
quotation (cf. Mazeland 2006):
Extract 11: Phone call, soccer coach; Wim is a member of the board of the club.
01 Henk:
dus nou- (0.3) eigenlijk e:h >
ka
n ik ‘m bell’n<
so NOU actually can I him call
‘so NOU (0.3) actually u:h I can call him’
02
of dat jij ‘m bel:t van e:h (0.3)
or that you him calls like u:h
‘or that you call him like u:h’
03 → no
u kunn’n we d’r nu op
re
:ken’n?
NOU can we there NU on count
‘NOU can we count on it now?’
The quotation is prefaced with next-step NOU. It marks the request’s position
as initiating a next stage in the contract negotiations. In the formulation of the
request itself (kunnen we d’r NU op re:ken’n ‘can we count on it now?’), the quoted
speaker refers to the real-world situation he is talking about with the temporal
adverb NU. Turn-initial NOU is used for structuring and interactionally anchoring
the reported course of action; the adverb NU is used for making a time reference
in the world the speaker is talking about.
The practice of NOU-prefacing implies an orientation to progression
that is different from, for example, the kind of progression that is indexed by
AND-prefacing as investigated in Heritage and Sorjonen (1994). Heritage and
Sorjonen describe how AND-prefaced questions do not just link a question to the
preceding turn, but to the preceding question/answer sequence(s) as a next step
in an agenda-based course of action. AND-prefacing is a device for colligating
equal conjuncts – not only for coordinating phrases or clauses, but also for
9Extract 1 also documents a case in which a speaker uses both types of NOU within a single
TCU: NOUh ze zsit nou aan de maat vij:ftig ‘NOU she almost takes size fifty NOU’ (Extract 1, line
07). The speaker begins with divergent NOU, signaling a relationship between successive actions
in the ongoing interaction, and then uses NOU as a temporal adverb to refer to the time of the
situation she is talking about.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 395
connecting actions in turns or communicative projects in sequences. Next-step
NOU, in contrast, is a device for displaying the upcoming action as a move to
a next stage at a progression-relevant position. Whereas AND-prefacing focuses
on the serialization of equivalent units, NOU-prefacing focuses on progression
with a next unit. It is not primarily projecting continuity; it signals the speaker’s
orientation to progression given the current state of the interaction.
Next-step NOU differs from divergent NOU in a number of respects. Whereas
divergent NOU occurs in a specialized sequential environment – before a second
pair part action (see 3–5) – next-step NOU prefaces sequence-initiating actions
and moves. It may preface both first pair part actions (Extracts 7–10), and
initiative discourse-organizational moves in non-first, next TCUs in multi-unit
turns (Extract 6). Divergent NOU by definition prefaces a next-speaker action,
while next-step NOU may also preface a move to a next stage by the same speaker.
Although both practices display the speaker’s orientation to progression within
an ongoing course of action, next-step NOU projects progression by moving to a
structurally distinct next stage from a possibly complete current stage, whereas
divergent NOU warns of a complication that may hamper progression within an
ongoing, still-incomplete sequence.
The discourse meaning of divergent NOU is strongly determined by the
specific sequential environment in which it is used: in the beginning trajectory
of a turn in which the delivery of a second pair part action is due. The speaker
produces the particle in the space between the first and second pair part action,
disrupting the adjacency of the parts of the sequence. In this environment, turn-
initial NOU gives off a signal that is very different from next-step NOU. Instead of
articulating the progression relevance of the current position, the speaker calls
attention to the constraints set out in the FPP, making room for further consid-
eration of the action the speaker is expected to deliver.
5.3 Some other uses of NOU as a discourse particle
I cannot give a full overview of all the different uses of NOU, but there are three
more uses of NOU as a discourse particle I want to discuss briefly. The first one is
the use of NOU as a TCU-internal editing term. It marks the expression it is pref-
acing as a kind of compromise formulation. The second one is the use of NOU as
a constituent of the particle cluster nou ja ‘now yes’. Speakers use it as a device
for closing a dispute undecidedly by abandoning it. Third and finally, I will show
two environments in which NOU is used as a stand-alone item.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

396 Harrie Mazeland
5.3.1 Using NOU as a repair preface
In the extract below, Gery is telling her friends about a theater visit that was very
disappointing because she had seats on the third balcony, very high up in the
theater hall:
Extract 12: Ladies tea
01 Gery: →
en- je krijgt- n
Ou
: (.) van allerlei vr
E:
zen.
and- you get- NOU of all-kinds fears
‘and- you get- (.) NOU all kinds of fears.’
(0.5)
02
dus: niet alleen
ho
ogtevrees_ maar ook ‘n beetjeh
so not only heights-fear but also a bit
‘so not only fear of heights but also a bit of’
03
claustrohfoh:
↓bhie
h
[
(hh)en
[
zho:h
[
•HHH
claustrophobia and the-like
04 Mina: [
jah.
[
ja.
[
ja.
yes. yes. yes.
05 Els: [
hoh huh. ((laughs))
In line 01, the speaker halts the progression of an ongoing, still-incomplete
TCU by cutting off the completion of the finite verb form krijgt- ‘get’. Such non-
lexical hitches function as an alert that the speaker is having trouble with either
the TCU so far or with the delivery of the next due item and is about to initiate
a repair (cf. Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks 1977; Schegloff 1979). The speaker
then continues with NOU, a next item that does not fit into the syntactic space
established until that point in the ongoing TCU, so it cannot be heard as the
next item due in the unit underway. After a very brief silence of less than 0.2
seconds – which will help to retrospectively isolate NOU as a syntactic ‘island’
in the ongoing TCU – the speaker continues with a phrase that re-establishes
the syntactic link with the unit so far before the insertion of NOU: je krijgt- ...
van allerlei vrE:zen ‘you get ... all kinds of fears’ (line 01). NOU cannot be
heard as a temporal adverb or a modal particle in this syntactic environment,
and its ‘unattachability’ to the syntactic ‘nodes’ in the emerging structure
of the ongoing TCU before and after its production make it recognizable as an
inserted element that operates on another level of organization of the TCU: the
organization of same-turn self-repair.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 397
The repair operation the speaker is marking with inserted NOU is a formu-
lation search (cf. Schegloff 2013: 49–51). In this environment it functions as a repair
preface (Lerner and Kitzinger 2015): a pre-positioned constituent of the repair-
solution segment in which the speaker specifies the nature of the repair operation
in some locally relevant respect. NOU-prefacing of a same-turn self-repair frames
the repair as a compromise solution. The repair is not exactly the formulation the
speaker is searching for, nor the most precise one, nor the most succinct and/or
striking one, but a provisional, for-all-practical-purposes solution. The speaker’s
subsequent elaboration and specification of the kind of fears she is talking about
(lines 02–03 in Extract 12) supports this characterization.
Extract 13 shows another instance of NOU as a repair preface. Susan and
Harriet are deliberating what birthday present they will give a mutual friend, and
Susan proposes buying a certain type of flower vase:
Extract 13: Phone call, girlfriends (Susan = S, Harriet = H)
01 S:
(...) ik d
e
nk dat- dat d
ing
eh •h die v
a
as:
I think that- that thing uh that vase
‘I think that- this thing uh that vase’
02 →
iets van eh: (0.4) nou achttien g
u
lden is of zo:.=
something of uh: NOU eighteen guilders is or so
‘is about uh NOU eighteen guilders or so’
03 H:
=•HH- ehm: dan moete we niet te veel aan
uhm: then have-to we not too much on
de
bloemen best
e
:den,
the flowers spend
‘then we shouldn’t spend too much on flowers,’
Again we see that NOU is inserted after a possible repair initiation (eh) within an
ongoing, not yet complete TCU. NOU is inserted before a number that was already
pre-framed as an estimate (iets van eh: ‘something like uh:’), and which is also
retro-actively post-framed in the same vein with the approximation tag of zo ‘or
so’ (cf. Prince, Frader, and Bosk 1982). Here too NOU-insertion is used as a repair
preface within an ongoing TCU, a practice for showing that the speaker is about
to provide a compromise solution to a search problem. She is going to give an
estimate, not the exact price of the vase.
Inserted NOU operates at a local level of organization within the boundaries
of an ongoing TCU. Whereas next-step NOU and divergent NOU operate at levels
of organization that affect the interactional structure of the ongoing interaction
above the TCU level, inserted NOU interferes with the linguistic structure of the
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

398 Harrie Mazeland
ongoing TCU. It is a form of within-turn self-repair that cuts across the gram-
matical organization of the TCU. Although a distinct level of organization, it has
a direct bearing on the understanding of the TCU in progress (cf. Schegloff 2013:
42; Mazeland 2013: 481).
NOU-prefacing is also used in transition-space self-repairs (Schegloff 1997).
Compare the following extract:
Extract 14: Ladies tea. Els has been telling about a day spa she used to visit, and
Gery joins in in a way that reveals she knows the place as well.
01 Mina:
kom j
ij
d’r ook altijd Gery?=
come you there too always Gery?
‘do you always go there too Gery?’
02 Gery:
=
ja
h!
yes!
03 (.)
04 Mina: [
(beetje-)
(a bit-)
05 Gery: → [
°*
↓
nou altij:d.*° maar: gewoon een keer in
NOU always. but simply one time in
de
zo
veel
[
weken.
the so-many weeks.
‘NOU always. but just once in a couple of weeks.’
06 Mina: [↑
jah?
yes?
07 Gery:
ja:h.
yes.
Mina’s question whether Gery too frequents the day spa is immediately affirmed
by Gery with ja ‘yes’ (lines 01–02). But Gery then quickly adds a modification
in which she specifies what she is affirming. She does so by repeating the term
from the question that is causing problems in a NOU-prefaced frame (nou altij:d
‘nou always’, line 05), and then substitutes the problematic time reference with
a more modest frequency description (maar: gewoon een keer in de zoveel weken
‘but just once in a couple of weeks’, line 05). The speaker is not discarding the
affirmation she has given by answering with yes, she is re-specifying the terms of
the question she is answering (cf. Raymond 2000: Chapter 3; Stivers and Hayashi
2010). Note that NOU is not prefacing the repair proper, but the repairable.
Whereas the repetition of time reference locates the trouble source, framing it
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 399
with NOU gives a cue with respect to the nature of the trouble. It needs reconsid-
eration.
5.3.2 Abandoning a dispute with the particle cluster NOU JA
NOU also occurs in highly conventionalized particle clusters. I do not consider
a turn-initial series of particles such as okay. NOU ... or ja NOU ... ‘yes NOU ...’
a particle cluster. In a case like okay. NOU ..., okay is a separate action in a com-
plete TCU in which the speaker responds to the preceding interaction, whereas
NOU begins the next TCU. A particle cluster is a more or less conventionalized
combination of two – or perhaps even more – particles that conversationalists
use, and attribute discourse meaning to, as a unit. By far the most frequent
particle cluster in my NOU-collections is the construction nou ja. Speakers use it–
often accompanied by other signals of topic attrition or project abandonment– to
signal their willingness to give up the current line of interaction. Extract 15 doc-
uments one such instance:
Extract 15: Phone call, girlfriends (Susan = S, Harriet = H)
01 S:
(...) nou ik probeer ‘t zo nog wel ‘n keer.
(...) NOU I try it so PRT PRT one time.
‘well I’ll try one more time afterwards’
02
kijken hoe dat ding werkt.
look how that thing works.
‘see how this thing works.’
0.5
03
‘n beetje gek van.=
a bit crazy of.
‘((I’m getting)) a bit crazy about this’
04 H:
=jAh inderdaad.
yes indeed.
(.)
05 → n
ou ja.=
NOU yes.
10My characterization of the notion ‘particle cluster’ does not hold for clusters of modal par-
ticles. The fact that speakers build clusters of modal particles is sometimes considered a distinct
feature of the category (cf. Foolen 1993; Vismans 1994; Diewald 2013).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

400 Harrie Mazeland
06 S:
=•h hee maar dan(k) zie’k je:hm:
hey but then(I) see I you uhm
‘hey but then I’ll see you uhm’
07
<°*zaterdag om half negen.*°>
[
( )
↑
hè?
]
Saturday at half nine. ( ) right?
‘Saturday half past eight.’
08 H: [
ja. is goed.
]
yes. is alright.
‘yes. okay.’
Earlier in the call, Harriet has been complaining about Susan not answering her
new mobile phone. After the reason-for-the-call topic – arrangements in con-
nection with the birthday party of a mutual friend – they return to this issue.
Susan’s assessment that she is getting mad about it (line 03) could be seen
as an attempt to close the topic and to move ahead toward closure of the call.
Harriet’s confirmation (line 04) implies alignment with the project of closing, but
it is ambiguous and perhaps even malicious with respect to how it affiliates with
her friend’s complaint: Jah inderdaad ‘yes indeed’ could be heard as ironically
stating that she is getting mad about the troubles her friend is having with her
new phone. However, before this can develop into further on-topic talk, she con-
tinues with NOU JA, signaling that she is not going to pursue this line of talk.
Note that Susan indeed treats NOU JA as backing off. She immediately proceeds
with a topic change in which she continues the work of closing the call (lines
06–07).
The particle cluster NOU JA is sometimes even used as a kind of disagree-
ment-resolution device. Compare the following interaction from a phone call
between spouses. It is from the first minute of a phone call in which the par-
ticipants do not really succeed in getting a topic going (cf. Mazeland 2003: 193–
201):
Extract 16: Phone call, husband and wife
01 Hetty:
nou hoe’s ‘t bev
a
ll’n.
NOU how is it please.
‘NOU how did you get on.’
02
be- bin je ook bl
ij
da’je niet op de f
ie
ts
be
n
↑
:t?
ar- are you also pleased that you not on the bike are
‘ar- are you also glad that you didn’t go ((to work)) by
bike?’
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 401
03 Hans:
(•hh) ja ‘t
wa
ait wat h
[
è?
yes it wind-blows somewhat right
‘yes the wind is blowing a bit isn’t it?’
04 Hetty: [
ging we- j
a↓
a.
went ind- yes.
‘proved bett- yes.’
05
‘t waait steeds h
a
rder vin’ik
h
oor?
it blows more-and-more harder think-I PRT
‘it’s blowing harder and harder I think actually’
(.)
06 Hans:
jah.
yes.
(0.3)
07 Hetty:→
°nou ja:h.°
NOU ja.
(0.8)
08 Hetty: a
lles eh naar
we
ns v:erder?
everything according-to wish further?
‘is everything else going ok?’
In the turn in line 05, Hetty disagrees with her husband’s characterization of the
weather circumstances by upgrading his luke-warm assessment in a challenging
way. Hans’ subsequent acknowledgement (ja ‘yes’, line 06) is apparently not a
very convincing display of him backing down. But instead of pursuing a more
clearly affiliative response, Hetty signals she is giving up with NOU JA. Note that
this organizational move is confirmed by what she does next, namely soliciting
talk on another topic with a topic-initial elicitor (line 08; cf. Button and Casey
1984).
The interesting thing about NOU JA is that the device signals that while the
speaker is giving up, she is doing so reluctantly. This ambivalent message is
perhaps built into the specific combination of the construction. Whereas initial
NOU may project non-straightforwardness (as is the case for divergent NOU, see
Section 5.2) and need for reconsideration (compare NOU as repair preface in
Section 5.3.1), continuation with JA pre-empts this projection so as to convey a
kind of ‘let it pass’ message. In an environment in which closure of the ongoing
sequence or activity is pending, this creates a basis for effectuating closure by
initiating a next sequence or activity, as can be observed in both examples dis-
cussed above.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

402 Harrie Mazeland
5.3.3 Stand-alone NOU
The two most important types of stand-alone NOU are NOU prompting for an
action of the interlocutor (‘prompting NOU’), and NOU expressing an affiliative
stance (‘appreciative NOU’).
Prompting NOU
The first type of stand-alone NOU is as a device for prompting a next action that is
still pending. It is very similar to how English so is used as a device for ‘prompting
action’ (Raymond 2004). Compare the following extract from the same call as
Extract 10. In the turns in lines 01 and 03, Hetty is not only inquiring of her sister
Ella how the clothes she has bought for their handicapped sister suit her, but also
fishing for a compliment. When she does not get one, she prompts for it with
stand-alone NOU (line 06):
Extract 17: Return call sisters
01 Hetty:
maar dat st
ie
t haar wel l
EU
:K
hÈ:
?
but that suits her PRT nice TAG
‘but this looks pretty nice on her, doesn’t it?’
02 Ella: j
A:h °hoor
[
:°
yes
PRT
‘yes sure.’
03 Hetty: [pa
sse (‘s:)
[de
::h- sch
Oe
nen ook an:?=
fit the shoes too on
‘do the shoes fit well too?’
04 Ella: [
(°m-°)
05
=
j
ahh!
yes!
(0.3)
06 Hetty:→ n
o
[
u
↓
:h
NOU
‘so:’
07 Ella: [
ja:h, ziet ‘r goed ui:t!
yes, looks good PREP
‘yes, looks great!’
11See Mazeland and Plug 2010 for a more detailed discussion of the interaction in this episode.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 403
08 Hetty:
jah die bin’n <ook wel mooi:>
[t
och?
yes these are too PRT beautiful PRT
‘yes these are rather beautiful too, don’t you think?’
09 Ella: [
jah. ja. zeker
we
:t
[
‘n.
yes yes certainly know
‘yes. yes. certainly.’
10 Hetty: [
ja:h
yes
11 (0.3)
12
nou: gelukkig:.
so fortunately
‘well I’m glad about that.’
With this type of stand-alone NOU, speakers exploit the projection on a sequel
that next-step NOU conveys. The speaker marks the current position as progres-
sion-relevant. An action that is sequentially pending still has not been delivered
yet. Note that it is not the speaker herself who is supposed to proceed with an
action that is still due, but the recipient is urged to provide it. In this particular
case, the recipient seems to acknowledge the prompting quality of prior speaker’s
NOU by first affirming (ja:h ‘yes’) and then providing the positive assessment that
conveys the compliment her sister was fishing for.
Appreciative NOU
Stand-alone NOU is also used to convey a stance that acclaims the position taken
or implied by the prior speaker. In the extract below, Els is telling about the
settlement of a complaint she filed against an offensive cover of the municipal
theater magazine. Wallage is the mayor of the city in which the participants live:
Extract 18: Ladies tea
01 Els:
en daar was W
a
llage ‘t dus w- d-
and there was Wallage it so w- d-
‘and Wallage thus did with ag- d- ’
02
daar was
Wa
llage ‘t weer niet mee
ee
ns.
there was Wallage it again not with agree.
‘Wallage didn’t agree with this in turn.’
03 Mina: e
h!
(0.5)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

404 Harrie Mazeland
04 Els:
nee.
no.
(0.3)
05 Mina: → [n
ou.
NOU.
06 Gery: [
wat dan?=
what then?
‘why?’
07 Els:
=die vond dat (wij-)
om
budsvr
ou
w daar
ge
en
that-one thought that (we-) ombudswoman there no
gelijk in had.
right in was.
‘he thought that we- the ombudswoman was not right about
that’
0.7
08 Mina:
(wat ‘n)
d
om hè?
(what a) stupid PRT
‘how stupid, isn’t it?’
In the immediately preceding interaction, Els has told that the municipal om-
budsman had agreed with her complaint (data not shown). Mayor Wallage’s
decision to not admit the complaint thus may be understood as a scandalous
injustice (lines 01–02), and it is this evaluative impact of Els’ telling that Mina
articulates with NOU (line 05). She affiliates with the point of prior speaker’s
telling (cf. Lindström and Sorjonen 2013). The speaker is conveying acclamation,
but without explicating her evaluative position yet. The speaker may still do so
later on, as Mina does a few turns later with the assessment (wat ‘n) dom hè? ‘how
stupid, isn’t it?’ (line 08).
6 Conclusion and discussion
The Dutch particle NOU is used within clauses as an adverb of time and as a
modal particle, and outside the syntactic structure of clauses as a TCU- and turn-
initial particle. Divergent NOU is used as an alert to warn the recipient(s) that the
speaker’s response will not be straightforward, whereas next-step NOU is used at
a progression-relevant position as a structuring device projecting the speaker’s
move into a next stage in a larger line of activity. The particle is also inserted
into an ongoing TCU without being integrated into the grammatical structure
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 405
of the TCU so far (its use as a repair preface); it functions as a constituent of a
particle-cluster construction (its use as a project exit device), and it may be used
as a stand-alone item in a turn conveying an action in its own right (prompting,
acclaiming).
If NOU is used outside the grammatical structure of TCUs, then its inter-
actional position is indicative of the organization within which it is used. At
a position at which the second part of an adjacency pair is due, it projects a
design constraint of the second pair part (the non-straightforwardness projected
by divergent NOU). At a progression-relevant position, it marks the speaker’s
transition to a next stage in the organization that is instantiated in the turn or
TCU it is prefacing: a next item in an agenda-organized project, a projected next
action in a sequentially organized project, an implicated next activity in a larger
course of action, or a transition to a next stage at the level of the overall structural
organization of the interaction. As a repair preface, it is part of the organization
of same-turn self-repair within an unfolding TCU without being syntactically
integrated into the grammatical structure of the ongoing unit; as a TCU-con-
stituting unit, it either prompts sequentially delayed nexts (prompting NOU;
initiating a kind of ‘sequential repair’ at the level of sequence organization, cf.
Schegloff 1987 and 2007), and it is used as a practice for conveying an affiliative
stance (appreciative NOU).
NOU cannot be assigned discourse meaning per se. Depending on its environ-
ment of use, it is given a ‘positionally sensitive’ discourse-organizational meaning
(cf. Schegloff 1996). The recipient must figure out what the speaker is doing with
the particle by inspecting the organizational position at which it is used, and by
seeing how the unit it is prefacing unfolds. All those different position-dependent
meanings share a procedural core meaning of the lexeme NOU. NOU indexes an
organizational aspect of the current state of the interaction and articulates its
relevance for the action the speaker is initiating. Prosody undeniably plays an
important role for recognizing the kind of projection that a speaker is making
when using the particle at a specific organizational position. In this paper I have
tried to develop a positional characterization of various types of use of NOU as a
discourse particle, and I hope this analysis will provide a useful framework for
investigating the contribution of prosody.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

406 Harrie Mazeland
References
ANS (W.Haeseryn etal.) 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar].
2nd ed. Groningen: Nijhoff.
As, Saskia van 1992. Nu en nou: één woord, twee stijlen [Nu and nou: one word, two styles].
In: Ina Schermer-Vermeer, Willem G.Klooster and Arjen J.Florijn (eds.), De kunst van de
grammatica [The art of grammar], 1–14. Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Button, Graham and Neil Casey 1984. Generating topic: the use of topic initial elicitors. In: John
M.Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 167–190. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Diewald, Gabriele 2013. “Same same but different.” Modal particles, discourse markers
and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In: Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie and
Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and
Description, 19–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Drew, Paul 1997. “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(1): 69–102.
Engbersen, Agnes and Harrie Mazeland 2010. The use of the Dutch discourse particle NOU as
a transition marker in care-taking interactions. Paper presented at MuMO workshop, IDS
Mannheim, March 2010.
EWN (Marlies Philippa etal.) 2009. Etymologische woordenboek van het Nederlands
[Etymological dictionary of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Fischer, Kerstin 2006. Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy
of discourse particles. In: Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse, 427–447.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fischer, Kerstin 2007. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation
equivalents. In: Anita Fetzer and Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common
Grounds, 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Foolen, Ad 1993. De betekenis van partikels [The meaning of particles]. PhD dissertation,
University Nijmegen.
Gysseling, Maurits (1977–87), Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300)
[Corpus of Middle Dutch texts (until the year 1300)]. Vol.2, Literary text). ‘s-Gravenhage.
Heritage, John 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3): 291–334.
Heritage, John and Marja-Leena Sorjonen 1994. Constituting and maintaining activities across
sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23: 1–29.
Hilmisdóttir, Helga 2010. The present moment as an interactional resource: The case of nú and
núna in Icelandic conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 269–298.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C.Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Houtkoop, Hanneke and Harrie Mazeland 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619.
Imo, Wolfgang 2010. Das Adverb jetzt zwischen Zeit- und Gesprächsdeixis. Zeitschrift für
Germanistische Linguistik 38: 25–58.
Keevallik, Leelo 2010. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 157–182.
Keevallik, Leelo 2013. Accomplishing continuity across sequences and encounters: No(h)-
prefaced initiations in Estonian. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 274–289.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou 407
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie 2013. Retroactive indexing of relevance: The use of well in third position.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(2): 125–143.
Lerner, Gene H. and Celia E.Kitzinger 2015. Or-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated
repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1): 58–78.
Lindström, Anna and Marja-Leena Sorjonen 2013. Affiliation in conversation. In: Jack Sidnell
and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 350–369. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Linell, Per 1998. Approaching Discourse. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical
Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mazeland, Harrie 2003. Inleiding in de conversatieanalyse [Introduction to conversation
analysis]. Bussum: Coutinho.
Mazeland, Harrie 2004. Responding to the double implication of telemarketers’ opinion
queries. Discourse Studies 6(1): 95–119.
Mazeland, Harrie 2006. VAN as a quotative in Dutch: Marking quotations as a typification.
In: Tom Koole, Jacomine Nortier and Bert Tahitu (eds.), Artikelen van de vijfde sociolin-
guistische conferentie [Articles from the fifth sociolinguistics conference], 354–365. Delft:
Eburon.
Mazeland, Harrie 2012. NOU als discourse marker in het taalgebruik van kleuters [NOU as a
discourse marker in the language of preschool children]. In: Kees de Glopper, Myrte Gosen
and Jacqueline van Kruiningen (eds.), Gesprekken in het onderwijs [Conversations in
education], 39–71. Delft: Eburon.
Mazeland, Harrie 2013. Grammar in conversation analysis. In: Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers
(eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 475–491. Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Mazeland, Harrie and Leendert Plug 2010. Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor: Sequential
and prosodic characteristics of a Dutch discourse particle. In: Dagmar Barth-Weingarten,
Elisabeth Reber and Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in Interaction, 161–188. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pander Maat, Henk, Chr. Driessen and H. van Mierlo 1986. NOU: functie, contexten, vorm en
betekenis [NOU: function, contexts, form and meaning]. Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift voor
Taal- & Tekstwetenschap 6(2): 179–194.
Pomerantz, Anita 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn-shapes. In: John M.Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.),
Structures of Social Action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, Ellen F., Joel Frader and Charles Bosk 1982. On hedging in physician-physician
discourse. In: R.J. Di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the Professions, 83–97. Norwood: Ablex.
Raymond, Geoffrey 2000. The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming
responses to yes/no-interrogatives. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, UCLA.
Raymond, Geoffrey 2004. Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 37:185–218.
Robinson, Jeffrey D. and Tanya Stivers 2001. Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient
encounters: From history-taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research
27(2): 253–298.
Schegloff, Emanuel 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: Talmy Givón
(ed.), Discourse and Syntax, 261–299. New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel 1987. Some sources of misunderstandings in talk-in-interaction.
Linguistics25: 201–218.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33

408 Harrie Mazeland
Schegloff, Emanuel 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.
In: Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A.Schegloff and Sandra A.Thompson (eds.), Interaction and
Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel 1997. Third turn repair. In: Gregory R.Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah
Schiffrin and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language Vol. 2, 31–41.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, Emanuel 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel 2010. Some other “Uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes 47: 130–174.
Schegloff, Emanuel 2013. Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In: Makoto
Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell (eds.), Conversational Repair and Human
Understanding, 41–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks 1977. The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(1): 361–383.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Gene Lerner 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to
Wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289–327.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1990. Between text and context: Deixis, anaphora, and the meaning of then.
Text 10(3): 245–270.
Schiffrin, Deborah 1992. Anaphoric then: Aspectual, textual and epistemic meaning. Linguistics
30: 753–792.
Sijs, Nicoline van der 2004. Taal als mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het ABN [Language as
the product of men’s work. The emergence of Standard Educated Dutch.] Den Haag: SDU
Uitgevers.
Stivers, Tanya and Makoto Hayashi 2010. Transformative answers: One way to resist a
question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–25.
Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal [Great dictionary of the Dutch language]
1961(8). (ed. Dr. C.Kruyskamp) ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Vismans, Roel 1994. Modal Particles in Dutch Directives: A Study in Functional Grammar.
Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Wouden, Ton van der 1998. Waar Machteld nou? [Where Machteld NOU?] Tabu 28: 159–161.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 03.02.17 14:33