I’ve found myself doing it recently. I’ve noticed it’s when I want to retain my place in a conversation before I move on to my actual point. It basically means I’m not entirely ready to say whatever it is (and/or I’m trying to speak over someone) so I’m trying to stamp it out.
It's traditionally popular with stand-up comedians, when they are telling a story of something that happened, particularly when they added a tangent story or two in the middle and then return to the story. It's a way of involving the audience and creating a sense of continuity, suggesting you're continuing a story they're familiar with, rather than saying something totally new and out of the blue. And then sometimes they do it with every new story too, because any story they tell is (ostensibly, at least) part of the bigger story of their life, so it creates a sense of being part of this bigger story that the audience is starting to get a sense of - creates a kind of illusion of intimacy, almost.
And people in general started doing the same when writing anecdotes from their life on social media, and chatting about their lives in person, and now it's become something people do in all sorts of contexts without thinking about it.
I do it on Facebook when writing more about a situation I've previously described, or sometimes with a new situation. I do it kind of with a sense of confiding to an audience, to make it engaging to read, and generally when it's something entertaining. I don't tend to do it when I'm posting something I'm upset about.
I don't think I do it at all here on the Ship, because it's a different sort of atmosphere and context, kind of more formal, where everyone is contributing to a shared discussion board, with many strangers, not generally continuing the story of their life as they might on their FB page or blog.
Now this is an interesting question because ‘now’ sometimes performs a similar gathering/place-holding function. There’s also a word in Hebrew (nah?) which does the same sort of thing and having in some contexts next to no semantic value.
There's a technical linguistic term for this, but it escapes me at the moment. It's hardly unique, there are lots of things we do in language (especially spoken language) where the function of the word isn't to communicate meaning in the normal way but to create some other kind of signal.
"So" is being used to indicate a new topic and/or as a little call to the listener to pay attention. We are beginning.
What I find interesting is the way so many people being interviewed on radio or TV begin their reply with "so". Presumably, apart from giving the speaker a second for thought before replying, it indicates, "I heard you and I'm going to reply to what you asked". At least it makes a change from the politicians' obfuscatory: "I'm glad you asked me that. However, before I answer, may I just say ...".
What I find interesting is the way so many people being interviewed on radio or TV begin their reply with "so". Presumably, apart from giving the speaker a second for thought before replying, it indicates, "I heard you and I'm going to reply to what you asked". At least it makes a change from the politicians' obfuscatory: "I'm glad you asked me that. However, before I answer, may I just say ...".
I’ve found myself doing it recently. I’ve noticed it’s when I want to retain my place in a conversation before I move on to my actual point. It basically means I’m not entirely ready to say whatever it is (and/or I’m trying to speak over someone) so I’m trying to stamp it out.
My 14 yr old daughter does that. She also uses 'WAIT'... in a drawn-out injunction which presumably covers the time it's going to take her to formulate her next contribution to the discourse. It bugs the sh*t out of me
(We get on alright normally - this stuff seems to be a carry-over from what it takes to perform socially with her friends. Shudder...).
60 or so years ago, I was taught, by an English master who was a bit of a stickler about sloppy expression and who was of an age just to have missed fighting in the First World War by a few months (i.e. born about 1900):-
1. 'So' is not a conjunction. So, within a sentence, always 'and so'.
2. Preferably, though, end the previous sentence with a full stop (U.S. period) and start a new one with the 'So', as I've just done.
3. The 'So' should be followed by a comma.
That means that starting a sentence with 'So' is not an innovation.
This will interest the odd language needs, but the verb 'to be' in Welsh has two alternate sets of forms- ydwyf, ydwyt, ydyw etc. and wyf, wyt, yw.
Welsh verbs come at the beginning of the sentence.
Guess what the particle yd, now meaningless, originally meant...
That's interesting - I wonder if the English usage has a Celtic source?
Seamus Heaney says he used 'so' in Beowulf as it was something his Irish family did. And for me, 'so' in this sense is perfectly normal, but I grew up in Liverpool where the language is influenced by Irish. But it sounds like in other parts of the country it is a relatively new thing.
Semantically ‘so’ is flexible. It can mean for this reason/these reasons just enunciated. Alternatively it can mean. Perform this verb in such a way as to obtain this result. ‘So play as not only to win, but to win with honour.’
I don't know if this entirely different (or just me), but when "So" is the first word of a quote, such as may be heard on radio phone ins and letters to the papers, it is invariably a frothing-at-the-mouth Colonel Mad type, ranting on about how the country has gone to Hell in a handcart.
The particular phenomenon that has become popular, and is often commented on, is not simply the grammatical act of starting a sentence with 'so.' It is a very specific semantic-pragmatic usage of 'so,' in a grammatically unconventional way, where a person starts an entire conversation, out of the blue, with 'so.' The 'so' clearly has no grammatical/linguistic link that could be analysed within that particular piece of speech, as nothing has come before it. It is instead referring to something larger, vaguer, outside of language, as I described earlier. It has a social function that would come under the branch of metalinguistics. I don't think it would count as phatic language though, as that is, in my understanding, more about social etiquette and small talk.
The particular phenomenon that has become popular, and is often commented on, is not simply the grammatical act of starting a sentence with 'so.' It is a very specific semantic-pragmatic usage of 'so,' in a grammatically unconventional way, where a person starts an entire conversation, out of the blue, with 'so.' The 'so' clearly has no grammatical/linguistic link that could be analysed within that particular piece of speech, as nothing has come before it. It is instead referring to something larger, vaguer, outside of language, as I described earlier. It has a social function that would come under the branch of metalinguistics. I don't think it would count as phatic language though, as that is, in my understanding, more about social etiquette and small talk.
Very nice post, fineline. I have been struck by the use of so to begin a conversation, not as a connection (anaphora?). I agree not phatic, and metalanguage seems to cover it. So it means something like, "here is a topic I am introducing". Of course, it is also used as a connector, often as a reply. It will be interesting to see if it changes use.
Fascinating stuff. Who'd have thunk that such a little word could be so interesting/useful?
FWIW, Our Place's Father Helping-Us-Out (he of the evangelical persuasion) usually concludes his sermons by saying 'So...', and then summarising what he's said. I am sure there is a comma after the 'So'!
Also, with many uses/meanings, e.g., therefore, "so I will be confiscating your phone"; as intensifier, "so so interesting"; as introduction, "so, I am thinking of emigrating"; comparison, "not so bad as last year"; in order that, "I am shouting so you understand me"; odd phrases, "you so and so". And others.
It's an indispensable part of the currency of small talk. 'So where are you going for your holidays?' 'So what do you think of X' ' So anyway I says to him -' and so on.
The particular phenomenon that has become popular, and is often commented on, is not simply the grammatical act of starting a sentence with 'so.' It is a very specific semantic-pragmatic usage of 'so,' in a grammatically unconventional way, where a person starts an entire conversation, out of the blue, with 'so.' The 'so' clearly has no grammatical/linguistic link that could be analysed within that particular piece of speech, as nothing has come before it. It is instead referring to something larger, vaguer, outside of language, as I described earlier. It has a social function that would come under the branch of metalinguistics. I don't think it would count as phatic language though, as that is, in my understanding, more about social etiquette and small talk.
NIce post.
I often use so as a way to soften a statement(make more conversational, less formal) when writing.
Verbally I often use it as a way to engage attention before saying what I want to say.
Heh, referring to people as sheep is also fashionable, as is pointing out that lots of people start sentences with 'so' these days. I see both these trends all the time on Facebook. People love to separate themselves from the 'sheep.'
It's like Paul's Therefore" two chapters from the end of one of his letters. "Moving on, then..."
Reminds me of evil game of saying to eager young zealot 'Ah yes, as it says in Romans 18:1' - and if they hesitated, prompt 'Therefore - ' 'Therefore brethren if ye -' You could get quite far in inventing Pauline theology on the hoof.
What about its use, by itself, with a rising tone as if a question, in response to someone else's statement or question? Usually meaning something like "I can't be bothered." As in..
"Your car is blocking my drive."
"So?"
It's like Paul's Therefore" two chapters from the end of one of his letters. "Moving on, then..."
Reminds me of evil game of saying to eager young zealot 'Ah yes, as it says in Romans 18:1' - and if they hesitated, prompt 'Therefore - ' 'Therefore brethren if ye -' You could get quite far in inventing Pauline theology on the hoof.
Comments
And people in general started doing the same when writing anecdotes from their life on social media, and chatting about their lives in person, and now it's become something people do in all sorts of contexts without thinking about it.
I do it on Facebook when writing more about a situation I've previously described, or sometimes with a new situation. I do it kind of with a sense of confiding to an audience, to make it engaging to read, and generally when it's something entertaining. I don't tend to do it when I'm posting something I'm upset about.
I don't think I do it at all here on the Ship, because it's a different sort of atmosphere and context, kind of more formal, where everyone is contributing to a shared discussion board, with many strangers, not generally continuing the story of their life as they might on their FB page or blog.
"So" is being used to indicate a new topic and/or as a little call to the listener to pay attention. We are beginning.
Bring back Hwæt!
"We have been completely clear..."
Welsh verbs come at the beginning of the sentence.
Guess what the particle yd, now meaningless, originally meant...
🤔
My 14 yr old daughter does that. She also uses 'WAIT'... in a drawn-out injunction which presumably covers the time it's going to take her to formulate her next contribution to the discourse. It bugs the sh*t out of me
(We get on alright normally - this stuff seems to be a carry-over from what it takes to perform socially with her friends. Shudder...).
1. 'So' is not a conjunction. So, within a sentence, always 'and so'.
2. Preferably, though, end the previous sentence with a full stop (U.S. period) and start a new one with the 'So', as I've just done.
3. The 'So' should be followed by a comma.
That means that starting a sentence with 'So' is not an innovation.
That's interesting - I wonder if the English usage has a Celtic source?
Seamus Heaney says he used 'so' in Beowulf as it was something his Irish family did. And for me, 'so' in this sense is perfectly normal, but I grew up in Liverpool where the language is influenced by Irish. But it sounds like in other parts of the country it is a relatively new thing.
Very nice post, fineline. I have been struck by the use of so to begin a conversation, not as a connection (anaphora?). I agree not phatic, and metalanguage seems to cover it. So it means something like, "here is a topic I am introducing". Of course, it is also used as a connector, often as a reply. It will be interesting to see if it changes use.
FWIW, Our Place's Father Helping-Us-Out (he of the evangelical persuasion) usually concludes his sermons by saying 'So...', and then summarising what he's said. I am sure there is a comma after the 'So'!
Or is that, as noted above, only among the Irish?
I often use so as a way to soften a statement(make more conversational, less formal) when writing.
Verbally I often use it as a way to engage attention before saying what I want to say.
My personal take is that it is fashionable and a lot of people are like sheep.
A bit like those who start a sentence by saying " Yoy know what "
I have never heard anyone say "yoy".
Neither have I. It was a typing error ( y being next to u on the keyboard )
Reminds me of evil game of saying to eager young zealot 'Ah yes, as it says in Romans 18:1' - and if they hesitated, prompt 'Therefore - ' 'Therefore brethren if ye -' You could get quite far in inventing Pauline theology on the hoof.
"Your car is blocking my drive."
"So?"
That's so wicked!
I like it.