Colloquial word for so

Over the last few years, lovers of language have casually observed an increase in speakers beginning sentences with the word so. What are some new ways in which so is being used in colloquial speech, and what cues do these utterances send to listeners?

Consider the following example:

Speaker 1: Dr. Johnson, when did you start studying this disorder?Speaker 2: So, I had noticed certain patients seemed to…

In this example, Doctor Johnson is replying to the interviewer’s question with a sentence-initial so. But why? One explanation is that in this case, so is being used as a filled pause, much in the way that “well,” “um,” and “like” are used in conversation, a topic discussed in the Slate podcast  Lexicon Valley. However, according to Lexicon Valley host Mike Vuolo this explanation is overly simplified; so as a discourse marker is “more nuanced” than that. When one person asks a question and the other person’s response begins with so, “it sounds like you should be continuing a narrative,” says Grant Barrett, linguist and host of A Way with Words. So is not being used just to fill a pause, it seems, but as a tool for conversation management.

Researcher Galina Bolden studied recordings of conversations, looking at the difference between the sentence-initial oh and so. In a 2010 New York Times article Anand Giridharadas sums up insight Bolden supplied via email: “To begin a sentence with ‘oh,’…is to focus on what you have just remembered and your own concerns. To begin with ‘so,’…is to signal that one’s coming words are chosen for their relevance to the listener.” If words like so and oh were used to arbitrarily fill a pause, they wouldn’t take on such different functions from each other. Bolden suggests here that the sentence-initial so is a way for the speaker to subtly cue to the listener that the following information is relevant to the listener’s interests. Whether or not the information is actually relevant is for the listener to decide, though perhaps this cue makes it more likely for a conversational partner to pay attention. (If you want to learn more, Bolden’s research is also discussed in this Language Log post.)

Let’s look at another example. Imagine two strangers are talking at a party, and one is trying very hard to carry on a conversation with the other: 

Speaker 1: So, how do you know Myra?Speaker 2: College.Speaker 1: So, I met Myra rock climbing at Yosemite… 

In this example, the sentence-initial so is being used in two different ways. So works as a conversational prompt in the first line, and in the third line, so is used to carry on the conversation. In this way, so is a tool that helps ensure the conversation keeps up its pace by allowing a quick transition from one topic to another. Additionally so is sometimes used to change the subject altogether; a person might start a non-sequitur with the word so. It’s a way for a savvy conversationalist to avoid awkward silences. Professor Geoffrey Raymond explores the sentence-initial so in his paper “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘So’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Take, for example, the following exchange:

Speaker 1: I went to the grocery store this afternoon.Speaker 2: Which one did you go to? I love the one on Lawrence and Rockwell. They have excellent produce.Speaker 1: That’s where I always go. So I was buying avocados…

Raymond calls this the so-prefaced upshot (discussed in detail in this Lexicon Valley episode). Speaker 2 took the conversation on a tangent, and Speaker 1 brought it back to the topic she wanted to discuss; in this way Speaker 1 is able to return to the original narrative. This use of so assumes a certain level of engagement in the discussion. The speaker assumes that the listener is engaged enough to connect the words following so to an earlier moment in the conversation. This kind of assumption harks back to Bolden’s theory that the sentence-initial so is a way of involving a listener in a conversation by somehow indicating that the information to come is relevant to the listener. In this example, so is directly referential, though as we can see from earlier examples, the point of reference can range from obvious to abstruse. The point of reference might not even be a verbal marker in the conversation; it could, as described above in the second example, be something like a feeling of awkwardness.

In English, the word so is highly polysemous. It can be used as an adverb, a conjunction, a pronoun, an interjection, or an adjective. You could argue that the sentence-initial so is an interjection (see the second interjection sense, or sense 16, of  well), but the so discussed in this article closely resembles, and might be best described, as a coordinating conjunction. Generally coordinating conjunctions are used to connect words, phrase, clauses, or sentences. However, the sentence-initial so is unique in that the connection being made is more conceptual than grammatical. The items being linked are streams of conversation, and not the traditional adjacent words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. This often irks grammar sticklers, but linguists and lexicographers hear this emerging use of so with the analytic distance of a scientist. We watch. We observe. We wait to see how deeply it permeates the utterances of English speakers. We wonder if it will become a standard way to use so in the future.

Have you heard or seen any good examples of the sentence-initial so? What part of speech do you think the sentence-intial so falls under? Let us know in the comments.

Check back next week for Part II of this post, in which we discuss the dangling so, or when people end their sentences with “so…”

Предложения с «colloquial words»

Colloquial
words are characteristic of the informal style of spoken English. One
should distinguish between literary (standard) colloquial words as
units of Standard English and non-literary colloquialisms that belong
to sub-standard English vocabulary.

Literary
colloquial words are used in everyday conversations both by educated
and uneducated people and are also met in written literary texts. As
for their etymology and structure literary colloquial words are
closer to neutral words than to literary-bookish units, but, as a
rule, have stronger emotional colouring. They are formed on standard
word-formative patterns (for instance, contraction, phrasal verbs and
nouns, etc,). Some of them are particularly frequent: granny,
birdie, touchy, make-up, put up, etc.

Non-literary
colloquial words include slang, jargonisms, professionalisms and
vulgarisms. Slang comprises highly informal words not accepted for
dignified use. Such words are expressive sub-standard substitutes for
current words of standard vocabulary. As a rule, their meanings are
based on metaphor and have ironic colouring, e.g. attic
(“head”),
beans
(“money”),
saucers
(“eyes”),
etc. Such words are easily understood by all native speakers, because
they are not specific for any social or professional group.

Informal
words peculiar for a certain social or professional group should be
considered as jargonisms. Such words are usually motivated and, like
slang words, have metaphoric character, e.g. bird
(“spacecraft”) /astronauts’ jargon/; to
grab
(“to make an impression on smb.”) /newspaper jargon/; grass,
tea, weed
(сорняк)
(“narcotic”) / drug addicts’ jargon/, etc.

Among
social jargons cant (тайный
язык,
арго)
or argot (thieves jargon) stands somewhat apart. Cant words are
non-motivated and have special “agreed-upon”, secretive meanings,
e.g. book
(“life sentence”), splosh
(“money”), to rap
(“to kill”), etc.

Professionalisms
are sub-standard colloquial words used by people of a definite trade
or profession. Such words are informal substitutes for corresponding
terms, e.g. Hi-Fi
(“high fidelity”), smash-up
(“accident”), anchor
(“brakes”), etc.

Vulgarisms
include: a) expletives (бранные
слова)
and swear words of abusive character, like damn,
bloody,
etc.; b) obscene (непристойный)
(or taboo, four-letter) words which are highly indecent.

Тема 8. Слово та фразеологічні одиниці.

Phraseological
fusions
are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red
tape
— ‘bureaucratic
methods’; heavy
father
— ’serious
or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick
the bucket
— ‘die’;
and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections
whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole
group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability
of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the
fusion.

Phraseological
unities
are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived
through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For
example, to
show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if
interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical
meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand
these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole
unit, however, readily suggests ‘take a threatening tone’ or
’show an intention to injure’ for show
one’s teeth
and
‘discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash
one’s dirty linen in public.
Phraseological
unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of
stability of the lexical components.

Phraseological
collocations
are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific
lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in
such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of
member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear
a grudge
may
be changed into bear
malice,
but
not into bear
a fancy or liking.
We can
say take
a liking (fancy)
but
not take
hatred (disgust).
These
habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés¹
where
the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the
meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations
are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.

Another
angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the
so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that
phraseological units may be defined as specify word-groups
functioning as word-equivalents.¹
The
fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are
their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as
distinguishing features of isolated words.

It
will be recalled that when we compare a free word-group, e.g, heavy
weight,
and
a phraseological unit, e.g.
heavy
father, we
observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the
member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning
of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical
meaning of its constituents. In the case of the phraseological unit,
however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a
single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do
not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the
group. The same is true of the stylistic reference and emotive charge
of phraseological units. In free word-groups each of the components
preserves as a rule its own stylistic reference. This can be readily
observed in the stylistic effect produced by free word-groups made up
of words of widely different stylistic value, e.g. to
commence to scrub, valiant chap and
the like.

A
certain humorous effect is attained because one of the member-words
(commence,
valiant)
is
felt as belonging to the bookish stylistic layer, whereas the other
(scrub,
chap)
is
felt as stylistically neutral or colloquial. When we say, however,
that kick
the bucket
is
highly colloquial or heavy
father
is
a professional term, we do not refer to the stylistic value of the
component words of these phraseological units kick,
bucket, heavy or father,
but
the stylistic value of the word-group as a single whole. Taken in
isolation the words are stylistically neutral. It follows that
phraseological units are characterised by a single stylistic
reference irrespective of the number and nature of their component
words. Semantic inseparability of phraseological units is viewed as
one of the aspects of idiomaticity which enables us to regard them
as semantically equivalent to single words.

The
term grammatical
inseparability
implies that the grammatical meaning or, to be more exact, the
part-of-speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging
to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech
meaning of the component words. Comparing the free word-group, e.g. a
long day,
and
the phraseological unit, e.g. in
the long run,
we
observe that in the free word-group the noun day
and
the adjective long
preserve
the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in isolation.
The whole group is viewed as composed of two independent units
(adjective and noun). In the phraseological unit in
the long run the
part-of-speech meaning belongs to the group as a single whole. In
the long run is
grammatically equivalent to single adverbs, e.g. finally,
ultimately, firstly, etc.
Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units viewed as one of
the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to regard them as
grammatically equivalent to single words.

Proceeding
from the assumption that phraseological units are non-motivated
word-groups functioning as word-equivalents by virtue of their
semantic and grammatical inseparability, we may classify them into
noun equivalents (e.g.
heavy father),
verb
equivalents (e.g. take
place, break the news),
adverb
equivalents (e.g. in
the long run),
etc.

An
attempt
is also made to distinguish phraseological units as word-equivalents
from idioms
proper, i.e. idiomatic units such as that’s
where the shoe pinches, the cat is out of the bag, what will Mrs
Grundy say?,
etc. Unlike phraseological units, proverbs, sayings and quotations do
not always function as word-equivalents. They exist as ready-made
expressions with a specialised meaning of their own which cannot be
inferred from the meaning of their components taken singly. A proverb
is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a
truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs
have much in common with set expressions, because their lexical
components are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostly
figurative, and they are introduced into speech ready-made. As to
familiar
quotations,
they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from
literature but by and by they become part and parcel of the language,
so that many people using them do not even know that they are
quoting. Some quotations are so often used that they come to be
considered clichés.
The term comes from the printing trade. The cliché
(the word is French) is a metal block used for printing pictures and
turning them out in great numbers. The term is used to denote such
phrases as have become hackneyed and stale. Being constantly and
mechanically repeated they have lost their original expressiveness
and so are better avoided. The following are perhaps the most
generally recognised: astronomical
figures, the arms of Morpheus, to break the
ice,
the irony of fate, stand shoulder to shoulder, swan song, toe the
line, tender mercies, etc.

We
shall distinguish set
expressions
that are nominal phrases: the
wot of the trouble’, verbal
phrases: put
one’s best foot forward; adjectival
phrases: as
good as gold; red as a cherry; adverbial
phrases: from
head to foot; prepositional
phrases: in
the course of; conjunctional
phrases: as
long as, on the other hand; interjectional
phrases: Well,
I never!
A
stereotyped
sentence also introduced into speech as a ready-made formula may be
illustrated by Never
say die! ‘never
give up hope’, take
your time ‘do
not hurry’.

The
above classification takes into consideration not only the type of
component parts but also the functioning of the whole, thus, tooth
and nail is
not a nominal but an adverbial unit, because it serves to modify a
verb (e. g. fight
tooth and nail); the
identically structured lord
and master is
a nominal phrase. Moreover, not every nominal phrase is used in all
syntactic functions possible for nouns. Thus, a
bed of roses or
a
bed of nails and
forlorn
hope are
used only predicatively.

Set
expressions have their own specific features, which enhance their
stability and cohesion. These are their euphonic,
imaginative
and connotative
qualities. It has been often pointed out that many set expressions
are distinctly rhythmical, contain alliteration, rhyme, imagery,
contrast, are based on puns, etc.

Rhythmic
qualities are characteristic of almost all set expressions. They are
especially marked in such pairs as far
and wide, far and near ‘many
places both near and distant’; by
fits and starts ‘irregularly’;
heart
and soul ‘with
complete devotion to a cause’. Rhythm is combined with reiteration
in the following well-known phrases: more
and more, on and on, one by one, through and through. Alliteration
occurs in many cases: part
and parcel ‘an
essential and necessary part’; with
might and main ‘with
all one’s powers’; from
pillar
to post’, in for a penny, in for a pound’, head over heels;
without rhyme or
reason’, pick of the pops’, a bee in one’s bonnet’, the why
and wherefore. Rhyme
is also characteristic of set expressions: fair
and square ‘honest’;
by
hook or by crook ‘by
any method, right or wrong’; high
and dry was
originally used about ships, meaning ‘out of the water’; at
present it is mostly used figuratively in several metaphorical
meanings: ‘isolated’, ‘left without help’, ‘out of date’.

Semantic
stylistic
features
contracting set expressions
into units of fixed context are simile,
contrast,
metaphor
and synonymy.
For example: as
like as two peas, as old as the hills and older than the hills
(simile);
from
beginning to end, for love or money, more or less, sooner or later
(contrast);
a
lame duck, a pack of lies, arms race, to swallow the pill, in a
nutshell (metaphor);
by
leaps and bounds, proud and haughty (synonymy).
A few more combinations
of different features in the same phrase are: as
good as gold, as pleased as Punch, as fit as a fiddle (alliteration,
simile); now
or never, to kill or cure (alliteration
and contrast).

For
all practical purposes the boundary between set expressions and free
phrases is vague.

42

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #