By Daniel Rigney
So I began to notice this spreading verbal virus while attending a lecture series on recent breakthroughs in science and engineering at Nearby University.
So I noticed that speakers would often respond to questions from the audience by saying “So the question is …”, as though they were simply continuing and completing the questioner’s last sentence.
So I noticed they also frequently began their own new sentences with the s-word. “So tonight we’ll be talking about recent developments in nanoneurophysics ….," etc.
After awhile this practice began to intrigue and annoy me in roughly equal measure. So is it beginning to annoy you too? I’ll stop now before I beat my point into the sod.
I’ve done a little homework on recent mutations in the American language and found articles on “uptalk” (ending declarative sentences with what sound like a question mark?) and “vocal fry” (or what sounds to me more like a soft growl), both reminiscent of the Valley-girl speech of the 80s. I've also found several discussions of what I’ll call so-sentences (e.g., here, here, here, and here.)
Cultural analysts seem to hold varying views regarding the significance of this spreading verbal practice, but there’s wide agreement that it’s been emanating mainly from the science and engineering quadrant of society, and more specifically from Seattle and Silicon Valley, where mind hives are busy making technological honey. Maybe individual minds there are melding into each other to form smoothly buzzing corporate minds. In that ecosystem, maybe it's natural that a sentence should begin in one mind and continue in another.
Maybe Siliconspeak resembles those close interpersonal relationships we hear about in which partners finish each other’s sentences. Except that in Silicon Valley, entire teams are said to continue each other’s sentences with the connective linguistic tissue of “so.” And their object is apparently not to make love (so far as I know), but rather to make gadgets and money.
Some observers suggest that “so” is the new “um.” It doesn’t sound as dumb, and it buys the speaker a few extra nanoseconds to compose a sentence or paragraph of oration. “So” announces that the speaker is about to say something authoritative, engaging in a logic train in which each car is coupled to the car ahead of it to form a continuous and moving train of thought.
“So” sounds social. “So” sounds cooperative and collaborative. "So" sounds connective and empathic.
At the same time, its overuse irritates those who resist changes in traditional usage, and who don’t appreciate mutations in the evolution of slanguage. While some may think it's great, others think it grates.
Okay, so what do you think about so-sentences? As for myself, I’m all, like, whatever.
Danagram
So I began to notice this spreading verbal virus while attending a lecture series on recent breakthroughs in science and engineering at Nearby University.
So I noticed that speakers would often respond to questions from the audience by saying “So the question is …”, as though they were simply continuing and completing the questioner’s last sentence.
So I noticed they also frequently began their own new sentences with the s-word. “So tonight we’ll be talking about recent developments in nanoneurophysics ….," etc.
After awhile this practice began to intrigue and annoy me in roughly equal measure. So is it beginning to annoy you too? I’ll stop now before I beat my point into the sod.
I’ve done a little homework on recent mutations in the American language and found articles on “uptalk” (ending declarative sentences with what sound like a question mark?) and “vocal fry” (or what sounds to me more like a soft growl), both reminiscent of the Valley-girl speech of the 80s. I've also found several discussions of what I’ll call so-sentences (e.g., here, here, here, and here.)
Cultural analysts seem to hold varying views regarding the significance of this spreading verbal practice, but there’s wide agreement that it’s been emanating mainly from the science and engineering quadrant of society, and more specifically from Seattle and Silicon Valley, where mind hives are busy making technological honey. Maybe individual minds there are melding into each other to form smoothly buzzing corporate minds. In that ecosystem, maybe it's natural that a sentence should begin in one mind and continue in another.
Maybe Siliconspeak resembles those close interpersonal relationships we hear about in which partners finish each other’s sentences. Except that in Silicon Valley, entire teams are said to continue each other’s sentences with the connective linguistic tissue of “so.” And their object is apparently not to make love (so far as I know), but rather to make gadgets and money.
Some observers suggest that “so” is the new “um.” It doesn’t sound as dumb, and it buys the speaker a few extra nanoseconds to compose a sentence or paragraph of oration. “So” announces that the speaker is about to say something authoritative, engaging in a logic train in which each car is coupled to the car ahead of it to form a continuous and moving train of thought.
“So” sounds social. “So” sounds cooperative and collaborative. "So" sounds connective and empathic.
At the same time, its overuse irritates those who resist changes in traditional usage, and who don’t appreciate mutations in the evolution of slanguage. While some may think it's great, others think it grates.
Okay, so what do you think about so-sentences? As for myself, I’m all, like, whatever.
Danagram
No comments:
Post a Comment