Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

If you were to break down the posts, I think you'd find that I'm the
leading user of "So, ......" in this group.  It starts a summary
paragraph or a question based on the preceding paragraphs the way I
use it.  I use it as a writing device.  I do try to avoid using it
more than once in the same post, though.

So, you think it can be used effectively?

skailaje@hotmail.com (Sachin Kailaje) wrote on 31 Dec 2003:

This is, it seems to me, the mark of a poor speaker, and that is all.
I don't think it has to do with any non-English influence on native
anglophones. Many people who are equally poor speakers use other
meaningless and unnecessary grunts to begin sentences, eg "Like," or
"I mean," or "Well," or "Now," etc. Some people cannot allow
themselves to start at the beginning but must preface that beginning
with a meaningless and unnecessary sound. I know this occurs in
English, Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. It probably occurs in all
languages, but I don't what the prefatory words are in other
languages.

In that context, "so" is equivalent to "therefor" and indicates that
what is to be said is a consequence of what went before.

S&

Replying two weeks later, sorry...  I did enjoy the holidays, though.
This "so" query touched on a similar irritation I've long felt listening
to episodes of a technical radio show on CBC, "Quirks and Quarks"[1],
where they say "so".

Interesting.  Technical material often uses a premise and conclusion
format.  So I can see using 'so' meaning 'therefore' as a logical cement
to connect various premises with their conclusions.  But I think you've
noted a case where 'so' in didactic presentations has been picked up as a
bit of fluff; something of a technical expository *um*err* as it were.

I suggest that the origins are 'so' meaning 'therefore', e.g.
"During long photographic exposures, the Earth will rotate perceptibly, so
it's necessary to position any scope or camera on a tripod that rotates in
step with the Earth's rotation."

Later, 'so' meaning 'therefore' becomes more abstract in moving one part
of an explanation into another:  "That's the gist of it.  So let's look at
how that will affect our normal work routine."

Later, I think 'so' becomes just a nonsense word used as a stepping stone
to the next bit in the presentation, as you note.

Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:

A perceptive distinction.  So 'so' is a stepping stone, but of a
particular type.

I reply because this touches on something that's been bugging me when I
listen to past episodes of Quirks and Quarks, a weekly CBC show on popular
science.  Analysis of this show will give you plenty of material on the
different usages of 'so'.

For reference[1], I'm going to use the 2004-01-10 episode of Q&Q, 31m29s
into the show, from the segment on the Hawai'ian Bobtail Squid w/ Dr.
Wendy Crooks, University of Hawai'i.

Sachin Kailaje quotes the Power Point presentation:

When listening to "Quirks and Quarks" interviews, many answers prefaced
with "so", seem to be a non sequitur.  One of my back-burner ideas is to
contact them and ask if the interviews are later spliced together in Q&A
pairs.  I don't think that's the case, though.

For example from the show mentioned above:
Q. "How is the squid producing light?"
A. "So the light organ is located in the squid's belly. [...]"

It almost sounds as if the interviewee has provided an exposition on the
topic in a monologue (using the "this so that" logic), and as if the
interviewer's questions are later spliced in between the "answers".  Maybe
apparent prevalence is only because I'm aware of it, but it seems to me
that more than half the interviews on this show contain the "non sequitur
'so'".  I hadn't noticed this anywhere else, so I presumed that this was
unique to the show, and was a result of splicing 'Q's with 'A's from a
prerecorded interview.

From what you report, seems it might be an English usage phenomenon, not a
result of editing interviews.

I can understand that.
'So' meaning 'therefore' seems natural in an explanation.  

I don't think so.

Well, my theory is that 'so' became such a part of technical explanation,
that 'so' became part of a layman's explanation, such that 'so' now means
pretty much "let's move along, ahem, aherr", with no real meaning.

Below are quotes from the broadcast I mentioned, with comments.
Quotes from "Quirks and Quarks" 2004-01-10, 31m29s into the show
(segment on Hawai'ian Bobtail Squid w/ Dr. Wendy Crooks, U of H):

"it's nocturnal, as I said, so it swims around and forages at night and
looks for mates and"

* a normal use of 'so' to loosely mean 'therefore'

"what happens is, it has a predator known as the lizard fish, and the
lizard fish buries down in the sediments in the sand and looks up with its
beady little eyes and waits for dinner to pass by overhead, and then nabs
it out of the water."

"So, in the aquatic environment, it's pretty hard to hide yourself, and
especially at night, when you're casting a shadow or creating a
silhouette, um, for an animal such as a lizard fish, [...]"

* using 'so' as more of a meaningless connector

"so, what the squid do is they swim overtop and project a light downwards
from their belly, and the light, we think, matches the moonlight and the
starlight from overhead, and so the lizard fish doesn't see the squid
swimming because the squid are not making a silhouette against the night
sky, and they're not casting a shadow. [...]"

* using 'so' as 'therefore' as is normal

"[...] tell me about this light organ.  How is the squid producing light?"
"So the light organ is located in the squid's belly. [...]"

* this is the 'so' non sequitur that irritates me, because it doesn't seem
to follow naturally from the question.

But here's the full quote:
"So tell me about this light organ.  How is the squid producing light?"
"So, the light organ is located in the squid's belly. [...]"

Why did the interviewer say "so"?
His "so" seems natural ("so tell me"), but the response seems spliced in.
"Why?"  "So the light organ..."

That seems more of a continuation of an explanation that has nothing to do
with the question that apparently caused it.

I found your query interesting, because I thought that all those annoying
"so"s were annoying editing, but now it seems that it may be a live,
natural response to continuing an explanatory dialogue.

But I ramble,
So what.

[1] CBC = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the network of Canadian
public radio stations.  "Quirks and Quarks" archives can be found at
http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives.htm