http://www.fastcompany.com/3029762/how-a-popular-two-letter-word-is-undermining-your-credibility
So we should abandon two thousand years of common Germanic grammar and usage and usefulness because ⌠plain English undermines our credibility?
Yeah Iâm tempted to go to the opposite extreme and start half my sentances with yeah. Wulfila started a good many with jah.
1 Like
I find this analysis to be really misguided. If people are using âsoâ as a particular marker to set up a certain kind of dialogue, then it is useful to keep using it. I donât think my workplace uses this word in this way at all, so it doesnât really apply to me. But think of how helpful it is to know that the person is giving you the public, rehearsed version of the story when you are processing the story. If it is appropriate then you can probe into the behind-the-scenes, non-rehearsed part.
If the point of the article is to say that you should try to communicate in a more honest and fulsome way without relying on semi-rehearsed descriptions then Iâd say thatâs bullshit because those semi-rehearsed descriptions have their own use - you should just be aware of whether they are appropriate or not for a situation. If the point of the article is to go on using your little speeches but to drop the signifier that tells the other party you are doing it, then Iâd say thatâs intentionally trying to create an information disparity between you and the person you are talking to as part of a kind of con-game. To me, thatâs not the point of communicating, but Iâm sure that for many people in the business community it is.
1 Like
Shrugs.
I just linked that because I remember seeing in recently and @MarjaE was asking why someone might not like it.
I donât have much of an opinion on it, personally. Probably should have stayed schtum.
I agree, this article made me feel gross. toward the end, I kinda wanted to throw in their face the use of
In psychology, itâs whatâs known as a âmarker.â
with a comment titled âHow A Popular Phrase Is Undermining Your Credibilityâ, which would discuss how the phrase âIn [insert field of science here] itâs whatâs known asâŚâ and how that signals to your readership that this is just another vapid business advice column that shoehorned in a complex idea using the most superficial and broad meaning in order to try to look more legitimate.
1 Like
Sorry if all the 'youâs in my response made it seem like I was ascribing these ideas to you in particular. I was just disagreeing with the linked article.
1 Like
Re: the âinitial soâ
I first became aware of it in my regular listening to âQuirks and Quarksâ, a radio interview show covering topics in science. The host might ask âhow do you know that thereâs an actual effect there?â, and the guest would reply âso we use a control group to provide a baseâŚâ
Twenty years later, it still grates (especially as it seems to be the norm now). To me, âsoâ means âas a consequence ofâ or at least has a sense of following something. It sounds to me like the guest is ignoring the question, and continuing a train of thought that was never there. I expect a different bit of English nonsense: âWell, we use a control groupâŚâ
With âsoâ, it seems the guest has rehearsed a monologue (which I donât object to) and is ham-handedly superimposing it over the question and answer format provided by the host (which I object to).
So thatâs my objection to it.
2 Likes
You might enjoy seeing this - a friend of mine is working on this stuff:
1 Like
1 Like
If you listen to enough NPR, you hear it all the time, and not just in scientific or technological conversations. The NPR interviewer will ask the guest or call-in expert-of-the-moment something, and seven times out of ten the guest will start their next sentence with âso.â It really does come across as ânow begins the rehearsed part of my speech, since I know I only have seconds to get my point across and I know what I have to say next is the only reason NPR put me on the air right now so I better keep it pithy and to-the-point.â It never sounds like a natural conversational segue; it always comes across as a rehearsed pitch to get the following idea quickly poured into those ignorant radio listenersâ heads.
Itâs annoying to me because it doesnât sound like the expert is really listening to and responding to the hostâs questions in real time, but rather sounds like he or she was simply waiting for the cue to begin dispensing the expertise.
Whaddaya gonna do? Just because someone is an expert in their field (or at least knows enough about it to be interviewed on NPR) doesnât mean theyâre especially comfortable with extemporaneous conversation on the radio. But yeah, I do find it grating, and I do feel it undermines the message, if only insofar as it makes the speaker sound like they had to memorize a script rather than knowing their stuff backward and forward right off the top of their head. Not a fair judgment, to be sure, but the effect is nearly as unconscious as the cause is.
3 Likes
1 Like
To me, the question is, would you rather they practiced not saying âsoâ but otherwise acted exactly the same? Youâd hear the same rehearsed words in the answer to the same question, but without the signifier.
I feel like âsoâ there is a lot like âwe need to talk.â Itâs purpose is to put the listener in the right frame of mind to understand what is about to be said to them. âPlease switch your brain to listen-to-spiel mode now.â
1 Like
I donât follow.
People have used conjunctions to introduce sentences since the earliest surviving Germanic literature. People have also used auxiliary verbs to mark tense and voice since the earliest surviving Germanic literature, although this coexists with some use of inflection to mark voice in Gothic.
I donât see how that argument that we shouldnât use âsoâ to introduce sentences in English because we donât use conjuctions that way in proper languages makes any more sense than an argument that we shouldnât use âwillâ to mark the future in English because we donât use auxiliary verbs that way in proper languages like Latin. At least as far as I can remember.
1 Like
I fear youâre being too subtle for me; I have no idea what youâre referring to.
1 Like
I think you missed my point.
That was never my argument. Some may argue that conjunctions shouldnât start a sentence. But not me. And Iâm quite on board with starting sentences with conjunctions, if thatâs what it takes.
My argument was that in this situation, âsoâ seems to mark the continuation of a dialogue or thread that is not there, an unexpressed thread that is present only in the speakerâs rehearsed, imaginary version of the âconversationâ.
I understand: âWe need to determine if thereâs actually an effect, so we use a control group.â But: âHow do you determine if thereâs an effect?â, âSo we use a control groupâŚâ rankles.
2 Likes
So, the way I see it, leading or finishing a sentence with âsoâ is useless noise, and not communication, soâŚ
4 Likes
It makes for a jarring segue. Radio hosts generally make it their business to be cordial, always thanking their guests at the end of the interview (and waiting for the guests to thank them back afterward, which I almost never hear on, say, BBCâs Newshour so I always get the impression that Tim Franks is kinda rude), and are pretty conversational, generally taking pains to make both listener and guest-expert comfortable with the back-and-forth. The âsoâ speakers generally donât seem to have that particular level of comfort with an extemporaneous interview, and the âsoâ seems to underscore that. It sounds kind of like an âumâ with this key exception: saying âumâ while one takes a second to gather oneâs thoughts makes it sound like one is actually listening to the query.
âWhatâs the likelihood that these recent heavy rains might help assuage the longer-term effects of the current drought?â
âUm, well, even though my car is currently floating down the street, we have to keep in mind that weâre actually some seventeen inches of rainfall short of where weâd historically be at this time of yearâŚâ
When the interviewee leads off with âso,â on the other hand, it doesnât sound like a back-and-forth conversation, but rather the spewing forth of a prepackaged infodump.
âWhat are the implications of the Curiosity rover measuring an increased level of methane on Mars?â
âSo the samples were measured by the roverâs onboard Sample Analysis at Mars laboratoryâŚâ
I honestly donât mind hearing prepackaged and pre-rehearsed sound bites, but to have them underscored by the âsoâ grates on my ears as surely as an âumâ would grate on the ears of any 20th century elocution instructor.
I find that unnecessary. The same purpose is served by the introduction of the guest. âMy guest today, straight from JPL across the arroyo, is renowned Noxious Martian Emission analyst Josie Whatshername.â After that point, I generally put myself in that listening frame of mind without any further cues. 
do you find fastcompany to be consistently credible? I donât.
Iâd never heard of it before.
Given the direction this conversation has taken, Iâm not the least bit surprised.
