Self and the other: The use of “oh” and “so” in sequence-initial position

 

Galina Bolden

Applied Linguistics

UCLA

 

The paper presents a conversation analytic investigation into the use of discourse markers “so” and “oh” in sequence-initial positions – in particular, prefacing turn-constructional units (TCUs) that launch action sequences, topic talk, or larger activities that are new to the conversation. Having analyzed approximately fifty instances of each type of sequence-prefacing, I have found that overwhelmingly, and almost without exception, “so”-prefaced sequences are addressee-regarding while “oh”-prefaced sequences are speaker-regarding. This finding indicates that these discourse markers function as indices of other- and self-attentiveness.

 

The data for the paper are drawn from a corpus of approximately thirty hours of recorded, naturally occurring interactions in American English, both on the phone and co-present.

 

The paper discusses the relationship between the use of “so” and “oh” as indices of other- and self-attentiveness and the basic meaning of these markers. It is suggested that in sequence-initial positions, “so” can function as a marker that indicates “emergence from incipiency,” conveying the sense that what follows has been “on the speaker’s mind” for some time rather than has just occurred to him/her[1]. “Oh,” on the other hand, has been found to function as a “change of state” token, indexing a change in the speaker’s knowledge, awareness, or attention (Heritage, 1984, 1998, 2002; James, 1972, 1974; Jefferson, 1978; Schiffrin, 1987). Previous studies have demonstrated that when used in a responsive position, “oh” indicates a change of state resulting from the immediately preceding action, such as an informing (Heritage, 1984). In the sequence-initial position, “oh” is used to communicate the sense that something has “just now” been noticed, realized, or remembered (Heritage, 1984, 1998; Jefferson, 1978; Schegloff, 1979). In other words, “so” and “oh” appear to convey opposite meanings with regards to the status of the sequence-initial TCU they preface, offering different accounts for how that sequence has come to be launched at a particular place in the conversation. Moreover, these discourse markers suggest different levels of the speaker’s investment in the sequence thus introduced: An issue that has been incipient “on the speaker’s mind” is, it would appear, of greater import than one that has “just now” been remembered.

 

The characterization of “so” and “oh” as indices of the speaker’s state of mind may convey the sense that these discourse markers directly correspond to the speaker’s cognitive processes. I would argue, however, that they are interactional rather than cognitive objects that are meant to communicate the speaker’s public orientation to the sequence they preface – an orientation which may or may not correspond to whatever psychological reality the markers are designed to index.

 

The paper examines different types of sequences that are prefaced with “so” and “oh” as well as the contexts in which they occur. “So” has been found to preface (a)“howareyou” inquiries and their context-sensitive variations when they were pre-empted in the conversation opening or re-launched later in the conversation (having been posed in the opening as well); (b) arrangements-making sequences dealing with the addressee’s plans; and (c) sequences that proffer other addressee-centered topics. It has been found that in addition to marking other-attentiveness, “so” is implicated in marking a shift in the focus of the conversation from one party to the party targeted in the “so”-prefaced TCU. “Oh”-prefacing, on the other hand, is most commonly used in various types of telling sequences (about the speaker or a third party) and other speaker-centered action sequences (such as requests). An examination of the data suggests that even issues (later shown to be) of great and lasting import on the speaker may be introduced with “oh.” Thus, the use of this particle appears to be regulated by interactional rather than cognitive considerations.

 

Finally, I examine interactional factors that appear to govern the observed differential distribution of “so” and “oh,” including participants’ orientations to a set of social norms that prescribes displaying high, sustained interest in the other and low interest in oneself. The argument presented in the paper suggests that “so” and “oh” are implicated in managing, on the one hand, matters involved in the organization and launching of sequences (offering an account for “why this now”) and, on the other hand, social and moral matters dealing with accountability of social actors for the courses of actions they initiate.

 

 

 

References

 

Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291-334.

Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 196-224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

James, D. (1972). Some aspects of the syntax and semantics of interjections. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 162-172). Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.

James, D. (1974). Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints on, oh, interjections and hesitations. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 242-251). Chicago: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press.

Raymond, G. (frth.). Prompting action: Some uses of "so" in American and British conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.