Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied LinguisticsVol. 26:2 (2003) ► pp.46–62
“So what does this show us?”
Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk
Analysis of a series of computer science seminars indicates that use of the discourse marker ‘so’ in monologic talk is not random, rather it plays an important role in orienting the listener to the overall structure of the seminar. Although the institutional nature of seminar talk is such that only one person speaks for an extended turn, detailed analysis of seminars indicates that presenters do not maintain a continuous stream of talk. They talk for a bit, pause, and then talk for a bit more. These bits of talk (or sections) are characterised by a number of features, including discourse markers. The analysis shows how the discourse marker ‘so’ occurs in specific environments, with specific prosodic features, and that its role and function varies according to where it occurs within the seminar. The close interaction between talk (in this case, presenters’ use of ‘so’), and action (in this case, putting slides on the overhead projector), is also made apparent.
References
Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J.
(Eds.) (1984) Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.
(1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Button, G.
(1990) On varieties of closing. In G. Psathas, (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp. 93–147) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
(1991) Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.) Talk and social structure. (pp. 251–277) Cambridge: Polity Press.
Button, G. & Lee, J.R.E.
(Eds.) (1987) Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chafe W.L.
(1979) The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax Vol 121. (pp. 159–81) New York: Academic Press.
Chaudron, C. & Richards, J.
(1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7 (2), 113–127.
Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S.
(1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171, 435–458.
Fraser, B.
(1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 141, 383–395.
Gardner, R.
(1994) Conversation analysis transcription. In R. Gardner (Ed.) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. (Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S No. 11) (pp. 185–191) ALAA: Canberra.
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goodwin, C.
(1996) Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar, (pp. 370–404) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J.J.
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J.
(1985) Analysing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 31. Discourse and dialogue, (pp. 95–117) London: Academic Press Inc.
Heritage, J. & Watson, D.R.
(1980) Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversation: Some instances analysed. Semiotica. 30 (3/4) 245–262.
Hinds, J.
(1979) Organizational patterns in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax. (pp. 135–54) New York: Academic Press.
Jucker, A.H.
(1993) The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191, 435–452.
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P. & Jacoby, S.
(1996) “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar. (pp. 328–69) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rendle-Short, J.
(1998) Discourse markers in computer science seminar talk. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
(1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22/2, 19–33.
(2002) Talk and action in the computer science seminar. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
forthcoming). Showing structure: Using ‘um’ in monologic talk.
Sacks, H., Jefferson, G. & Schegloff, E.A.
(1977) The preference for self-correc-tion in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2), 361–382.
Sacks, H.
(1984) On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (1984) (pp. 413–429).
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-raking in conversation. Language 50 (4), 695–735.
Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 81, 289–327.
Schiffrin, D.
(1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L.
(1999) Discourse markers. Lingua 1071, 227–265.
Segel, E.M., Duchan, J.F. & Scott, P.J.
(1991) The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 141, 27–54.
Watson, D.R.
(1990) Some features of the elicitation of confessions in murder interrogations. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp. 263–295) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
Cited by
Cited by 19 other publications
Buysse, Lieven
2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44:13 ► pp. 1764 ff. 
Buysse, Lieven
2017. English so and Dutch dus in a Parallel Corpus: An Investigation into Their Mutual Translatability. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 5], ► pp. 33 ff.
Davis, Boyd H.
2005. So, You had Two Sisters, Right? Functions for Discourse Markers in Alzheimer’s Talk. In Alzheimer Talk, Text and Context, ► pp. 128 ff.
Filipi, Anna, Amanda Berry & Minh Hue Nguyen
2022. Students’ unsolicited initiations in a science classroom as displays of competence. Linguistics and Education 72 ► pp. 101124 ff.
Fu, Yanli & Victor Ho
2022. Discourse markers in TV interviews: A corpus-based comparative study of Chinese and the western media. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Hickey, Tina
2009. Code‐switching and borrowing in Irish1. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13:5 ► pp. 670 ff.
Lam, Phoenix W. Y.
2010. Toward a functional framework for discourse particles: a comparison of well and so. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 30:6 ► pp. 657 ff.
Lam Hoang, Thi Giang & Anna Filipi
2019. In pursuit of understanding and response: a micro-analysis of language alternation practices in an EFL university context in Vietnam. The Language Learning Journal 47:1 ► pp. 116 ff.
Nevile, Maurice
2010. Looking for action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 3.1 ff.
Nevile, Maurice
2010. Looking for action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 3.1 ff.
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
2007. Language as action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 30.1 ff.
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
2007. Language as action. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 30.1 ff.
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2005. Managing the Transitions Between Talk and Silence in the Academic Monologue. Research on Language & Social Interaction 38:2 ► pp. 179 ff.
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2022. Showing structure. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 479 ff.
Shan, Yi
2021. Investigating the Interaction Between Prosody and Pragmatics Quantitatively: A Case Study of the Chinese Discourse Marker ni zhidao (“You Know”). Frontiers in Psychology 12
Ta, Binh Thanh
2024. Collaboratively pursuing student uptake of feedback through storytelling: a conversation analytic study of interaction in team doctoral supervision. Applied Linguistics Review 0:0
Ta, Binh Thanh & Anna Filipi
2020. Storytelling as a resource for pursuing understanding and agreement in doctoral research supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 165 ► pp. 4 ff.
Ta, Binh Thanh & Anna Filipi
2023. Story-closing in PhD supervisory feedback: A conversation analytical study. Linguistics and Education 75 ► pp. 101183 ff.
van der Ploeg, Mara, Annerose Willemsen, Louisa Richter, Merel Keijzer & Tom Koole
2022. Requests for assistance in the third-age language classroom. Classroom Discourse 13:4 ► pp. 386 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.