Topic initiation: Business‐at‐hand

2009

Journal of Pragmatics

318

112

The discourse marker 'so' is most commonly described as indexing inferential or causal connections. However, recordings of everyday talk show that these are not its only functions. The article uses the methodology of conversation analysis and examines a large corpus of recorded conversations to explicate the role of 'so' in implementing incipient actions. The analysis focuses on the use of 'so' for prefacing sequence-initiating actions (such as questions) and demonstrates that speakers deploy this preface to indicate the status of the upcoming action as 'emerging from incipiency' rather than being contingent on the immediately preceding talk. 'So' prefacing is recurrently used in contexts where the activity being launched has been relevantly pending. Additionally, speakers can use 'so' to characterize and constitute a particular action as advancing their interactional agenda. The article shows that this marker is a resource for establishing discourse coherence and, more fundamentally, accomplishing understanding. #

Section: Warrants For Initiating the Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation

2009

Journal of Pragmatics

318

112

“…It’s better to consider “so” and “oh” prefacing as two options among various ways of launching a new course of action, including “just starting” without a preface of any sort or seamlessly transitioning into a new topic via, for example, a stepwise topic shift (Jefferson, 1984). An examination of other ways to do topic initiations lies beyond the scope of the paper (but see, e.g., Button & Casey, 1984, 1985, 1988/1989; Local, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 8 For a discussion of various ways of launching new topics see, for example, Button and Casey (1984, 1985, 1988/1989). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction

Journal of Communication

2006

214

106

The article presents an analysis of actual, recorded social interactions between close familiars with the goal to describe discursive practices involved in showing engagement with the other party, or other‐attentiveness. Focusing on the deployment of the discourse markers “so” and “oh” in utterances that launch new conversational topics, the article demonstrates that “so” overwhelmingly prefaces other‐attentive topics, whereas “oh” prefaces self‐attentive topics. We consider the interactional implications of this distribution and how the basic meanings of these linguistic objects are employed in the service of communicating interpersonal involvement.

“…“How are you” inquiries function as topic solicitations (Button & Casey, 1985, 1988/1989), inviting the recipient to bring a self‐attentive matter under discussion. In conversation openings, “how are you” questions provide the interlocutors with an opportunity to introduce an issue of “joint priority concern”—something that needs to be discussed before other business is dealt with (Schegloff, 1986, p. 118).…”

Section: Delayed “How Are You” Inquiries In Conversation Closingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings

Human Communication Research

2008

The article examines how the goals of maintaining and reaffirming interpersonal relationships are accomplished through the details of talk during closing sections of social encounters. On the basis of Russian language telephone conversations between close familiars, the article explicates ways in which interactions may be reopened and, more specifically, the role of the Russian discourse particle -to on utterances that raise new issues in closing environments. The analysis shows that although many kinds of new matters are commonly raised in conversation closings, only those that deal with the addressee-and only those raised by the person who initiated the closing-are marked so as to indicate the speaker's accountability for raising the matter late. This suggests that ways in which new topics are introduced in conversation closings reflect the speaker's orientation to displaying concern for and interest in the addressee.