4 December 2011
So, one little word has been getting a bit of press lately. Some people are up in arms about an apparent rise in use of the word so to introduce a sentence.
BBC 4 recently ran a piece that featured a rant against the little word when it’s used to start a sentence. And the New York Times had a similar article back in May 2010.
I became aware of so’s use as an introductory particle when Seamus Heaney used it to translate Hwæt! at the opening of his 2000 edition of Beowulf.
Now, I don’t have any data on whether or not there is actually a rise in the use of introductory so (and as far as I can tell no one else does either) or if this is simply an instance of diegogarcity, where people suddenly start to notice a word that has been there all along. But it’s certainly much older than an alleged origin in Silicon Valley c. 1999, as proposed in the New York Times article. (I seriously doubt that Seamus Heaney is taking his cues from programmers in Santa Clara.) The OED second edition has five citations of so used as an introductory particle, none of them recent, but three of them from significant works of literature: Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece, Richardson’s Pamela, and Sheridan’s The Rivals. And the New York Times article cites, and then dismisses as aberrant, an instance of its use in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. So it’s not like this is a new or an obscure usage that is rearing its ugly head, threatening to destroy the integrity and beauty of our fair language.
If you object to its use, take a deep breath and count to ten. The introductory so has been with us for centuries. If you think its use is on the rise, don’t complain unless you can back up your claim with data that shows the incidence is actually increasing. If you don’t have hard numbers on its relative usage, chances are the alleged rise is simply a result of confirmation bias. You’re seeing it more because you’re noticing it more, but it’s been there all along.
(Tip of the hat to English, Jack)
