Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 26:2 (2003) ► pp.46–62
“So what does this show us?”
Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk
Published online: 1 January 2003
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.26.2.04ren
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.26.2.04ren
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 (30)
Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversational 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.
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.
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.
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., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-raking in conversation. Language 50 (4), 695–735.
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 (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Fuseini, Kadir
Ta, Binh Thanh
Ta, Binh Thanh & Anna Filipi
Filipi, Anna, Amanda Berry & Minh Hue Nguyen
Fu, Yanli & Victor Ho
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2022. Showing structure. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 479 ff.
van der Ploeg, Mara, Annerose Willemsen, Louisa Richter, Merel Keijzer & Tom Koole
Shan, Yi
Lam Hoang, Thi Giang & Anna Filipi
Buysse, Lieven
Buysse, Lieven
Lam, Phoenix W. Y.
Nevile, Maurice
Nevile, Maurice
Hickey, Tina
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
Nevile, Maurice & Johanna Rendle-Short
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. 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.