Geary: "So. Speranza et alia. Have you noticed that the people of USA when
being asked a question by a news-type person frequently begins his/her response
by saying: "So..." even though the "so" has no connection whatsoever with what
follows. It's kind of like the word "like" in the sentence: "Like, what does
it mean?" So, I ask, what's with this initial "so"? It annoys the hell out of
me. I won't take it anymore. So, JL et alia, what's with this "so"? What's
its name? How can we lovers of unextraneous language usage defeat it without
losing our so so sanity?"
Perhaps the clearest exposition of Grice's vs. Strawson's view on the
implicatures of 'so' are in Strawson's contribution to Grice's festschrift, P.
G. R. I. C. E., aka Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions,
Categories, Ends. Following his own observations from his early "Introduction
to Logical Theory," Strawson compares 'so' (and 'therefore') with 'if': 'if'
and 'so' (or 'therefore') trigger the same conventional implicatures, but in
different contexts: unasserted ('if') and asserted ('so', 'therefore'). And so
on.
Grice, of course, disagrees, but then he was the one who introduced Strawson to
the topic of logical theory, on which he (Sir Peter, as he then wasn't) wrote
his introduction.
And McEvoy and Popper may also disagree. "So" is so colloquial, it, to echo
Edith Wharton, hurts, like.
So. Cheers,
Speranza
whic
.
