So

Listen to a young scholar being interviewed on a talk show nowadays, and you will more than likely hear at the beginning of almost every response a seemingly mandatory,“So..” At first, this was only an occasional event. Now, just about all those of a certain generation are taken with the mannerism. The prefatory “So” is no doubt an homage to some luminary or luminaries in a particular field of endeavor. It has caught on with a vengeance. Have these kids no shame?

Among all of the other symptoms of conformity one might expect our paradise of individualism to discourage—if not preclude—is a lockstep on vernacular clichés and speech mannerisms. This phenomenon is expected among the young whose hopefully temporary insecurities are somewhat assuaged by speaking the jargon of their set—whether that is the unique speech of the valley girl, the hip-hopper, the geek, the nerd, et al. Something new seems to have surfaced within the last decade or so, however, and the phenomenon seems almost entirely restricted to the class of individuals who once prided themselves on their mastery of the language. Such mastery was a hallmark of having received a superior education.

Although most of the educated avoid “irregardless” in their speech since some English teacher along the way pointed it out as a barbarism, the use of “preventative”—even among young physicians—is widespread. The formerly nice distinction between “further” and “farther,” not a difficult distinction to master, has been found troublesome enough for a whole generation to take the step of just eliminating the word “farther” from its vocabulary. Although I am assuming that most colleges still have speech classes in addition to English classes, many users of “So” are from the same group that finds the (truly painful to the ear) rising cadences of “upspeak” so fetching.

The ease with which certain linguistic fads take root is a phenomenon worth studying. In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, hardly a commentator could be found who had not adopted the truly annoying “At the end of the day…” for frequent use. Did a cataclysmic event invite or even subconsciously impel so gloomy a usage? More important to me, however, is the fact that many show no resistance to these supposed “fads.” We know why politicians twist the language. Orwell made it quite clear, and we have been drowning in double-speak during the Bush years. Conservatives like to mess with people’s minds. But the same individual who would not ever think of his country as “the homeland” or the death of innocents as “collateral damage” seems to have no trouble at all beginning any response that requires a bit of explanation with, “So.”

You know what I’m saying?