“Holding Grudges Is So Last Century”: The Use of GenX So as a Modifier of Noun Phrases

Abstract

This article focuses on the X is so NP-construction in American English, as exemplified by “Holding grudges is so last century” (SOAP, As the World Turns, 2002). Drawing on the Corpus of American Soap Operas (Davies 2011-), the aim of this study is to provide an account of the distributional pattern of noun phrase modification with so, including preferences in modified noun phrase (NP) types and concomitant differences in the meaning of so. The analyses reveal that, in line with subjectification theory on intensification (Athanasiadou 2007), so is expanding its functional range from intensification to emphasis. The findings suggest a near-complementary distribution of these meanings, with intensifying so (‘very’) dominating in affirmative sentences (especially with object pronouns and names; “It’s so Star Trek”; SOAP, Days of Our Lives, 2004), and emphatic so (‘definitely’) in negated utterances (especially with pre-modified NPs, such as “It is so not a date”; SOAP, One Life to Live, 2007). Furthermore, intensifying uses of so are restricted to NPs that exhibit adjective-like characteristics and invite metonymic referencing (Gonzálvez-García 2014). So is attested almost exclusively with the copula be, which might hint at restrictions at work in this construction. With respect to the distribution of GenX so across the character groups, the scriptwriters attributed most utterances to (younger) women, in terms of both token frequency and dispersion within the group. This paper shows that the observations pertaining to language variation and change made for adjective intensification (“so good”) also apply to NP intensification (“so 2020”).

Keywords

intensifier emphasizer subjectification

1. Introduction

Constructions like so last century in “Holding grudges is so last century” (SOAP, As the World Turns, 2002), in which so modifies a noun phrase (NP), have been in regular use in English only for approximately the past twenty to thirty years (OED, s.v. so, adv. and conj., 2005 Draft additions, with earlier, sporadic attestations). This special type of so is also found with non-gradable adjectives (1) and adverbs (2), verbs (3), prepositional phrases (4), and the negative particle not (5).

(1) She’s writing a paper on why her family is so unique. (SOAP, AMC, 2012)¹

(2) Well, if it’s a party, I am so there. (SOAP, OLTL, 2011)

(3) I’m so going to win this game. (SOAP, ATWT, 2010)

(4) Fantastic. She is so behind us, Kevin. (SOAP, YR, 2005)

(5) Oh, my God, Billy Abbott is so not my cup of tea. (SOAP, YR, 2008)

The OED 2005 “Draft additions” describe the use of so in these constructions as “slang” and “nonstandard” (OED, s.v. so, adv. and conj.; see also Potts 2004; Tagliamonte 2005, 2008; Irwin 2014; Amador-Moreno & Terrazas-Calero 2017; Stange 2017). As it “seems to have first appeared in the speech of Generation Xers” (viz., people aged twenty to thirty-five at the turn of the millennium) (Zwicky 2006), the so in these constructions is often referred to as “GenX so.” Alternative terms include “Drama SO” (because of the speaker’s strong emotional involvement when using it in utterances; Irwin 2014:30) and “Speech Act so” (because it signals the speaker’s genuine commitment to the proposition in question; Potts 2004:130). In addition to its syntactic flexibility, GenX so exhibits inherent focal stress (Potts 2004:130; Amador-Moreno & Terrazas-Calero 2017:265), but GenX so might currently be undergoing a gradual loss of this distinctive feature (see Amador-Moreno & Terrazas-Calero 2017:265-266). Both these features help distinguish GenX so from the ordinary intensifier so (which corresponds in meaning to very): the latter lacks this prosodic prominence and is, strictly speaking, restricted to occur with gradable adjectives, adverbs, and verbs (as in 6; see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:583, 590 who use gradeability as a feature to define intensifiers).²

(6) It’s good to see you. It’s so good [‘very good’]. (SOAP, AMC, 2003)

Unquestionably, GenX so is also a means of intensification because “what is being said is sincerely vouched for” (Partington 1993:178). Although the term “intensifier” is not wholly appropriate for according to the usual definition of intensifiers, the modified element must be gradable (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:590; see also section 2.1.), it will be used in this paper because, as we will see later, speakers often impose gradeability on formally non-gradable lexical items where NP modification is concerned.

There is a need for systematic empirical studies of innovative uses of so because to date, research has been limited. The aim of this study is to provide an account of the distributional pattern of NP modification with so in the Corpus of American English Soap Operas (SOAP). The purpose is to identify the types of NPs that allow modification with GenX so, to detect potential differences in the meaning of so, and to see who uses the X is so NP-construction in this particular text type.

The present study will thus address the following specific research questions:

I) What is the frequency of the X is so NP-construction?

II) What NP types occur in this construction?

III) Who uses the X is so NP-construction (men/women; younger/older characters)?

IV) Does so always have an intensifying function in the respective syntactic context?

The first research question aims at exploring the frequency of the so NP-construction in affirmative and in negated uses between 2001 and 2012 in SOAP. The second question seeks to establish the degree of flexibility of GenX so as a modifier of NPs, as these come in various forms and different levels of complexity, as exemplified in (7) and (8).

(7) Matthew, trying to get your parents back together is so kindergarten. (SOAP, OLTL, 2004)

(8) You’re—you’re so everything that I have ever wanted. (SOAP, AMC, 2006)

While instances containing bare nouns like (7) indeed exhibit similarities to adjectival subject complements, this cannot be said for utterances like (8) that have syntactically considerably more complex NPs that look nothing like adjectives.

The next question (III) addresses the recurrent issue of the role younger women play in language variation and change, especially with respect to intensifiers. These are typically associated with emotional language (Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005:289), which in turn is associated with women. Accordingly, previous studies on changes in the intensifier system have repeatedly shown that women (particularly younger ones) are very often at the forefront of these changes (see, e.g., Stenström, Andersen & Hasund 2002; Ito & Tagliamonte 2003; Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005). Considering that characters rather than real speakers contribute the data, it will be interesting to see who uses the X is so NP-construction in soap operas since scriptwriters determine what is being said.

The last question (IV) is concerned with potential differences in the meaning of so. Stange (2019), who deals with preverbal so, has shown that, depending on the verb it modifies, so functions as an intensive (‘very much’) or an emphasizer (‘definitely’), with the latter meaning constituting the more recent development. It might well be that a similar trend is detectable for NP modification.

Indeed, my analyses reveal that, in line with subjectification theory on intensification (Athanasiadou 2007), GenX so with NPs is expanding its functional range from intensification to emphasis. Furthermore, I will show how sentence polarity and NP complexity affect the meaning of so in a given utterance (intensive ‘very’ versus emphatic ‘definitely’) and argue that there is in fact a near-complementary distribution of these two meanings that is possibly beginning to change.

This paper is structured as follows: the next section provides the theoretical framing for the present study. Section 3 will outline briefly what we know about GenX so in general and about GenX so with verbs and with NPs in particular. Section 4 elaborates on why it makes sense to focus on NP modification and why soap operas are a useful data source for the exploration of GenX so. It also gives an overview of the data and the methodology. The results section (section 5) addresses each research question in turn and discusses the implications of the findings. A short summary and a conclusion with suggestions for further research complete this paper.

2. Theoretical Framing of the X is so NP-Construction

2.1. So as Intensifier and Emphasizer

Lexical items such as so, very, or totally are commonly known as “intensifiers” (see, e.g., Lorenz 2002; Stenström, Andersen & Hasund 2002; Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005). They are defined as “a word, especially an adverb or adjective, that has little meaning itself but is used to add force to another adjective, verb, or adverb” (Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. intensifier). Intensifiers are “broadly concerned with the semantic category of DEGREE” (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:589) and are also referred to as “intensive adverbs” (Stoffel 1901), “degree words” (Bolinger 1972), “adverbs of degree” (Bäcklund 1973), or “amplifiers” (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985).

Intensifiers can be subdivided into “amplifiers” and “downtowners.” Amplifiers have an upscaling effect regarding “an abstractly conceived intensity scale,” while downtowners have a lowering effect (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:589). Amplifiers in turn can be split into “maximizers” and “boosters.” Maximizers such as absolutely, extremely, and fully “express an absolute degree [and] are typically used to modify ‘nonscalar’ items, i.e., items that do not normally permit grading (e.g., empty, impossible, wrong) or already contain a notion of extreme or absolute degree (e.g., disgusting, exhausted, huge, marvellous, etc.)” (Altenberg 1991:129). Boosters, on the other hand, are used to intensify gradable elements such as big, cold, expensive, and strong (cf. Altenberg 1991:129) and “denote a high degree, a high point on the scale” (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:590). In “old” intensifier uses of so, its function is that of a booster (meaning ‘very,’ as in 9), whereas new uses of this intensifier (subsumed under the term GenX so) include the modification of non-scalar adjectives and adverbs (so as a maximizer, as in 10).

(9) Why is the coffee here always so cold? (SOAP, AMC, 2010)

(10) Okay, why is it so impossible for us to be friends? (SOAP, ATWT, 2010)

Intensifiers are defined as a “functional category” for they serve as “a vehicle for impressing, praising, persuading, insulting and generally influencing the listener’s reception of the message” (Partington 1993:178) and are typically found in emotional language (Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005:289). Furthermore, with verb phrases (VPs), so can be used as an intensifier (11) or as an emphasizer (12) (Stange 2019).

(11) Oh, I so hate it [‘hate it so much’] when my own words are thrown back in my face. (SOAP, YR, 2008)

(12) We are so [‘definitely’] going to make her pay. (SOAP, DAYS, 2001)

Emphasizers “have a reinforcing effect on the truth value of the clause or part of the clause to which they apply” (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:583) and are thus concerned with expressing modality. Emphasizers do not require that the phrase they modify be gradable, but generally assume intensifying meaning in case the modified item is scalar (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:583).

In sum, so far three distinct uses have been observed for so: (a) booster for gradable adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, (b) maximizer for non-gradable adjectives and adverbs, and (c) emphasizer for non-gradable verbs (and for negated utterances; see OED, s.v. so, adv. and conj., 2005 Draft additions). While the use in (a) is associated with the ordinary intensifier so (“so good,” “so cool”), the uses in (b) and (c) are labeled (relatively) recent innovations and appear to have been in use for a few decades only (OED s.v. so, adv. and conj., 2005 Draft additions).

The fact that so is used in an increasingly wide range of contexts is indicative of it undergoing delexicalization because “the more delexicalised an intensifier, the more widely it collocates” (Partington 1993:183). Partington (1993:183) defines this process as follows: “In its extreme form, delexicalisation can be defined as the reduction of the independent lexical content of a word, or group of words, so that it comes to fulfill a particular function but has no meaning apart from this to contribute to the phrase in which it occurs.” This development has been repeatedly observed with intensifiers, with very as a case in point. Other intensifiers include, for instance, terribly, dreadfully, highly, and really (Partington 1993; Ito & Tagliamonte 2003). Delexicalization often goes hand in hand with grammaticalization, viz., the process through which “lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions or how grammatical items develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper & Traugott 2003:1).

Waksler (2012:15) called the new uses of so instances of “over-the-top intensification,” and she argues that “the speaker’s surpassing the usual syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic limits (i.e., ‘going over the top’) [is] as cue to subjectivity [in the sense of expressing the speaker’s attitude towards the modified item in question] in discourse.” Subjectification is a relevant concept in intensifier research, as the process involves a shift from content to function (which involves delexicalization and grammaticalization) as well as a shift from subjective to more subjective meaning (Athanasiadou 2007:559; see also Nevalainen & Rissanen 2002:361). Athanasiadou (2007:563) sketched a continuum for the subjectification process—i.e., how much stance (in the sense of speaker attitude towards the respective proposition) is conveyed, using total and totally as examples: the meanings range from subjective (“property,” e.g., “the total amount”) to more subjective (“quantification,” e.g., “a total disaster”) to highly subjective (“intensification,” e.g., “totally upset”) to most subjective (“emphasis,” e.g., “I totally called you last night”). Thus, the expanding range of meanings of so observed so far can be accounted for by it undergoing a number of connected processes (delexicalization, grammaticalization, subjectification).

2.2. The X is so NP-construction

Following Gonzálvez-García (2014:279), the nominal elements in the X is so NP-construction “exhibit gradience between a noun and an adjective.” This is illustrated by these seven criteria of adjectivehood (Gonzálvez-García 2014:279, some inherited from earlier research, criteria i-v from Aarts [2007:106] and criterion vi from Denison [2010:107]): adjectives allow (i) predicative use (“Tom is happy”), (ii) attributive use (“a happy man”), (iii) intensification (“very happy”), (iv) comparative and superlative uses (happier, the happiest), (v) prefixation through un- (unhappy), (vi) post-pronominal indefinite use (“someone happy”), and (vii) post-modification by enough (“happy enough”). The features (iii), (iv), and (vi) suffice to establish adjectivehood (Denison 2010:107). Gonzálvez-García (2014:279-281) cites examples (found on the internet) with NPs in the adjective slot (X is so ADJ  X is so NP) for all criteria but (v). Incidentally, we find a relevant hit for criterion (v) in SOAP, given in (13).

(13) No, everything about this is so un-Henry, it’s ridiculous. (SOAP, ATWT, 2005)

Taken together, these findings show that the noun in the X is so NP-construction can exhibit the syntactic characteristics of an adjective. This shift in syntactic behavior may explain why this construction works for native speakers: the noun assumes the properties of an adjective, and since adjectives tend to be gradable (or gradeability can be imposed on them; see point on metonymic referencing below), so can be used as an intensifier.

Gonzálvez-García (2014:290) identifies “two essential non-compositional features [. . .] as distinctive hallmarks” of the X is so NP-construction: first, the noun modified by so invites metonymic referencing (with the metonymies usually involving highlighting a property of the source domain), and, second, this noun can be bare or determinerless, even if it is countable. Examples (14) and (15) serve to illustrate that metonymic referencing is at work when (bare) nouns are used in that construction (see also Gonzálvez-García 2014), and the metonymy in question is of the “generic for specific” kind.

(14) Whoa. Dad, you are so Michael Douglas in that [suit]. (SOAP, GL, 2002)

(15) Olivia: [. . .] He takes one look at what’s going on, turned around and walked out, didn’t say a word.

Carly: That is so him. (SOAP, GH, 2009)

In (14), the father is dressed in a way that evokes strong associations with Michael Douglas in his daughter, and the more generic concept (Michael Douglas) stands in for a more specific aspect (the way he looks). The same applies to (15): the whole person (Sonny) stands in for a particular character trait (viz., the tendency to avoid confrontation). These target-in-source metonymies (where the metonymic reference zooms in on a relevant part of the matrix domain) involve domain reduction (see Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Díez Velasco 2000). In short, when speakers use the X is so NP-construction, they are creative and draw on metonymy to convey the intended meaning. Of course, this creative metonymy works only if the meaning is transparent to the interlocutor(s).

Importantly, it has been argued that “metonymy is crucially instrumental in language change” (Gonzálvez-García 2014:277; drawing on Traugott & Dasher 2002:35), and that “[c]hange proceeds from non-conventionalized mapping between lexical items and their readings construed through a particular focus of attention that is contextually motivated [. . .]” (Paradis 2008:332). Thus, “that’s Mary” (noun) is compositional, as is “that’s so nice” (gradable adjective). “That’s so Mary” (intensifier plus noun), however, constitutes a non-conventionalized form-meaning mapping. Being non-compositional, the sequence X is so NP thus qualifies as a construction in Construction Grammar (CxG), as defined here by Goldberg (2006:5):

Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with sufficient frequency.

The mismatch (“coercion” in CxG terms; Michaelis 2003:264) in question concerns the use of an intensifier (so) with a non-gradable entity (NP) (“form”), and the intensifier imposes gradeability on the NP in question (“function”; Gonzálvez-García 2014:278).

3. Previous Studies on GenX so

3.1. General

In earlier studies (and observations), the focus has been on the different types of lexical items that can be modified by GenX so (Kuha 2004; Zwicky 2006; Kenter, Lee & McDonald 2007). The constructions with GenX so are peculiar because they occur with lexical items that normally do not allow intensification (see 1-5 in section 1). Still, in Kenter, Lee, and McDonald’s (2007) exploratory small-scale study, all complements they tested for (viz., VP, Adjective phrase, NP, and Prepositional phrase) were deemed acceptable, hovering around the neutral score of 2.5 (scale from 1 to 5; 1 = completely grammatically acceptable).

Concerning its pragmatic properties, GenX so “indicates that the speaker is strongly committed to the propositional content” (Potts 2004:130; see also Waksler 2012), with the proposition in question equaling the clause without GenX so (Potts 2004:141). In (16), the propositional content is “we are going to get in trouble for this,” and so expresses the speaker’s certainty about having to suffer the consequences of what they are doing. Correspondingly, Quaglio and Biber (2008:713) have observed that “the marked position of so enhances the emphatic content of the statement.”

(16) We are so going to get in trouble for this. (SOAP, AMC, 2008)

It has been shown that GenX so is associated with (younger) women (Kenter, Lee & McDonald 2007; Zwicky 2011). They use it more often than men (Amador-Moreno & Terrazas-Calero 2017; Stange 2017) and rate it more favorably in acceptability ratings (Kuha 2004:223; Kenter, Lee & McDonald 2007). These findings are in line with what is commonly known about the role of (younger) women in language variation and change in general (e.g., Eckert 1989; Labov 1990; Coates [1986] 1993; Holmes 1997; Labov 2001) and in intensification in particular (e.g., Stoffel 1901; Jespersen [1922] 1954; Lakoff 1973; Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005; Stange 2017; Wagner forthcoming).

3.2. So as a Modifier of VPs and of NPs

This section focuses on GenX so with VPs and with NPs, as the other complements have not been studied in detail yet. A small number of studies concentrated on GenX so with verbs (Kuha 2004; Irwin 2014; Stange 2017, 2019, forthcoming a, b). Drawing on insights gained through introspection, Irwin (2014:56) claimed that “Drama SO must occur in an affirmative sentence or in a negated sentence above negation; there is no restriction on tense or VP type.” Corpus data confirm that GenX so occurs in a variety of verbal constructions: it can follow or precede the auxiliaries be, have, and do as well as modal verbs, and it precedes full verbs and have with modal meaning (Stange 2017:495; see also Kuha 2004:220-222). The collocational range of preverbal so is considerably wider in affirmative uses than in negated ones, with both ranges continually expanding between 2001 and 2012 (Stange 2017, forthcoming a). Depending on the semantics of the verb it modifies, it functions as an intensifier or emphasizer, with the latter constituting a more recent development (e.g., “I so want this job” ‘I want this job very much’ versus “I’m so going to win this game” ‘I’m definitely going to win this game’; Stange 2019).

There are two small-scale studies of GenX so with NPs, which are quite specific in their focus. Gonzálvez-García (2014) concentrated on the X is so NP-construction. He showed that the noun in this syntactic slot shows strong similarities to adjectives (Gonzálvez-García 2014:271; see also Denison 2010), and that the shift in meaning from noun to adjective is metonymic referencing. The metonymies usually involve highlighting a property of the source domain, viz., in (17).

(17) Black-and-white? That’s so Madonna in the 1990s. (SOAP, GH, 2004)

Madonna stands for a highlighted property associated with this singer; speakers either share that knowledge or the context helps disambiguate the meaning (see section 2.2).

Wee and Ying Ying (2008) were concerned with GenX so as a modifier of NPs that have a time expression, as in (18).

(18) Privacy is so last century. (SOAP, DAYS, 2011)

According to the authors, references to the present and the future (e.g., “X is so today/next season”) have a positive connotation (‘trendy’), while references to the past (e.g., “X is so last season/five minutes ago/1984”) are perceived as pejorative (‘old-fashioned/outdated’) (Wee & Ying Ying 2008:2105). However, it is unclear for both studies how the data were extracted, how many occurrences were analyzed, and how the construction was distributed across the various metonymic categories listed (e.g., so place, so celebrity, so food, so time).

4. Exploring the X is so NP-Construction: Research Design

4.1. Focus of the Study

This paper focuses on NP modification. This focus is necessary considering the versatility and complexity of GenX so. The study of preverbal GenX so alone has generated six individual papers so far (Kuha 2004; Irwin 2014; Stange 2017, 2019, forthcoming a, b), and I am preparing two more. Another reason for this separate treatment of NP modification is that so seems to behave differently (in the sense of actually doing and meaning different things) depending on the element it modifies, as seen in (19)-(21). The difference is also indicated by the OED listing three separate sub-entries for new uses of so.

(19) Uh, can you keep looking? I’m so dead if I lose that earring. (SOAP, ATWT, 2010)

(20) I’m warning you. I am so gonna get you for this! (SOAP, YR, 2011)

(21) Katherine was so looking forward to the birth of that child. (SOAP, YR, 2008)

Example (19) could be paraphrased either as “I’m certain I will be in a lot of trouble if I lose that earring” (certainty + intensity) or just as “I will be in so much trouble if I lose that earring” (intensity), and thus allows two interpretations. In contrast, so in (20) can only be taken to express absolute certainty (emphasizer), and intensity in (21).

Examples (22) and (23) could also be viewed as conveying the semantic category of degree, but with so maximizing rather than boosting the modified element (see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:589-591): the father looks like Michael Douglas (in 22), and leaving without saying a word is typical of the character Sonny in the soap opera General Hospital (in 23).

(22) Whoa. Dad, you are so Michael Douglas in that [suit]. (SOAP, GL, 2002)

(23) Olivia: [. . .] He takes one look at what’s going on, turned around and walked out, didn’t say a word.

Carly: That is so him. (SOAP, GH, 2009)

In conclusion, the examples in (19)-(23) illustrate that it makes sense to treat the different modified elements separately as the properties of so cannot be generalized across them. Once the ground has been covered more extensively, it will be easier to synthesize the findings and provide an overview of the properties of GenX so and explain what these findings tell us about language variation and change. For now, the study of GenX so is like trying to find all the pieces of a puzzle: only when all the pieces are in place will we know what the bigger picture looks like.

So, why is it interesting to study GenX so as an NP modifier and what can we learn from a detailed analysis of its distributional pattern? To begin with, instances of this construction are typically spontaneous, creative utterances with a prominent mismatch between form and function, as discussed in 3.2: from a syntactic point of view, intensifiers combine with gradable adjectives, adverbs or verbs, not with nouns, as in (24) and (25) (cf. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:589-602).

(24) Zach: You made out with Ryan?

Greenlee: “Made out”? That is so high school. (SOAP, AMC, 2008)

(25) Wow. You really got inseminated instead of using Greenlee’s egg? That is so Chandler. (SOAP, AMC, 2005)

Syntaxwise, speakers do two things in (24) and (25): first, they use the respective noun as an adjective (“conversion” or “zero-derivation” in word-formation terminology). Second, by using the intensifier so, they indicate that the quality denoted by the newly turned adjective (the meaning is accessible via metonymic referencing, see 2.2) applies to a high degree to the item it modifies (usually the subject). It also occurs in negated utterances, as can be seen in (26) and (27)—where only an adjectival reading of me and Neil makes sense.

(26) Mom, all this resentment stuff, anger—it’s so not me. (SOAP, OLTL, 2004)

(27) The reason I bring it up is, it’s so not Neil to screw up like this. (SOAP, YR, 2002)

In a way, instances of the X is so NP-construction could be described as nonce-formations because the ad hoc adjectives rarely make it into the lexicon (a prominent exception is last minute; see 4.4). The uses are indicative of the speakers being creative, and they fulfil a specific communicative need. It is because of the high transparency in context that communication is successful despite the apparent mismatch between form and function. Analyzing the frequency and distribution of the X is so NP-construction will provide insights into a number of areas, such as speaker preferences as to what kinds of NPs are modified and what NPs are dispreferred, associations with particular speaker-related factors, such as age and/or gender, and, last, behavior across varying syntactic contexts (in the sense of fulfilling the same function as modifier of NPs).

4.2. The Corpus

I use the Corpus of American Soap Operas (SOAP; Davies 2011-) to study the X is so NP-construction in Present-Day American English. It contains 22,000 transcripts from ten American soap operas running between 2001 and 2012. The transcripts are of a very high quality; they are even proofread by a second person and checked against the actual episode (Al-Surmi 2012:26). The texts are also compiled in a consistent manner. Thus, the transcripts are all of the same kind, and we do not end up comparing apples and oranges (which can be a problem with television data, especially if there are different versions of the same work; Adams 2013:234). The material amounts to approximately 100 million words, with the sub-corpora for the individual series varying in size between 1.8 million (Port Charles) and fourteen million words (General Hospital). For the individual years, the subsets vary in size between two million (2012) and eleven million words (2005) because five soap operas were cancelled between 2003 and 2012 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The Corpus of American Soap Operas (SOAP; Davies 2011-)

Unfortunately, SOAP is not tagged for character age or gender. This information had to be added manually for all relevant utterances and was based on character profiles for the individual soap operas as found on various fan web sites (www.soapcentral.com, www.soapssheknows.com).³ In the present study, both age and gender are binary (<40 vs. 40+, and man/woman). A more fine-grained distinction for age proved difficult, as information on the characters’ specific ages (not the actors’ ages) was hard to come by. With the data covering the years 2001-2012, real-time progress was taken into consideration. Thus, a character judged to be in their early thirties in 2001 was coded as aged forty or older in the 2010 episodes. Naturally, characters aged around forty were most difficult to group into <40/40+, and mistakes in age group allocation might have occurred.

To give an idea of how the characters are distributed in SOAP, Table 1 shows the number of characters based on tagging a sample of 3000 tokens for age and gender.

Table 1.

Character Age and Gender in SOAP

	<40	40+	Unknown	Total	Ratio
Women characters	244	125	20	389	53:47
Men characters	193	135	14	342	53:47
Total	437	260	34	731
Ratio	63:37

Note: Ten characters with unknown age and gender (e.g., “reporter,” “teacher”) are left out.

The material is obviously skewed to begin with because the numbers vary for the different groups as opposed to hovering around the same average. Things are not as bad as they seem, however: the proportion of women versus men among the characters is 53:47 if age is taken out of the equation. Younger characters outweigh older ones by roughly 2:1. These proportions need to be kept in mind when discussing the individual frequencies of the X is so NP-construction in relation to character age and/or gender. To compare the frequencies across character groups, the number of tokens is therefore presented in relation to the number of characters within a given character group (as a way of normalizing the data).⁴

Another problem concerns the fact that we do not know how many words are produced by men/women and younger/older characters. All we have are the sizes of the individual subsets (viz., per soap opera/year) and character age and gender for the extracted utterances. Tagging the transcripts in their entirety for character age and gender would have been too time-consuming and was simply unfeasible for the present purpose. We just have to assume that the data are balanced in that men and women characters contribute roughly the same amount of discourse (main and peripheral characters will, of course, differ in how much they say, but in sum there should not be too stark a contrast between all men and all women characters taken together). This, of course, is not ideal. In defense, it has been shown that the recurrent notion of women being more talkative than men (e.g., Jespersen [1922] 1954; Gray 1992) is actually a matter of perception (e.g., Cutler & Scott 1990) and that men and women engage in different kinds of talk, but do not differ in terms of how much they say (Aries 1982; Mehl, Varzire, Ramirez-Esparza, Slatcher & Pennebaker 2007).

Considering these drawbacks, one might wonder whether SOAP is a good data source for a study of GenX so. As mentioned in 3.2, systematic empirical studies of new uses of so remain scarce. This can be explained by them appearing in the English language only quite recently (OED, s.v. so, adj. and conj., 2005 Draft additions) and by the lack of adequate data to investigate this informal intensifier. Unfortunately, available corpora of natural spoken language are either not informal enough or too small to contain enough informal language.⁵

The present study is based on data drawn from SOAP for two reasons: the quantity of relevant tokens and the adequacy of the corpus. Indeed, SOAP is the only corpus that contains enough occurrences of GenX so (in a variety of syntactic constructions) to warrant a detailed analysis (almost 400 relevant tokens of so with NPs). Sceptics may say that this type of data is inappropriate for investigating a phenomenon associated with rather informal spoken (“natural”) language because it is obviously scripted and entirely lacks naturalness. Stange (2017:496-498) has discussed extensively why soap operas are an adequate means to investigate GenX so.

First, previous studies have shown that “media language actually does reflect what is going on in language, at least with respect to the form, frequency, and patterning of intensifiers” (Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005:296; see also Quaglio 2009; Al-Surmi 2012; Queen 2015). Second, new grammatical structures usually originate in informal speech and “[t]elevision scripts and blogs are actually preserving lots of key data on changes in English (although not everyone always appreciates it as such)” (Pyatt 2009). Al-Surmi (2012:131-132) has looked at the frequency of innovations in soap operas and showed that they are found more frequently in soap operas than in natural conversations because soap opera storylines are typically very dramatic and the characters’ language emotionally loaded (in short, ideal contexts of use for GenX so).

Third, although the dialogues are scripted, they are obviously intended to represent natural language use: “while the language used in television is obviously not the same as unscripted language, it does represent the language scriptwriters imagine that real women and men produce” (Rey 2001:138).

Fourth, while becoming less popular, soap operas still appeal to a relatively large audience (mainly women, however). A spring 2017 poll revealed that approximately 13 percent of Americans aged eighteen and older watch soaps (18.8 million people; Statista 2017). Furthermore, soap operas “[take] a primetime mentality of reaching the youngest, hippest audiences” (Kavner 2011), which means that the kind of language used by the young and hip in the series will also be young and hip (and thus include linguistic innovations such as GenX so) in order to appeal to the audience (cf. Bell 1984).

Fifth, soap operas are highly dramatic—they abound with secret affairs, intrigues, murders, unwanted pregnancies, and so on (Kinzer 1973; Fine 1981:97). After all, every episode ends in a cliffhanger. The viewers must watch the next episode to know how it is resolved. The use of GenX so and other emphasizers and intensifiers adds to the drama (“You’re going to regret this” sounds harmless in comparison to “You’re so/definitely/totally going to regret this”), and in this respect soap operas represent an ideal basis for exploring this particular linguistic phenomenon.

In fact, the use of GenX so might even be exploited in soap operas for three reasons: (a) following Irwin (2014:30), utterances with GenX so usually involve a high degree of emotional involvement on the part of the speaker—there is no doubt that the drama displayed in soap operas is highly emotional; (b) its function in discourse is to “indicate [. . .] that the speaker is strongly committed to the propositional content” (Potts 2004:130)—asseverations (protests of innocence, insistence of what is being told is the truth, love oaths, etc.) are common in soap opera conversations because of the dramatic plots; and (c) if soap operas aim at a young and hip audience and the characters’ use of language is intended to be also young and hip, at least the younger characters’ (scripted) language will contain young and hip features—like new intensifiers such as GenX so. In other words, the use of GenX so provides the utterance with strong emotional coloring, and soap operas by their very nature offer ample opportunity for emotional discourse.

For now, soap operas are the best data we have to explore how GenX so is used in conversation. I do not claim that the findings will be representative with respect to its frequency of use in natural speech, or with respect to its distribution across “real” speaker age and gender. What the analyses reveal is what constructions are deemed acceptable by the scriptwriters and what the distribution is across the characters (younger/older, women/men)—in essence, the associations the writers have with who would use X is so NP. Once adequate data of natural language become available, the findings could be compared to see how authentic scripted dialogue is regarding this phenomenon, or whether it is a stylistic feature of soap operas or emotional discourse more generally.

4.4. Methodology

Searching for and identifying relevant examples of the X is so NP-construction in a corpus involves several considerations. In my study, I include in the class of nouns “regular” nouns, pronouns, names, and numerals. The X is so NP-construction allows intervening material (negation, modifier, determiner) between the auxiliary be and the NP, and between the auxiliary and the intensifier (adverbs like just, or the subject in yes/no-questions). As nouns behaving like adjectives can occur in affirmative and in negated sentences (as in examples 26-27 in section 4.1), this study includes negated occurrences of the X is so NP-construction. To find all relevant instances, the following query syntax was thus used:

(a) affirmative uses with and without intervening material:

[vb*] so [p*]

[vb*] * so [p*]

(b) negated uses with and without intervening material, and with and without AUX-NEG contraction (e.g., “this isn’t so high school” vs. “this is not so high school”):

[vb*] so not [p*]

[vb*] * so not [p*]

[vb*] n’t so [p*]

[vb*] not so [p*]

[vb*] stands for any form of be (the most frequently used copula in English), and [p*] for any type of pronoun. In the six search strings [p*] was subsequently replaced by [nn*] (nouns and names), [mc*] (cardinal number), [md*] (ordinal number), and * [nn*] (nouns and names plus intervening material).

Since the NP in the X is so NP-construction is syntactically a subject complement, any copular verb could in principle occur in it. Consequently, the queries were repeated with the verbs appear, seem, look, sound, smell, taste, turn, feel, become, and get (lemmatized queries, e.g., [appear] so [p*]). The queries with n’t so and not so were unnecessary as not precedes all copular verbs except be in negated utterances, and any relevant occurrences are yielded by the queries used for affirmative uses (i.e., “[feel] so [nn*]” will also find negated uses).

With the present study focusing on NP modification with so, any occurrences where so modified a different type of phrase were not considered. Discarded items (which amounted to 95 percent of the extracted data) thus included false positives like noun-adjective compounds with adjectival heads (as in 28), adverbial phrases with ago (29), purpose clauses (30), lexicalized adjectival last minute (OED, s.v. last, adv., adj., and n.4, sense C2b) meaning ‘spontaneous, just in time’ (31),⁶ as well as doublets.

(28) [S]ometimes I think you don’t have to be so ice cold all the time. (SOAP, GH, 2007)

(29) Karaoke’s, like, so five minutes ago. (SOAP, GH, 2009)

(30) It’s so I won’t be recognized at the funeral. (SOAP, DAYS, 2004)

(31) I’m so sorry this is so last minute, but Holden and I are not going to be able to come to the party tonight. (SOAP, ATWT, 2006)

This procedure left 396 relevant occurrences for analysis. These were coded for negation (if the utterance contained not/n’t/none/nothing) and for NP type as follows: with pronouns, coding depended on whether so intensified an object pronoun (viz., a pronoun functioning as complement, as in 32), a reflexive pronoun (33), or a possessive pronoun (34).

(32) Mom, all this resentment stuff, anger—it’s so not me. (SOAP, OLTL, 2008)

(33) Darling, you are so not yourself. (SOAP, OLTL, 2008)

(34) That money is so ours. (SOAP, GH, 2011)

These NPs were grouped together as “1 NP element (+ PRONOUN)” (i.e., they consist of one element only, and this element has the form of a pronoun). The next group consists of single-item NPs where the item in question is not a pronoun “1 NP element (– PRONOUN).” Of this category, there are three subcategories. “Name” was used with so modifying proper nouns (as in 35), and “Numeral” for ordinal and cardinal numbers (36). For all other NPs consisting of just a noun, “Bare noun” was used if so was followed immediately by a (negated) noun (37).

(35) This is so Erica. (SOAP, AMC, 2011)

(36) Please—heroin chic is so 1990s. (SOAP, AMC, 2007)

(37) Matthew, trying to get your parents back together is so kindergarten. (SOAP, OLTL, 2004)

The remaining NPs were grouped together as “2(+) NP elements” (viz., they contained at least two elements in the NP) and were classified as “simple” if they contained two to three (negated) elements (more specifically, one or two pre-modifiers plus the head noun; see 38), and as “complex” if there were four or more (more specifically, pre-modified NP plus post-modification, as in 39). If the NP was an idiom, it was coded as “idiomatic” no matter the number of elements (as in 40).

(38) You are so not a wimp. (SOAP, ATWT, 2005)

(39) Adam, that is so not the way it played out. (SOAP, AMC, 2009)

(40) That is so none of your business. (SOAP, YR, 2003)

The extracted occurrences were also coded manually for character age and gender.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Frequency and Distribution

The first finding concerns apparent restrictions in the copulas that occur with so+NP. Instances with copular be yielded 396 relevant occurrences, sound two, and become and look just one each. None of the other copulas (appear, seem, turn, smell, taste, feel, and get) were attested in the data in combination with so+NP. This lack of data for the other copulas could be explained by the recency of this construction: new uses tend to be restricted first and then gradually become more flexible (cf. Partington 1993 on terribly, highly, etc. as intensifiers). If GenX so with NPs is found to persist, its collocational range should expand (in line with delexicalization theory). For now, the data suggest that NP modification with GenX so is virtually restricted to copular be. Accordingly, the following analyses will focus on instances with be, and the four occurrences containing sound, become, and look will be excluded.

The 396 relevant tokens of the X is so NP-construction in SOAP are distributed across the various types of NPs as displayed in Table 2. While the three groups distinguished in the data account for approximately a third of the data each, the tokens within each group are not evenly distributed. Three syntactic contexts (out of nine distinguished in the analysis) accounted for 77 percent of the data: (i) object pronouns in complement position (30 percent of all occurrences or 120 tokens), (ii) simple NPs (26 percent or 101 tokens), and (iii) names (21 percent or 83 tokens). Consequently, the other types of NPs are found rather infrequently with GenX so. This trend is diachronically stable. Between 2001 and 2012, both the overall frequency and the distribution of the occurrences across the syntactic contexts change little (overall mean frequency 4.03, median frequency 3.96 occurrences pmw;⁷ see Figure A1 in the Appendix).

Table 2.

Frequency of the X is so NP-Construction According to NP Type

NP type		N	%	total	%
1 NP element (+ PRONOUN)	Object	120	30	124	31
	Reflexive	3	1
	Possessive	1	<1
1 NP element (– PRONOUN)	Bare noun	40	10	129	33
	Name	83	21
	Numeral	6	2
2(+) NP elements	Simple	101	26	143	36
	Complex	21	5
	Idiomatic	21	5
	Total	396	100	396	100

In answer to research questions (I) and (II), then, the X is so NP-construction is relatively infrequent in soap operas (hovering around 4 occurrences pmw⁸), and is strongly associated with particular NP types (viz., object pronouns in complement position, simple NPs, names).

5.2. Character Age and Gender

Two metrics will be used in looking at the distribution of the data according to the age and gender of the characters: frequency and spread. The first reflects the number of occurrences found for a specific group (e.g., characters representing younger women), while the second provides information on the actual proportion of speakers using the construction (i.e., how many younger women use it within the group of younger women; cf. Torgersen, Gabrielatos, Hoffmann & Fox 2011:102). By providing both measurements, potential skewing in the data caused by heavy users becomes visible. As to variance in usage (i.e., differences in how often an expression is used), 64 percent of the characters used the X is so NP-construction only once, another 22 percent used it two or three times. Only two speakers (both women) had a high number of occurrences (12 and 18 instances). The exact distribution is visualized in Figure 2. The graph shows that, of the over 200 characters using this construction in SOAP, only a very small number could be labeled as “heavy users” relative to other characters in the corpus.

Figure 2.

Speaker Variance for the X is so NP-Construction (SOAP)

With respect to the frequency of the X is so NP-construction across the different character groups, Table 3 provides four frequency measures. The first is the number of occurrences (first column), and the second the number of characters using this construction (second column). In the third column, there are two measurements: (a) the number of tokens per character for each character group as a whole (no matter whether the individual speakers used it or not), and (b) within parentheses, the average number of occurrences per speaker for those who use so NP in the data. In terms of frequency, then, younger women rank highest (0.93 occurrences per character), followed by older women (0.47 occurrences), younger men (0.35 occurrences), and older men (0.3 occurrences). Younger women also rank highest when looking at the average number of occurrences produced—that is, for all younger women using this construction, the average number of occurrences per character is 2.24 (i.e., 226 tokens spread across 101 characters), while it hovers around 1.5 for the other speaker groups (see Table 3).⁹ A chi-square test confirms that there are significant differences in the frequency of use of the X is so NP-construction (χ² = 11.09, df = 2, p < .001, based on token distribution across character groups).

Table 3.

Frequency of the X is so NP-Construction—Character Age and Gender

	N (tokens)		N (characters using the construction)		Tokens/character
	<40	40+	<40	40+	<40	40+
Women characters	226	59	101	37	0.93 (2.24)	0.35 (1.59)
Men characters	68	40	46	24	0.35 (1.48)	0.30 (1.67)

Note: This table excludes three instances where the age of the speaker could not be identified.

Figure 3 is based on over 700 characters identified in the ten different soap operas. Although the characters’ speech is scripted, the way the use of so NP is spread across the data (cf. Torgersen, Gabrielatos, Hoffmann & Fox 2011:102) reflects the same tendencies we observe in real language with respect to innovative intensifiers, viz., women show the highest rates of adoption, especially the younger ones (41 percent of all younger women used the X is so NP-construction), while men behave more conservatively, especially the older ones (only 18 percent of the older men were scripted to use so NP).

Figure 3.

Characters Using the X is so NP-Construction versus Characters Not Using It (SOAP)

The fact that scriptwriters attribute so many instances of GenX so to characters representing younger women and so few to older men quite possibly reflects their experience with its use in real life. After all, scriptwriters typically aim at a representation of language that will sound natural to the viewers despite its scripted character. In answer to the third research question, then, we can say that the X is so NP-construction is found in the speech of all character groups in SOAP, but that younger women use it most frequently.

5.3. Negation in the X is so NP-Construction

Of the 396 tokens of the X is so NP-construction, as many as 169 occurred with negation (42 percent). Examples (36)-(40) illustrate five different ways in which a sentence can be negated in SOAP: be not so NP (3 tokens), as in (41); be so not NP (146 tokens), in (42); be so none of NP (14 tokens), in (43); be so nothing (5 tokens), in (44); and be so un-NP (1 token), in (45).

(41) Um, you just weren’t—you weren’t so you today. (SOAP, OLTL, 2009)

(42) This is so not you, Mia. (SOAP, DAYS, 2009)

(43) That is so none of your business. (SOAP, YR, 2003)

(44) Chloe: You know, I understand you told Lily. I get it. I get it. It’s just

because (Whispers) it was so nothing. (Blows raspberry) (Giggles)

Devon: Was it so nothing when you kissed me, too? (SOAP, YR, 2008)

(45) No, everything about this is so un-Henry, it’s ridiculous. (SOAP, ATWT, 2005)

A close look at the individual types of NPs reveals that they exhibit varying patterns as regards sentence polarity. Figure 4 shows that all NPs with only one non-pronoun element (bare nouns, numerals, and names) are strongly associated with modification by GenX so in affirmative uses. NPs with two or more elements (no matter whether they constitute a simple, a complex or an idiomatic NP), on the other hand, predominantly occur with GenX so in negated utterances. With object pronouns, the tendencies are less strong: approximately two out of three occurred in affirmative uses.¹⁰ These findings suggest that there is a correlation between NP complexity (in terms of number of elements in the NP) and sentence polarity: the more complex the NP modified by so, the more likely it is to occur in negated uses.

Figure 4.

The X is so NP-Construction and Sentence Polarity

Indeed, this distributional pattern turns out to be significant. The conditional inference tree (CIT)¹¹ in Figure 5 groups the different types of NPs according to their preference for negated utterances: (a) strong preference: simple, complex, and idiomatic NPs, and reflexive pronouns (node 5), (b) strong dispreference: bare nouns, names, and numerals, and possessive pronouns (node 3), and (c) no preference: object pronouns (node 4). The accuracy of the model, i.e., the percentage of correct predictions in the CIT, is 78.03 percent.

Figure 5.

CIT—Negation in the X is so NP-Construction

In short, there are clear associations between NP type and sentence polarity: so+numeral, for instance, will most likely be found in an affirmative sentence, and so+complex np in a negated sentence. Potential concomitant differences in the meaning of so are explained in the next section.

5.4. Functions of So in the X is so NP-Construction

The restrictions outlined in 5.3 require further explanation. In the data, those NP types that are most similar in form to adjectives because they appear in the construction without modification (object pronouns, numerals, names, and bare nouns) are attested almost exclusively in affirmative uses. Considering that the X is so NP-construction is innovative, idiosyncratic, and involves metonymic referencing, it is plausible that its use was virtually restricted to affirmative contexts first (negation adds to the complexity of the sentence; see Rohdenburg 1996, 2000). Once it was firmly established in this use, it could gradually be extended to other uses (and we do occasionally find instances of negated X is so name/numeral in SOAP).

The strong attraction to negated utterances in so+ NP (simple, complex, and idiomatic) can be explained by the NP doing different things—it is neither looking (e.g., presence of determiners and post-modification with finite clauses) nor behaving like a potential adjective (no metonymic referencing, no imposed gradeability); it is quite possible that so just adds emphasis to the negation. It is instructive to compare different types of NPs in this regard: (46) and (47), which are typical representatives of the X is so NP-construction (bare and determinerless, metonymic referencing at work, and imposed gradeability), and (48) and (49), which represent simple and idiomatic NPs, respectively.

(46) Scott: Thanks for paying my bail.

Annie: Drunk and disorderly? That’s so not you. (SOAP, AMC, 2005)

(47) The reason I bring it up is, it’s so not Neil to screw up like this. (SOAP, YR, 2002)

(48) Running away is so not the answer. (SOAP, YR, 2005)

(49) Oh, my God, what am I doing? This is so not my business. (SOAP, OLTL, 2009)

The first thing to note is that turning the negations into affirmative sentences renders the utterances in (48) and (49) only marginally acceptable, maybe even unacceptable (a systematic native speaker survey would help here): ?“Running away is so the answer”/ ?“That’s so my business.” In contrast, “That’s so you” and “it’s so Neil” sound perfectly fine. Second, so in (46) and (47) could be replaced by very (signals gradeability) once not is deleted, which does not work for the other examples: “that’s very you”/“it’s very Neil” but *“Running away is very the answer”/*“That’s very my business.” Third, accessing the meaning of the complement in (48) and (49) does not involve metonymic referencing, but it does for adjective-like (46) and (47) no matter whether the sentence is negated or not (e.g., you in “That’s so you” and “That’s so not you”). These three aspects show that so behaves differently for NPs of the type 2(+) NP elements than for the two other groups consisting of just one NP element (+/– PRONOUN). However, within the 2(+) NP elements group there is one prominent exception that does behave like an adjective despite it being modified, illustrated in (50).

(50) You know, those boots are so last season. I hope you know that. (SOAP, YR, 2010)

Utterances like (50) are instantiations of what Wee and Ying Ying (2008) termed the so time-construction. Understanding them involves metonymic referencing, and so could be replaced by very. Quite fittingly, this construction is only attested in affirmative uses in SOAP (N = 23).

In conclusion, we need to distinguish between instances of the X is so NP-construction in which the NP exhibits adjective-like behavior (with a concomitant mismatch in form and function) and those in which the NP is a “normal” complement (form and function match). Accordingly, GenX so seems to do different things: with adjective-like NPs (viz., bare nouns, numerals [unless they indicate age], names, object pronouns, simple NPs with a time reference, and idiomatic NPs), it is used as an intensifier and is mainly found in affirmative sentences,¹² where it imposes gradeability on the NP (as in 51-52). If modifying any of the other NP types (viz., possessive and reflexive pronouns, numerals indicating age, and complex NPs) and in negated uses, so is an emphasizer (meaning ‘definitely’ or ‘really and truly’). In this context, so highlights the truth of the propositional content in question (as in 53-54).

(51) Reggie, you thought you were so Einstein, but this is wack. (SOAP, AMC, 2004)

(52) Your lip-gloss is so last year. (SOAP, AMC, 2006)

(53) Man. I am so not the center of the universe. (SOAP, AMC, 2003)

(54) I’m so 21. (SOAP, AMC, 2006)

With respect to the utterances where so precedes a negating element, a survey is needed to establish whether native speakers feel that just the negation is emphasized or whether the emphatic scope of so extends to the whole NP (and whether this results in a difference in the perceived meaning of the sentences). To me, it seems as if the sequence so not is just emphatic not, no matter whether the NP that follows exhibits adjective-like behavior or not.

As to the distribution of the functions of so, 56 percent of the tokens constitute intensifier uses (N = 223) and 44 percent emphasizer uses (N = 173). Interestingly, there is a near-complementary distribution: 99 percent of the intensifier uses occurred in affirmative sentences (N = 220), and 96 percent of the emphatic uses in negated utterances (N = 166). The small number of instances of emphatic so in affirmative uses and of intensifier so in negated sentences could hint at an ongoing change, i.e., it might be that distributional restrictions pertaining to sentence polarity will matter less in the long run. Future studies with later data will provide more insight on this aspect.

Finally, the analyses reveal that, in line with subjectification theory on intensification (Athanasiadou 2007), GenX so is expanding its functional range from intensification to emphasis. A plausible development looks as follows (based on the assumption that GenX so is a descendant of the ordinary intensifier so), with the three stages co-existing in present-day English. Of course, more data are needed to corroborate this scenario. However, Stange (2019) has shown that, historically, intensification (“I so love you”) preceded emphasis (“I’m so going to miss my flight”) in GenX so modifying verbs.

(I) Traditional contexts of intensification: booster so with scalar items

- This is so cool. (SOAP, AMC, 2011)

- I am so looking forward to seeing you up on that runway. (SOAP, BB, 2010)

(II) Non-traditional contexts of intensification: GenX so

- Reggie, you thought you were so Einstein, but this is wack. (SOAP, AMC, 2004). (NP modification with adjective-like NP)

- This house is so enormous. (SOAP, OLTL, 2009) (non-scalar adjective)

(III) Emphasis: GenX so

- You’re—you’re so everything that I have ever wanted. (SOAP, AMC, 2006) (NP modification with the NP constituting a “normal” complement)

- You’re so going to regret this. (SOAP, ATWT, 2010) (non-scalar verb)

6. Summary of Results

This study has yielded new findings with respect to the distribution of GenX so as a modifier of NPs in American English. First, depending on the complement, GenX so is used as an intensifier or as an emphasizer. More precisely, only NPs that exhibit adjective-like characteristics in the X is so NP-construction can be subjected to metonymic referencing and to intensification via imposed gradeability (with so meaning ‘very’). This includes all bare nouns, numerals (unless they indicate age), names, object pronouns, and instantiations of the so time-construction. In all other cases, so can be paraphrased as ‘definitely’ and serves to emphasize the propositional content of the utterance in question. The different meanings of so can be explained by it undergoing subjectification (viz., expanding its functional range from highly subjective intensification to the most subjective meaning—emphasis; Athanasiadou 2007).

Second, intensifier uses of GenX so were most common in the data (56 percent of all occurrences, N = 223) but virtually limited to and the default in affirmative uses (99 percent, N = 220). In negated utterances, the default function was adding emphasis to the negation (emphatic not, 96 percent, N = 166). Intensifier meanings of so (‘very’) were thus (almost) restricted to adjective-like nouns in affirmative sentences.

Third, so can modify a wide variety of NPs, but it most frequently occurred with object pronouns (intensifier use), simple NPs (mainly as emphatic not), and names (intensifier use). These three NP types accounted for 77 percent of the data. Interestingly, so was attested almost exclusively with the copula be, which hints at restrictions at work in this innovative construction. It is quite possible that its range will expand to include other copulas like seem or look in the years to come if speakers continue to use it in this way. These verbs do not sound odd (I think) in this construction, so they could become more frequent in due course: ?“your shirt looks so last season,” ?“the new Take That songs sound so 1990s.”

With respect to the distribution of GenX so across the character groups, the scriptwriters attributed most utterances to characters representing (younger) women, both in terms of token frequency and dispersion within the group. These findings possibly reflect the scriptwriters’ perception of the speech of women, and it may be close to the mark: although we do not have data for GenX so specifically, studies have repeatedly shown that women’s speech shows more emotional involvement (e.g., higher rates of intensifier uses; see, e.g., Stenström 1999; Stenström, Andersen & Hasund 2002; Ito & Tagliamonte 2003; Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005).

7. Conclusion and Outlook

This paper has shown that, even after over a hundred years of study, intensifiers continue to be a source of new and valuable insights into the English language, and into language variation and change. GenX so can function as an intensifier with NPs because of speakers’ creativity: they turn NPs into adjectives to suit their communicative purposes. In doing so, they rely on metonymic referencing and the transparency of the mismatch between form and function in a given utterance. The X is so NP-construction thus serves as another example of the important role of metonymy in language variation and change (Traugott & Dasher 2002; Paradis 2008). In addition, differences in the function of so in the X is so NP-construction can be accounted for by so’s increasing grammaticalization and, concomitantly, subjectification: as we have seen, emphasis is viewed as more grammaticalized and as more subjective than intensification (Nevalainen & Rissanen 2002; Athanasiadou 2007).

The current restriction to copular be is in line with previous research on changes in the intensifier system in that new uses are marked by heavy collocational constraints. Usually, restrictions are found in terms of the semantics of the adjective (Partington 1993; Lorenz 2002), but here there is a constraint affecting the copula that occurs with the intensifier. It will be interesting to see whether the range of admissible copulas in this construction will broaden (the same way new intensifiers admit an increasing number of collocates as time passes by) and whether the emphatic use of so in affirmative sentences will gain ground in the years to come.

In essence, the development of the X is so NP-construction parallels the development observed for new intensifiers elsewhere: new, initially highly transparent meanings arise through speakers’ creativity, usually meeting a specific communicative need. New contexts of use are often promoted by younger speakers (women in particular), and are less frequently attested in the speech of older speakers. New intensifiers steadily increase their collocational range and can proceed from expressing intensity to conveying emphasis (via subjectification which in turn requires delexicalization and grammaticalization, as previously observed for, e.g., totally, absolutely). After a while, because “all means of emphasis quickly grow stale and need to be replaced” (Bolinger 1972:18), new lexical items become selected as intensifiers, and the process begins anew.

Furthermore, the study has but touched upon how authentic the speech of the characters is, and this is definitely an issue worth pursuing (also taking into account various other linguistic features that can reliably be compared to the data in a corpus of informal spoken language). Scriptwriters appear, intuitively or consciously, to attribute the use of GenX so with NPs mainly to (younger) women—which in turn is a faithful representation of linguistic reality where changes in the intensifier system are concerned (see, for instance, Stoffel 1901; Jespersen [1922] 1954; Lakoff 1973; Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005; Wagner forthcoming; etc.)—but the representativeness of the observed frequencies is, admittedly, another matter. Future studies drawing on natural data will be able to determine whether the use of the X is so NP-construction as observed in SOAP is similar to natural speech or whether it is exploited in soap operas as a stylistic marker as it were—after all, Irwin (2014:30) prefers the term “Drama SO” because of the speaker’s strong emotional involvement when using it in utterances, and there certainly is a lot of strong emotional involvement in soap operas on the characters’ part.

Last, it would be good to have a study synthesizing the various strands concerned with GenX so. As stated in the introduction, it can be used as an intensifier or emphasizer with a range of non-gradable lexical items, but to date, studies on GenX so have been quite specific in their focus, concerning themselves only with VP modification or with NP modification. It would be important to gather all the pieces and finish that puzzle. GenX so has the potential to provide still more insight into the mechanisms of language change once we have the bigger picture.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my warmest thanks to Susanne Wagner, Matthias Eitelmann, Alexandra D’Arcy, Peter Grund, and the anonymous reviewers for offering detailed constructive comments on earlier versions of this article. Their suggestions have made a positive impact on the quality and clarity of this paper. Naturally, any errors remaining are entirely my own.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ulrike Stange

Notes

Author Biography

Ulrike Stange is a research assistant at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz, Germany, where she instructs prospective teachers of English as a foreign language in the intricacies of English. Her research currently focuses on the use of pseudo-passives in British English and on innovative uses of the intensifier so. She is the author of Emotive interjections in British English (Benjamins, 2016) and holds a PhD in English linguistics from the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität.

References

British National Corpus 1994. BNC1994 (XML edition). Available online at https://cqpweb.lanc.ac.uk. (18 November, 2018).

British National Corpus 2014. Spoken BNC2014. Available online at https://cqpweb.lanc.ac.uk. (18 November, 2018).

Davies

Mark

. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://english-corpora.org/coca/. (18 November, 2018).

Davies

Mark

. 2010-. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1920s-2000s. Available online at https://english-corpora.org/coha/. (18 November, 2018).

Davies

Mark

. 2011-. The Corpus of American Soap Operas: 100 million words, 2001-2012. Available online at https://english-corpora.org/soap/. (18 November, 2018).

Aarts

Bas

. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Adams

Michael

. 2013. Working with scripted data. Variations among scripts, texts, and performances. In Mallinson

Christine

Childs

Becky

van Herk

Gerard

(eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics, 232-235. New York: Routledge.

Al-Surmi

Mansoor Ali

. 2012. Authentic ESL spoken materials: Soap opera and sitcom versus natural conversation. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.

Altenberg

Bengt

. 1991. Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In Johansson

Stig

Stenström

Anna-Brita

(eds.), English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide, 127-147. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

10.

Amador-Moreno

Carolina

Terrazas-Calero

Ana María

. 2017. Encapsulating Irish English in literature. World Englishes 36(2). 254-268.

11.

Aries

Elizabeth Joan

. 1982. Verbal and nonverbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex roles changing? Psychological Reports 51(1). 127-134.

12.

Athanasiadou

Angeliki

. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29(4). 554-564.

13.

Bäcklund

Ulf

. 1973. The collocations of adverbs of degree in English. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.

14.

Bell

Allan

. 1984. Linguistic style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145-204.

15.

Bolinger

Dwight

. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.

16.

Cambridge Dictionary . https://dictionary.cambridge.org. (7 February, 2020).

17.

Coates

Jennifer

. [1986] 1993. Women, men and language. London: Longman.

18.

Cutler

Anne

Scott

Donia R.

1990. Speaker sex and perceived apportionment of talk. Applied Psycholinguistics 11(3). 253-272.

19.

Denison

David

. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Traugott

Elizabeth C.

Trousdale

Graeme

(eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 105-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

20.

Eckert

Penelope

. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 245-262.

21.

Fine

Marlene G.

1981. Soap opera conversations: The talk that binds. Journal of Communication 31(3). 97-107.

22.

Goldberg

Adele E.

2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Gonzálvez-García

Francisco

. 2014. That’s so a construction! Some reflections on innovative uses of so in present-day English. In Gómez-González

María de los Ángeles

Ibánez

Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza

Gonzálvez-García

Francisco

(eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space, 271-293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

24.

Gray

John

. 1992. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: The classic guide to understanding the opposite sex. New York: HarperCollins.

25.

Holmes

Janet

. 1997. Setting new standards: Sound changes and gender in New Zealand English. English World-Wide 18(1). 107-142.

26.

Hopper

Paul J.

Traugott

Elizabeth Closs

. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Irwin

Patricia

. 2014. SO [totally] speaker-oriented: An analysis of “Drama SO.” In Zanuttini

Rafaella

Horn

Laurence

(eds.), Micro-syntactic variation in North American English, 29-70. New York: Oxford University Press.

28.

Ito

Rika

Tagliamonte

Sali

. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32(2). 257-279.

29.

Jespersen

Otto

. [1922] 1954. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.

30.

Kavner

Lucas

. 2011. Soap operas: Can they survive? Huffington Post, 8 June. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/soap-operas-all-my-children_n_845089.html. (22 February, 2017).

31.

Kenter

Douglas

Lee

Eric

McDonald

Rowyn

. 2007. Gen-X so. http://www.stanford.edu/zwicky/genxso.Ling157.pdf. (22 February, 2017).

32.

Kinzer

Nora Scott

. 1973. Soapy sin in the afternoon. Psychology Today 7(3). 46-48.

33.

Kuha

Mai

. 2004. Investigating the spread of so as an intensifier: Social and structural factors. Texas Linguistic Forum 48. 217-227.

34.

Labov

William

. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2(2). 205-254.

35.

Labov

William

. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2, Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

36.

Lakoff

Robin

. 1973. Language and women’s place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Levshina

Natalia

. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

38.

Lorenz

Gunter

. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? In Wischer

Ilse

Diewald

Gabriele

(eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

39.

Love

Robbie

Dembry

Hardie

Andrew

Brezina

Vraclav

McEnery

Tony

. 2017. The Spoken BNC2015: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of English Linguistics 22(3). 319-344.

40.

Mehl

Matthias R.

Varzire

Simine

Ramirez-Esparza

Nairán

Slatcher

Richard B.

Pennebaker

James W.

2007. Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317(5834). 82.

41.

Michaelis

Laura A.

2003. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis

Elaine

Michaelis

Laura A.

(eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 259-310. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

42.

Nevalainen

Terttu

Rissanen

Matti

. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24(3-4). 359-380.

43.

OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. www.oed.com. (10 November, 2018).

44.

Paradis

Carita

. 2008. Configurations, construals and change. Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics 12(2). 317-343.

45.

Partington

Alan

. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change. The case of the intensifier. In Baker

Mona

Francis

Gill

Tognini-Bonelli

Elena

(eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 177-192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

46.

Potts

Christopher

. 2004. Lexicalized intonational meaning. In Kawahara

Shigeto

(ed.), UMOP 30: Papers on prosody, 129-146. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

47.

Pyatt

Elizabeth J.

2009. The use of ‘so’ as an intensifier. Ask a linguist (the linguist list forum), 2 March. https://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/message-details1.cfm?asklingid=200430704. (10 February, 2020).

48.

Quaglio

Paulo

. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

49.

Quaglio

Paulo

Biber

Douglas

. 2008. The grammar of conversation. In Aarts

Bas

McMahon

April

(eds.), Handbook of English linguistics, 692-723. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

50.

Queen

Robin

. 2015. Vox popular: The surprising life of language in the media. Chichester: Wiley.

51.

Quirk

Randolph

Greenbaum

Sidney

Leech

Geoffrey

Svartvik

Jan

. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

52.

R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org. (18 November, 2018).

53.

Rey

Jennifer M.

2001. Changing gender roles in popular culture: Dialogue in Star Trek episodes from 1966 to 1993. In Conrad

Susan

Biber

Douglas

(eds.), Variation in English, 138-155. London: Longman.

54.

Rohdenburg

Günter

. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149-182.

55.

Rohdenburg

Günter

. 2000. The complexity principle as a factor determining grammatical variation in English. In Plag

Ingo

Schneider

Klaus P.

(eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history: (Mostly) empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann, 25-44. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.

56.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez

Francisco J.

Díez Velasco

Olga I.

2000. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Dirven

René

Pörings

Ralf

(eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 489-532. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

57.

Stange

Ulrike

. 2017. “You’re so not going to believe this”: The use of GenX so in constructions with future going to in American English. American Speech 92 (4). 487-524.

58.

Stange

Ulrike

. 2019. “I was so hoping you’d be here”—The use of GenX so with verbs. Poster presented at ICAME 40, 1-5 June 2019, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

59.

Stange

Ulrike

. Forthcoming a. “I was so hoping you’d be here”—An empirical study on preverbal so in American English.

60.

Stange

Ulrike

. Forthcoming b. “You’ll so want to hear this”—New insights in the development and use of preverbal so.

61.

Statista. 2017. Number of tv viewers who typically watch daytime soap operas in the United States from spring 2008 to spring 2017 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/229096/tv-viewers-who-typically-watch-daytime-soapoperas-usa/. (7 February, 2020).

62.

Stenström

Anna-Brita

. 1999. He was really gormless—she’s bloody crap. Girls, boys, and intensifiers. In Hasselgård

Hilde

Oksefjell

Signe

(eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, 69-78. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

63.

Stenström

Anna-Brita

Andersen

Gisle

Hasund

Ingrid Kristine

. 2002. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

64.

Stoffel

Cornelis

. 1901. Intensives and Down-Toners. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

65.

Tagliamonte

Sali

. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1896-1915.

66.

Tagliamonte

Sali

. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12(2). 361-394.

67.

Tagliamonte

Sali

Roberts

Chris

. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80(3). 280-300.

68.

Torgersen

Eivind

Gabrielatos

Costas

Hoffmann

Sebastian

Fox

Sue

. 2011. A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1). 93-118.

69.

Traugott

Elizabeth C.

Dasher

Richard B.

2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

70.

Wagner

Susanne

. Forthcoming. To each their own—Trajectories of change and the role of social factors for high-frequency intensifier-adjective combinations in spoken British English, 1994-2014.

71.

Waksler

Rachelle

. 2012. Super, uber, so, and totally: Over-the-top intensification to mark subjectivity in colloquial discourse. In Baumgarten

Nicole

Du Bois

Inke

House

Juliane

(eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 15-32. Leiden: Brill.

72.

Wee

Lionel

Ying Ying

Tan

. 2008. That’s so last year! Constructions in a socio-cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12). 2100-2113.

73.

Zwicky

Arnold

. 2006. So in style at the NYT. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/002994.html. (22 February, 2017).

74.

Zwicky

Arnold.

2011. GenX so: Arnold Zwicky’s Blog. http://arnoldzwicky.org/2011/11/14/genx-so/. (22 February, 2017).