Page 1 of 1
"Oh", is that really necessary?
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:34 pm
by metal56
We found that people were slower at verifying words when the ohs were removed, and this was true for verifying words that occurred both before and after the discourse marker. These results support the idea that discourse markers help the listener understand conversation. We have used the same technique to study other discourse markers, including well, so, and, I mean, and you know.
http://psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/ ... search.htm
Do you think that "oh", as a discourse marker, is really necessary in text and speech?
oh
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:00 am
by woodcutter
Who said the 'oh's were necessary? The passage quoted says they help, and they probably do. I think they help the oh-er more than the oh-ed though, giving him/her time to think how to, like, say what they really want to say.
Re: oh
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:44 am
by metal56
woodcutter wrote:Who said the 'oh's were necessary? The passage quoted says they help, and they probably do. I think they help the oh-er more than the oh-ed though, giving him/her time to think how to, like, say what they really want to say.
Who said the 'oh's were necessary?
There's some who say they aren't. Ever!
Don't for get about: "Oh really?" and "Oh he didn't, did he" and others which are not there to give time for the speaker to think.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:01 pm
by Stephen Jones
The 'oh' is telling the listener that what he is about to hear is an eclamation of surprise, and thus helps his understaning.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:05 pm
by metal56
Stephen Jones wrote:The 'oh' is telling the listener that what he is about to hear is an eclamation of surprise, and thus helps his understaning.
Always?