According to the OED, the use of 'so' as an 'introductory particle' is not new. 'So, let me see: my apron' (1602) . It is said to be common in Shakespeare's plays, though the OED gives no examples.

Hmm interesting point. I suppose the Vonnegut usage is an Introductory Particle then.

Am not sure about the Irish phrasing though. Its purpose is probably the same but is it introductory? It is still a matter of style though, so it is. Also heard in 'Alright, so'.

Regardless, I agree it is certainly not new.

So fashion has brought it around again and with any luck will see it drop from common usage again in the near future.
It was put to me earlier that it is a more positive opening in reply to a question than say 'It seems to me' or 'In my opinion' and may be part of a learned interview technique.

I think 'so' has really replaced the terribly old fashioned 'thus', but I'm no expert and assumed that an Introductory Particle was some form of boson, hadron, or lepton.

If you listen to conversation, most people prefix their opening remarks with a warm-up phrase. It gets people's attention before the speaker gets to what they actually want to say. 'So' is just another type of opening gambit. They probably change over time, and current usage is the current fashion. Doesn't bovver me much.

Can't quite envisage what circumstances that would apply to, Erekose. Can you give an example?

Indeed, I'd have thought that, at any rate in the context of an argument - and I think this is the criticism my wife was making of my own use of the word - 'so' can sometimes sound arrogant and patronizing. It can seem to imply that one's interlocutor is as thick as two short planks and just can't recognize one's own inexorable logic. 'QED. So you're wrong. (So there.)' 'It seems to me that you may be wrong' is more likely to make you popular with your friends, I'd have thought.

It doesn't bother me either but am intrigued as to what it is exactly that bothers others.

There are multiple different uses being quoted here. The usage of 'so' as part of a warm up phrase as rshdunlop refers to it is what I assumed was also an Introductory Particle, though I must admit that was a new one for me.

The example of 'So you're wrong' is, as michael says another way of saying thus or therefore. This is surely old as the trees and not a new thing at all.

I had also offered a few examples that I know of where 'so' is used conversationally, not necessarily as a warmup. So, does anyone have an example of this new usage?

Because it tries to lend weight to the following statement in a way that other openings do not? I think the contributor above may have hit upon what annoys me about it when he notes that that it can imply arrogance in away that 'it seems to me' or 'in my opinion' doesn't.
I can't say that I have noticed its use in this way outside of interviews / contributions to radio debates.....mostly by politicians.

'The Prime Minister rang myself and Nick Clegg this morning...' (Ed Miliband on the BBC this lunchtime). What's wrong with '...me and Nick Clegg'?

Now, I do dislike this use of 'myself'. I think it started with officials trying to sound more official and mangling the language in the process.

'Myself' should be used for emphasis, such as: 'I bought this for myself.' You could say 'I bought this for me.' but that doesn't have quite the same emphasis and is also less smooth when spoken aloud.

I remember a tour guide who used to do the same thing with 'you' - 'if any of yourselves would like to visit the gift shop...'. I assumed at the time that she thought 'you' would sound a bit abrupt and rude.

Like his predecessor, the Chancellor seems to think 'pence' is singular - 'one pence' off beer. Why is this? What's wrong with 'one penny'?

Yes you are correct but am not really sure how this matters. At least he taking the 'one pence' off the beer that Brown put on (he said it too).

Reminds me of testicles. I think lots of people use this in preference to testes so as not to look a bit of an a*** - also sounds better in most instances and this could be the link here.

It depends what you mean by 'matters.' It's linguistically interesting (and, to linguistic conservatives like me, rather irritating), that's all I'm saying.

Don't understand your point about testicles, lacb. According to my dictionary, 'testicles' is the standard (polite) word in English, first attested in 1425. The first recorded use of 'testes' (plural) is in a technical dictionary of 1704, where the word is defined as 'the Testicles of a Male.'

Well I stand corrected on my testicles. That sounds painful but I think you get my drift. I was clearly wrong thinking that testes was the medically correct plural.

I suppose my point was really about getting a message across and there are lots of examples of strict misuse with currency. Think how often news refers to the (Chinese) Yuan as a currency for instance.

I can well imagine how pence could creep in from a spreadsheet of figures - the word to use if you assume all the figures are plural - may well account for its use by Chancellors.

Am slightly amused, given the thread title, by the automatically censored word, used by Chaucer, in my previous post.

I would guess that 'testes' is indeed more common in a medical context than in everyday use.

'On the weekend' instead of 'at the weekend.' My wife told me she'd noticed several examples of this; I spotted it myself this lunchtime. A quick Google suggests it's yet another immigrant from across the Atlantic.

Shouldn't that be "...Nick Clegg and I"?

I suppose 'Nick Clegg and me' - putting oneself second - would be slightly more polite. But, as it's the object rather than the subject of the verb 'rang', it's got to be 'me' not 'I', hasn't it?

My mother, who was a stickler for 'correct' grammar taugh me a simpe, way to check this - simply take the other person out of the sentence and see what sounds right. So, if I said that someone rang 'Nick Clegg and me', I take Nick Clegg out of the sentence and test it: someone rang me or someone rang I?

It's very clear which is right.