Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the changes in the frequency and use of obviously over a short period of time in present-day English using comparable spoken corpora. Obviously has both an evidential inferential meaning and intersubjective or engagement meaning where it presents information as shared by the speaker and the hearer. The analysis of the occurrences of obviously shows that it is increasing in frequency as an engagement marker particularly when the use of the first and second person subject suggests a high degree of speaker and hearer presence. The people using obviously as an engagement marker are young, mostly female speakers who use obviously because it is fashionable and new. Specifically, obviously is used instead of of course to express that something is assumed or expected. The rapid rise in frequency of obviously has a parallel in American English which suggests that globalization plays a role for its spread.
1. Introduction
The aim of this study is to contribute to our knowledge of language change by studying the developments undergone by the evidential adverb obviously over a short period of time. Obviously was selected as a case study because its frequency and use have been remarked on by the mass media. For example, the Urban Dictionary describes the adverb obviously as a maddening cliché: “a word overused in the wrong way by ignorant British speakers who mean ‘of course’ but for some reason will not use that perfectly adequate phrase.”
The innovative features of the current study are both methodological and theoretical. Methodologically, the study uses corpora to investigate short-term linguistic change. Through an analysis based on a comparable spoken corpus the changes of obviously are described over approximately twenty years in present-day English. The most recent corpus is the Spoken British National Corpus 2014, which is comparable to the old or traditional British National Corpus compiled at the end of the 1990s.
From an interactional perspective, obviously is deictic and anchored to the speech situation and the dialogic exchange between a speaker and a hearer. Obviously is used in the interaction to present new information as shared by the speaker and the hearer. The aim is to examine the conditions under which obviously is used with this meaning. Another aim is to investigate its changes in usage and frequency over a short period of time.
The organization of my chapter takes the following form. Section 2 defines obviously. The corpora and the comparable diachronic corpus-linguistic method used to describe changes across a short time are dealt with in section 3. Section 4 presents data on the frequency of use of obviously. Section 5 is a quantitative and qualitative analysis of obviously in different functions and contexts from a comparative corpus perspective. Section 6 discusses the semantic-pragmatic changes of obviously over a short time from a linguistic and socio-pragmatic perspective. Section 7 is the concluding chapter.
2. Obviously Defined
Obviously can be analyzed as an evidential adverb (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007). A useful starting point for the analysis of obviously is the theory proposed by Chafe (1986:262) defining evidentiality broadly as attitudes to knowledge. This broad definition of evidence involves thinking about evidentiality in terms of how knowledge may be qualified in one way or another by markers of evidentiality. Knowledge may, for instance, be regarded as more or less reliable. Also relevant are various modes of knowledge, that is, ways in which knowledge is acquired. According to Chafe, the modes (sources) of knowledge are, for example, induction (inference), report, and deduction. Knowledge may also be matched against the expectedness of an event. Using this framework, obviously would refer to induction or inferencing. Specifically, obviously would also indicate that the inference has a high degree of reliability (certainty). (1) illustrates obviously meaning inference: (1) S0082: and er I mean basically the spring er cos if you think about it you know when you pull it flicks back up (.) you know (.) you pull it down it flicks back up S0084: mm S0082: there ’s obviously a spring in it to do that (Spoken BNC2014; S32Y 338)
In (1), the speaker infers from looking at the fuse box that it must have a spring which flicks back when you pull it.
A related but less discussed issue concerns the interlocutors’ access to knowledge and how interactivity is achieved in discourse by means of strategies. In the typological line of research there has been some interesting research on the grammatical means used to achieve intersubjectivity using the notion of ‘engagement.’ The observations by Bergqvist (2020), based on the functions of particles in some non-European languages, suggest that there are linguistic systems contrasting configurations of the speaker’s and the addressee’s perspectives on (knowledge of) an event or state of affairs. For example, in the system described for Kogi (an African language), the auxiliary prefix na- means that the speaker knows e (knowledge about an event) and expects the addressee to be unaware of e, and ni- means that the speaker knows e and expects the addressee to know e too (Bergqvist 2020:472). Bergqvist (2020:472) proposes that the term ‘engagement marker’ should be used to describe grammaticalized or semi-grammaticalized means expressing shared, or non-shared knowledge of the same event. According to Bergqvist (2020:473), engagement may be thought of as a special type of intersubjectivity, a notion that “extends the subjective perspective of the speaker to include the speaker’s attention to the hearer/addressee.” A distinction needs to be made between a primary subjective intersubjectivity that “underlies language as a conventionalized system of communication” and ‘subsequent’ intersubjectivities. In the second sense, engagement markers may also be intersubjective in the sense that they are associated with “aligning perspectives by means of coercion, argumentation, and deference (cf. Verhagen 2005)” (Bergqvist 2020:473). These later stages of intersubjective awareness are assumed to underlie the notion of engagement in grammar (Bergqvist 2020:473). Engagement is a fairly new notion, at least outside the typological literature, where it is used to describe the grammatical means for establishing shared knowledge by attending to the other person’s beliefs and knowledge. 1 It is a reasonable hypothesis that engagement would also be expressed lexically by evidential adverbs. In other words, obviously could be regarded as an engagement marker involving an extension to the hearer perspective in some of its uses. Not much is known about how speakers make their perspectives available to each other in the interaction in order to manage interactional problems. The notion of common ground can be helpful to understand what evidential and epistemic markers are doing in the interaction. Clark (1996:96) describes the concept as follows.
. . . [P]eople take a proposition to be common ground in a community only when they believe they have a proper shared basis for the proposition in that community. If this . . . is correct, people should work hard to find shared bases for their common ground, and that should affect how they proceed in language use.
Many languages have special markers of managing common ground. Fischer (2007) argues that modal particles are a means of relating an utterance to an aspect of common ground. Along the same lines, it could be argued that evidential markers are lexical markers of common ground. For example, Grzech (2020) found the notion ‘common ground management’ useful to discuss the functions of evidential markers in Upper Napo Kichwa (Quechan, Ecuador). We can conclude from these examples that epistemic and evidential markers showing how information is known and shared by the addressee have the function of establishing common ground in the conversation. In particular, evidential markers (and modal particles) can be regarded as framing markers (contextualization cues) providing cues for the utterance interpretation and facilitating the process of reaching an agreement regarding the content of common ground.
Achieving common ground is achieved in real time by bringing about “adjustments to each other’s attention, beliefs and states of knowledge . . . at the same time as indicating empathy and deference (or their absence)” (Evans, Bergqvist & San Roque 2018:112). A major issue needing exploration then concerns the conditions under which obviously is used with an engagement or intersubjective function. Obviously is, for example, used both where obviously has the pragmatic implicature of indicating that the speaker’s knowledge is shared with the hearer and where the common ground is generally known knowledge or something which can be expected. Obviously can also come close to the expectation marker in some uses.
In this section it has been argued that we need to distinguish between evidentiality and engagement although the same marker may be used for both functions.
3. Methodology
The goal of the current study is to investigate the changes of obviously taking place over a short period of time by using a comparative corpus-linguistic methodology.
The corpora used for the short-term diachronic study of obviously are the recent Spoken British National Corpus 2014 (Love, Dembry, Hardie, Brezina & McEnery 2017) and the demographically sampled component of the traditional British National Corpus compiled at the beginning of the 1990s (referred to here as BNC1994DS). 2
The corpora were designed and collected in similar ways in order to enable researchers to compare the data collected for the Spoken BNC2014 with the data collected in the early 1990s. Both corpora consist of informal conversations between friends or among family members. However, certain issues exist with regard to the methods for collecting the spoken data for the original Spoken BNC1994 and the new Spoken BNC2014. Specifically, the contributors to the Spoken BNC2014 were instructed to use their smartphones to make the recordings of the conversations. This is in contrast to the Spoken BNC1994 where the contributors were provided with recording equipment, the recordings from which were subsequently digitalized and transcribed. The team behind the Spoken BNC2014 carried out a test comparing the different types of recordings which showed that the smartphone recordings were equally suitable for carrying out orthographic transcriptions (McEnery 2018:12).
The sample component of the Spoken BNC2014 (Spoken BNC2014S) has been utilized for this study since it is comparable in size to the BNC1994DS. 3 Each corpus now comprises about five million words representing informal conversations among friends and acquaintances or members of the same family. The investigation of obviously will proceed as follows. Frequencies have been calculated for obviously in different contexts based on the complete Spoken BNC2014S and BNC1994DS using the BNCweb (http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/BNCweb/). For a more detailed database analysis a randomized sample of 200 occurrences of obviously has been retrieved from each corpus. The samples have been stratified with respect to the age and gender of the speakers. However, the sample may contain occurrences where the speaker’s age and gender are unknown 4 and therefore cannot be annotated, a factor which may affect the results of the analysis (see section 4). In addition to the demographic information about the age and gender of the speakers, the occurrences have been coded with regard to function (inference or engagement), the collocational context (the presence of other markers with a subjective or intersubjective function), and the choice of pronoun subject.
4. Frequency of Use
Changes in language are evidenced by the increasing or decreasing frequencies of a lexical element, or construction over time. The findings of the corpus comparison demonstrate that obviously is increasing in frequency at a rapid rate. In the BNC1994DS obviously occurred 672 times (134.007 instances per million words) to be compared with 2562 occurrences (534.989 instances per million words) in the most recent BNC corpus.
On the assumption that the age and gender of the users are important for how frequently obviously is used and for the rate and direction of language change I present statistics based on a comparison between the frequencies of obviously in the BNC1994DS and in the Spoken BNC2014S with respect to these two variables (see Labov 1994). However, comparing the two corpora across different periods of time for the purpose of investigating sociolinguistic variation offers challenges since the corpora are not matched with respect to the age and gender of the speakers. In the Spoken BNC2014S there are, for instance, more female speakers than male speakers and more speakers in the fifteen to twenty-four-year age group than in the other age groups (see Appendix A). Moreover, there is a certain number of unknown speakers in each age group, explaining why the sum of contributions by the speakers in the different groups does not add up to the number of words given for each corpus.
Table 1 shows the frequencies of obviously across the different age groups in the two datasets. Since the corpora are not balanced with respect to the number of speakers in each age group, the frequencies of obviously per million words (pmw) have been given in addition to the raw frequencies.
The Frequency of obviously with Regard to the Age Group of the Speakers in BNC1994DS and the Spoken BNC2014S
The information about the age and gender of the speakers using obviously offers the opportunity to study on-going change using the ‘apparent-time’ approach, that is making inferences about on-going changes by differentiating between the usages of obviously across generations (Bailey, Wikle, Tillery & Sand 1991). Thus, higher frequency in the use of obviously by speakers who are young may indicate a change in progress. In the Spoken BNC2014S a peak in frequency occurs in the group of female fifteen to twenty-four speakers (bold-faced in Table 1).
These findings do not on their own provide evidence supporting the conclusion that obviously is changing over time since its frequent use by adolescents may be an example of ‘age-grading,’ that is features characteristic of speakers of that group that are temporary only (Andersen 2001:4). Comparable corpora collected at different periods of time set the scene for investigating recent or on-going changes in ‘real time.’ The results shown in Table 1 indicate that obviously is increasing in frequency with speakers in all the age groups and genders in the Spoken BNC2014S in comparison with the speakers in BNC1994DS although some secondary peaks in frequency appear among the 60+ women and among men in the 45-59 age band.
In both datasets obviously was used more frequently by females than by males, but the rate of use of females using obviously was higher in the Spoken BNC2014S than in BNC1994DS.
The corpora are indispensable resources for investigating the direction and extent of the changes of obviously in the speech of the younger age groups. The larger issue has to do with the mechanisms or factors accounting for the rapid increase of obviously in the Spoken BNC2014. It is hypothesized that the changes are both linguistic and socio-cultural and linked to the expression of social style and new discourse practices.
5. The Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Obviously
Obviously is multifunctional. It can mean both inference and engagement (the assumption that the speaker and hearer share common ground). However, it can be assumed that both inference and engagement can be regarded as core aspects of its lexical meaning that something is obvious. In the case of obviously the achievement of shared knowledge is crucial. The cognitive process whereby emphasis is put on the speaker’s awareness of what the hearer knows implies that obviously goes beyond its inferential meaning and is used as a resource for performing intersubjective strategies associated with deference, argumentation, and solidarity. In its engagement meaning obviously expresses shared knowledge or common ground with a loss of its inferential meaning.
This section will investigate the functions that obviously performs as an engagement marker and the diachronic movements of obviously over a short period of time. The quantitative analysis will be based on the two 200-word samples from each corpus. The hypothesis is that obviously increases in frequency in contexts where it includes the speaker’s assumption that the hearer shares the information and that it spreads to contexts where the inferential meaning has disappeared.
5.1. Inference
(2)-(5) are clear examples of obviously having inferential meaning based on contextual evidence: (2) S0161: well given that Manchester was a Roman was was a Roman settlement was n’t it ? Because they must obviously have had a camp here (.) hence hence the Chester castra yes (.) cool what aren’t there bits of down at Castlefield ? (Spoken BNC2014; SZJP 187) (3) S0084: but then he ’s been round the house a few times which is why obviously –ANONnameM knows him (.) and –ANONnameM’s met him a few times (.) but um at the same time because he’s like –ANONnameM he ’ll just forget that you ’ve made arrangements (.) or er he’ll do something (Spoken BNC2104S; SVR6 280) (4) S0084: his second wife who stole all his money (.) but for some reason he went back to Thailand with her (.) I dunno (.) but that’s obviously another reason why –ANONnameF’s got power of attorney (Spoken BNC2104S; S32Y 537) (5) PS0M4: I know she’s sitting there and she snores with her mouth wide open . She obviously PS13U: Yeah PS0M4: breathes (BNC1994DS KDE 450)
Obviously can be assumed to express strong evidence that something is the case. In (2), obviously co-occurs with must having an evidential inferential meaning. It is inferred with a high degree of certainty that Romans must have had a camp in Manchester since the city was a Roman settlement. In (3), it can be inferred from the fact that he’s been round the house a few times that ANONnameM knows him. In (4), the evidence for concluding that the woman got power of attorney is that the husband went back to Thailand with her. In example (5) from BNC1994DS, it is obvious that she breathes from the fact that she snores.
In (1)-(5), the evidence is provided in the text itself which makes the inferential meaning of obviously straightforward. However, obviously can also have the pragmatic implicature of indicating that the speaker’s knowledge is shared by the hearer alongside the inferential meaning. As can be expected it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two meanings of obviously since they represent stages in the developments of obviously although the larger context usually makes one interpretation more likely. The aim of the following section is to discuss contexts where obviously can be regarded as an engagement marker.
5.2. Obviously as an Engagement Marker
The speaker and hearer may have different access to knowledge. Evans, Bergqvist, and San Roque (2018) suggest that access can be exclusive to the speaker or to the hearer (asymmetrical), or equally accessible to both (symmetrical access). In fact, we find several configurations between the speaker and the hearer depending on the speaker’s or hearer’s authority of knowledge and the speaker’s assumptions that the hearer has access to the same information.
5.2.1. Obviously
In (6), obviously has engagement meaning: (6) S0252: I d- I think it’s a bit disappointing really I don’t think nationality especially comes into a book really S0251: S0252: but obviously I think he would be probably better if he considered a sort of adding to the range of books rather than S0251: yes S0252: compete the same you can’t read that one (Spoken BNC2104S; SASU67 71)
In (6), the speaker’s assumption is that the bookseller would probably be better off adding books to the range of books on the shelves than sorting them according to the nationality of the authors. By means of obviously the speaker signals that she assumes that these epistemic values are shared with the hearer.
The speaker and the hearer may have different access to knowledge. If the speaker believes that the hearer shares her knowledge, she may use obviously to refer to the hearer for confirmation. Obviously is found with a tag question at the end of the utterance signaling that the speaker believes that the hearer will agree with what is said. See (7)-(9): (7) S0368: I don’t know we’d have to get here early wouldn’t we ? S0252: but how is it from –ANONplace to Harrogate? it’s if the obviously you go to York first S0369: >>mm S0252: presumably would you? or would you go via –ANONplace on the M62 and then er S0369: >>no I think we’d probably do er maybe do (Spoken BNC2104S; S4QF 1153) (8) S0375: apparently though mum erm cos obviously we did everything yesterday didn’t we went to so we went to –ANONplace and went to Primark and went to (Spoken BNC2104S; SFLB 628) (9) S0084: yeah (.) cos obviously it’s tens hundreds and thousands isn’t it like depending on where the decimal point is? (Spoken BNC2104S; STSS 101)
The examples have in common that the speaker’s access to knowledge is shared to some extent with the hearer. Even if the speaker in (7) regards it as obvious that in order to go to Harrogate you go first to York, she includes the hearer as someone sharing this knowledge in the discourse. The hearer may, for example, have traveled this distance earlier or it is common knowledge that you first go to York in order to reach Harrogate. In (8), obviously invites the listener’s agreement that what they (the speaker and her boyfriend) did was the right thing (“going to all sorts of places in order to get to know each other”). In (9), obviously is used by the speaker to check with the hearer whether she knows correctly where to place the decimal point.
Obviously shares with surely the feature that it could be regarded as an indexical feature of knowledge asymmetry. However, in the examples quoted surely would be confrontational and challenging. Obviously, on the other hand, sounds friendly and is used when the speaker wants to create a sense of shared values, beliefs, or norms.
Obviously in the engagement function can also be used to present information as common ground by referring to it as known by the hearer. The occurrence of (as) you know implies that the speaker is aware that the information is shared with the hearer: (10) S0539: do they just have the –ANONplace then? or do they have any other? S0557: just the –ANONplace as far as I know S0539: mm S0557: but that’s doing well obviously as you know (Spoken BNC2104S; SEM7 1227)
Obviously can easily be replaced by (as) you know in the engagement function if its function is to manage interpersonal relationships. In (11), the two markers co-occur again: (11) S0041: the sexy top and skirt is a very new thing S0084: it’s very very very lovely (.) very risky (.) I mean I would never wear it (.) I mean cos obviously you know you put it on and you feel good you know you look hot (.) so S0041: but I didn’t even wear stuff like that when I was eighteen (Spoken BNC2014S; S6J2)
It can be expected that the reason for using obviously in conversation is to make information accessible to both the speaker and the hearer in order to show that they share attitudes and to create “a common world” (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007:154). Moreover, obviously is not unusual in argumentative contexts in the Spoken BNC2014S. In argumentative contexts the speaker refers to common claims in order to oppose them. However, obviously is generally oriented to solidarity rather than power and authority (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007:312). In (12), obviously has a rhetorical function: (12) S0439: but then again people just don’t have children as young anymore well some people do obviously but most people are just having children young you know when they ’re older (Spoken BNC2104S; S7MF 433)
When obviously is used in a concessive construction, a reference to shared knowledge or common sense can be assumed. The speaker first refers to something which should be obvious to both the speaker and the hearer (some people have children when they are young) and is therefore accessible to both the speaker and the hearer and then expresses a different viewpoint (but most people have them when they’re older).
Obviously is oriented to the speaker as the epistemic authority (see Bergqvist 2020). When the speaker uses the generic you what is “obvious” refers to general knowledge or to common sense.
(13) S0115: if you haven’t got money obviously then you know I mean everybody uh has a life in which to make something of it but if you’re in a different class that’s gonna make it a lot harder or easier depending on what class you’re in (Spoken BNC2104S; S2AX 158)
In (14), obviously has an emphasizing function because it adds something which must be obvious to both the speaker and the hearer: (14) S0252: but you can usually upload them on the computer and then obviously you can magnify it Lanzarote before you still need to know the know about the climate here cos we ’re so close to Africa and you ’re like what (Spoken BNC2104S; SRND 17)
The conversational participants are talking about the problems they have reading a manual in small script. However, as evidence shows (as should be obvious to both the speaker and the hearer) you can now upload manuals on the computer in order to magnify them. It can be hypothesized that the subject of the verb in the utterance containing obviously is closely intertwined with the speaker’s and the hearer’s access to knowledge and how common ground between the discourse participants is established. Specifically, obviously co-occurring with a first- and second-person subject can develop special pragmatic effects. The speaker uses you as a subject with reference to things which are relevant to the hearer only. The effect of using obviously with a specific you as the subject may therefore be that the speaker sounds patronizing or reproachful. This is illustrated in (15)-(18): (15) S0041: SI won’t be having to do that S0086: I would hope not S0041: no S0086: and obviously you will not be doing ridiculous things like him like yesterday when he was like it’s run a five minute mile and then he literally destroyed himself –UNCLEARWORD twenty things S0041: no I won’t have to do that (.) no no no no no no (Spoken BNC2104S; LDB 365) (16) S0189: UNCLEARWORD so it can go both ways (...) I don’t know S0192: just obviously obviously you can tell your mum how you feel obviously but just remember that she’ll carry that S0189: yeah S0192: she’ll remember it (Spoken BNC2104S; SXQU 486) (17) S0084: mm (.) and that’s it (.) it’s really personal S0041: jeebus S0084: so um so yeah (.) so obviously you will deny all knowledge S0041: oh yeah (.) I haven’t got a clue (Spoken BNC2104S; S7GJ 3482) (18) PS52C: Yeah I mean obviously you’re not gonna instantly assume that every that says he fancies you is just joking, no obviously you’re not gonna assume that (BNC1994DS; KP2688)
In (15), Speaker 0086 has been telling about a friend who had been training hard, almost destroying himself as a result. Based on what happened to her friend the speaker asserts that it should be obvious to the hearer that she will not be doing such ridiculous things. The effect is that obviously expresses the speaker’s authoritative and admonishing stance. The speaker could also have used surely, but in that case the admonishing tone would have been lost. In (16), obviously can also imply that the speaker takes a patronizing stance. Based on general knowledge or common sense as evidence the speaker’s message is that you can tell your mum how you felt when your parents split up but it will be necessary to keep in mind that she will remember it. In (17), “I mean obviously” emphasizes that something should be an obvious alternative to the hearer. In (18), which is taken from BNC1994DS, the previous speaker has been relating how her boy-friend said he fancied her and then told her it was a joke. This explains why the current speaker now admonishes her not to take it as a joke every time that he says he likes her.
5.2.2. Obviously with First Person Subject
Engagement is a category for encoding the sharing of knowledge. Obviously as an engagement marker is, for example, used by the speaker to achieve this interactive stage. However, speakers and hearers may have different access to events and there are events which are only accessible to the speaker. Obviously is quite frequently found with first-person subjects where only the speaker has access to knowledge about an event. The authority of knowledge of the speaker with respect to events or actions concerning herself has been discussed by Kamio (1997) who refers to information belonging to the speaker’s private ‘territory of information.’ According to Kamio’s “principles of territory of information,” “information about persons objects and facts, including personal information would belong to the speaker’s territory” (Kamio 1997:39; cf. Bergqvist 2020:479).
Similarly, Kittilä (2019:1273) remarks that “we are personally involved in numerous states-of-affairs every day, in which case our own (volitional) participation in a given event serves as our information source, as in ‘I am working on this paper or tomorrow I will eat fish for dinner.’” Kittilä further suggests that evidence based on the speaker’s own actions should be referred to as “ego-evidence” (cf. the term ‘egophoricity’ used by Bergqvist 2020:476).
Obviously with a first-person subject cannot mark engagement since it does not involve shared knowledge. When it is used with a first person subject to imply that something is shared knowledge it can therefore be understood as a device blocking the hearer from disagreeing.
In (19), the speaker uses obviously with the goal of establishing or confirming shared experiences, attitudes, and norms with the hearer (Bergqvist 2020:279) (19) S0046: Sugar Hill Gang (.) you know S0041: obviously S0046: bit of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (.) boom Boom Shake the Room S0084: Oh S0046: --UNCLEARWORD S0084: very nice S0041: obviously the coolest cat I know (Spoken BNC2014S; S7GJ1365)
Speaker S0041 tells her friends about singing karaoke songs. The writer of the lyrics is obviously a cool cat. ‘The coolest cat I know’ expresses information which has a low accessibility to the hearer. However, it refers to information that can be assumed to be accepted by the hearer.
(20)-(22) illustrate the use of obviously with a first person subject (including an example where the subject contains ‘my’): (20) S0439: like it’s –ANONnameF’s birthday and obviously I really want to go cos it’s her birthday but we’re going to this concert she’s part of this choir and the choir are performing (Spoken BNC2014S; S3AV54) (21) S0058: um (.) but it was really good fun (.) it was one of those silly drawing on face type sleep-overs (.) and –ANONnameF brought like midnight feasts round (.) which consisted of like the entire contents of the Spa sweet shelves (.) She just bought so much shit (.) My mum was like fff- you’re not gonna have that after you’ve brushed your teeth (.) I was like I might do (.) hmm (.) it was very fun (.) and obviously my parents were asleep upstairs (.) so occasionally you know every s- few hours they’d come down and be like can you be quieter ? (Spoken BNC 2014S; SD6X) (22) S0084: she was like I expect a good night’s sleep (.) and they said well we can’t move you cos the only other room is on the same side of the hotel and obviously I was snoozing dead to the world (Spoken BNC2104S; STJD 337)
In (20), the speaker draws attention to her future plans. In (21), the speaker describes how she and her friends used to have midnight feasts where they ate a lot of sweets while her parents were asleep upstairs. In (22), the pattern ‘and obviously’ introduces a new point in the speaker’s narrative namely that she was fast asleep (although there was a great deal of commotion at that side of the hotel). In all the examples discussed the information belongs to the speaker completely or more or less in relation to the other participants in the conversation. This does not prevent speakers from using obviously to make assumptions about what the hearer knows and as a strategy for achieving common ground.
However, obviously can be experienced as rude because its interactive use makes it impossible for the hearer to disagree. In (23), from BNC1994DS the context is argumentative. The speaker is annoyed with car drivers who slow down their speed in the traffic while the other speaker disagrees (this is a good way). Using obviously the speaker draws attention to something as self-evident (I don’t know if there is a better way) thus stopping the hearer from coming up with an objection: (23) PS1GF: If you listened Mark without interrupting, I was just about to say I ’m not trying to convert into a better way of doing things because obviously I don’t know whether that’s a different, a better way of doing it, what I said It’s a just a (BNC1994DS; KDA 2405)
There is also a change from the bare obviously to obviously like in the spoken language of young people in the Spoken BNC214S. Like as a pragmatic marker signals subjective information ranging from hedging to focusing the following message (D’Arcy 2017:15). It is also intersubjective in that it is used to establish common ground and build up solidarity.
(24) S0439: it’s basically just loads of like things that happened through history cos it’s you know obviously like Halloween so they’re obviously S0440: S0439: doing like history of London S0440: mm (Spoken BNC2104S; S37E 25).
There were 124 occurrences in the Spoken BNC2014S (obviously like and like obviously) but no occurrences in BNC1994DS.
It is noteworthy that in the speech of some individuals obviously as an engagement marker has become a conversational routine as indicated by repetition and its function as a conversational ‘filler.’
(25) yeah that’s right (.) I dunno I I oh yeah I dunno hard decision obviously it can’t be more than sixty quid a year obviously wasn’t going twelve months was it? (Spoken BNC2014S; S2C9 1728)
Obviously with a first person subject is increasing in frequency over time. There were fifty-four tokens in the Spoken BNC2014S to be compared with thirty-five tokens in BNC1994DS. The changing frequencies of obviously as an engagement marker over a short time are arguably the outcome of changes to new discourse practices where the focus is on topics related to the speaker’s personal experiences. According to Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007:155), obviously with a first-person subject ‘draws on the restriction of the number of people to whom something is said to be “obvious”’ and reinforces the norms and values of the social group to which the speaker and hearer belong. However obviously might sound arrogant or rude if it cannot be assumed that the speaker and hearer share common beliefs, values, and norms.
5.3. Obviously as a Stand-Alone Engagement Marker
Obviously also fits into the broader conversational structure as a marker providing an answer to a question or giving feedback on a preceding utterance. (26)-(27) illustrate this use: (26) S0192: what about in –ANONplace you lived in –ANONplace for five years but how long have you lived in Britain? all your life? S0195: oh yeah well yeah obviously S0192: yeah so cool S0195: thought you’ve got to S0192: (Spoken BNC2014S; SN7Z 1620) (27) S0439: I was thinking I was like are you considering doing it? and he’s like well yeah obviously I was like good S0441: air play S0439:
In (26), the speakers are discussing accents in relation to how long they have lived in Britain. In the answer to the question (“have you lived in Britain all your life”) the speaker does not answer yes or no but the answer contains obviously which conveys that the question is problematic in some way (you should have known the answer). In (27), the speaker is relating how she asked somebody if he was considering donating his bone marrow and got the answer “well yeah obviously” rather than a “yes” or “no.” In addition to obviously, the short form obvs occurred: (28) S0330: what did you do? were you just like trying not to laugh? S0328: just just like –ANONnameM did it S0330: yeah obvs S0328: I’m too young S0330: that’s awesome (Spoken BNC2014S; SWWZ 2114)
In (28), the speaker’s father wanted to put brandy on the Christmas pudding and light it. However, someone had put water in the brandy, so it did not light. The most likely function of yeah obvs is to express (partial) agreement with the preceding speaker.
Obviously as a response marker has been remarked on in the public media since it may sound rude. According to one person in a Quora exchange, well obviously is a sarcastic response. “It is typically used to not-so-politely tell the other person that they’re being a dumbass.” Another person comments: “It’s really demeaning to the person who asked the question, as well. What’s obvious to you, may not be so obvious to someone else. However, if you’re looking to shake things up and possibly make enemies, go right ahead!” This use seems to be recent since obviously served as a response marker only six times in the 200-word sample from the Spoken BNC2014S where it was used by speakers in the nineteen to twenty-four age group. There were two cases in BNC1994DS.
Summing up, obviously is both an evidential inferential marker and an engagement marker targeted at the sharing of knowledge. Table 2 compares the frequencies of obviously in different functions with regard to the age and gender of the speakers BNC1994DS and Table 3 gives the same information for speakers in the Spoken BNC2014S. Engagement includes cases where obviously has a first-person subject or is used as a response marker.
The Frequency of obviously in Different Functions with Regard to the Age and Gender of the Speakers in BNC1994DS
The Frequency of obviously in Different Functions with Regard to the Age and Gender of the Speakers in the Spoken BNC2014S
In BNC1994DS obviously is above all an inference marker used particularly by females between fifteen and thirty-four years old. In the Spoken BNC2014S it is most frequent as an engagement marker, including cases where it is used with a first person subject or as a response marker. The most frequent users are female speakers in the fifteen to twenty-four age group. 5
6. Short-Term Semantic-Pragmatic Change
The question emerges how we should describe the types of change undergone by obviously. Until recently the study of ongoing short-term diachronic changes in spoken language has been neglected because of the lack of spoken data from different periods of time. Some early exceptions are Romaine and Lange (1991) and Rickford, Wasow, Zwicky, and Buchstaller (2007). Romaine and Lange (1991) studied the quotative use of like based on observations and recordings of teenagers and adults at different times finding some evidence for an ongoing semantic change led by young females. Rickford, Wasow, Zwicky, and Buchstaller’s (2007) study is particularly valuable. Based on sociolinguistic interviews as well as internet newsgroups, it points out that we need to distinguish between true innovations and uses of a word or a construction which only look new because they are becoming more frequent. The authors showed that all as an intensifier was not a new construction, but that the quotative all was an innovation.
The findings based on comparable corpora have shown that in BNC1994DS obviously was most frequent in the inferential function. Over a twenty-year period obviously has increased in frequency and it is emerging in new uses as an engagement marker while other functions are becoming relatively less frequent. The extension to first person subjects is an innovation which can be placed in the period between the two corpora although some examples occur in the early corpus. This use of obviously can be experienced as rude since shared knowledge cannot verified.
Traditional approaches to language change imply that the process takes place over a long period of time and that we can distinguish a starting-point and an end-point for the change. Sociolinguists have also studied the rapid increase in the frequency of discourse markers such as like (see e.g., D’Arcy 2017). From a cognitive and usage-based perspective the semantic changes of obviously can be regarded as the result of how its meaning is modified in the course of the spoken interaction. The changes can be described in the theoretical framework proposed by Traugott and Dasher (2002) to explain the regularity of semantic (and pragmatic) changes in interactive ways. In Traugott and Dasher’s approach speakers produce meanings that may or may not be interpreted by the hearer in the way intended. Different pragmatic meanings can arise via conversational implicature and may become part of language: “If they do acquire social value and therefore become salient in a community they are likely to spread to other contexts” (Traugott & Dasher 2002:35). The authors also show that, in semantic change, there is unidirectionality illustrated by the movement from content meaning to procedural meanings based in discourse (Traugott & Dasher 2002:26).
Semantic change also involves subjectification and grammaticalization. Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007:150) discuss the derivation of the multiple functions of obviously from its older meaning as a manner adverb meaning “in an obvious way,” “in a clear, perceptible way”: “If something is said to be the case in an obvious way, it also means that the speaker considers it obvious that it is the case. The development from manner to sentence adverb is a shift in perspective, i.e., from objective to subjective speaker-oriented assessment . . .. However, in the case of obviously as an evidential the meaning is usually ‘obvious to everyone,’ which is intersubjective rather than subjective” (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007:150).
The recent changes which can be observed based on comparable corpora show the importance of changing usage frequencies and the shift from the inferential meaning to engagement meaning. In particular obviously is undergoing a change to an engagement marker which can also be used with a first person subject and as a response marker. The changes are in line with what is known about late stages of grammatical changes, where the spread of a particular function across speaker groups is important (see also Keller 1994; Croft 2000). According to Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith (2009:268), “[a]rguably, a perspective focusing on the later stages of a grammatical change or even its endpoint is an unproductive one for the study of ongoing developments, where shifts in the usage frequency of competing variants . . . are the all-important factors which both reflect and shape the way in which a diachronic development is unfolding.”
6.1. Competition between Variants
There are several adverbs to consider which seem to have similar functions and therefore compete with each other. The adverbs having an evidential-inferential meaning are obviously, clearly, evidently, apparently, and of course. In order to explain the recent changes in real time we need to consider the relations between obviously and the other adverbs within the functional domain of evidentiality. Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith (2009:114) use the term ‘ecology’ to capture the idea that each form evolves its own niche in the expression of modality, expanding, contracting, or maintaining its “‘habitat’ in relation to other, partially competing forms.”
There are especially two forms which are competing, viz. obviously and of course. See Table 4.
The Frequencies of of course and obviously in BNC1994DS and the Spoken BNC2014S
In the Spoken BNC2014S obviously is more than four times as frequent than in the earlier corpus while of course only increases slightly in frequency during this period. However, a reorganization of the adverbs sharing this function can take place where one adverb can slide across to the space of another adverb and there may be changes in frequency when one adverb becomes more frequent at the expense of another adverb which becomes less frequent. The ‘encroachment’ hypothesis (Leech, Hundt, Mair & Smith 2009:238) provides an explanation for the increase in the frequency of obviously and the declining frequency of of course as well as for the subtle functional differences which have been discussed in the literature and anecdotally. Carretero and Zamorano-Mansilla (2013:346) state that “this adverbial [‘obviously’] has been reported to indicate, in certain cases, agreement with expectations, in a similar way to of course and naturally.” However, speakers may prefer a certain variant because it appeals to them more.
Specifically the higher frequency of obviously than of course in the Spoken BNC2014S can be explained by changing fashion in line with conversation maxims such as “‘Speak in such a way that people pay attention to you’ or ‘Speak amusingly, wittily, charmingly, etc.,’ while the adherence to fashion may be facilitated by the stabilizing maxim ‘Speak like the others of the group you feel you belong to’” (Keller 1985:233, quoted from Györi 2002:157). Obviously may draw attention to itself because it enables the speaker to express rudeness by implying that the hearer should know something. It is spoken by more people belonging to the same social group because it is fashionable and new.
The rapid changes undergone by obviously and its replacement of of course have parallels. The most rapid semantic developments are said to happen with intensifiers. Specifically, Tagliamonte and Roberts (2005) have demonstrated how processes of renewal and recycling account for the rapid changes of the intensifying adverbs very, really, and so. Renewal takes place when a new form comes into the language (or an existing form is appropriated for a new use) because it is more colorful than an existing form. Another characteristic feature is that forms are recycled, that is, an old form is replaced by a new one which is more trendy and can more effectively signal the speaker’s social identity.
Consideration of the broader socio-cultural context suggests that globalization networks play an important role in the changes of obviously and its replacement of of course. Using corpora, Tagliamonte and Smith (2021) showed that obviously has been changing in frequency and use in a parallel way over a thirty-year period in the UK and Ontario Canada (Tagliamonte & Smith 2021). Based on these observations, Tagliamonte and Smith suggested that the change is a mega-trend in line with “simultaneous, instantaneous, parallel development, in multiple urban locations, at the same time” (cf. also Leech, Hundt, Mair & Smith 2009:258). Thus, the existence of independent parallel developments in several varieties of English may help us to better understand the mechanisms behind short-term linguistic innovations.
7. Conclusion
Obviously increases in frequency over a short period of time. The changes observed involve a shift of meaning whereby obviously expands its use to new contexts and comes to encroach on the domain of of course. Obviously and of course have almost the same meaning but there are some functional differences. Specifically, obviously can be experienced as rude if the speaker and hearer do not share the same beliefs and knowledge and obviously is used with a first-person subject or as a response marker. The frequent use of both the first and second person subject to refer to the speaker and the hearer suggests a high degree of speaker and hearer presence and a personalized style. It has been noted that obviously comes close to of course in some of its uses where the speaker refers to what is general knowledge or shared knowledge in the social group to which the speaker and hearer belong. Obviously serves as a signal that the information presented is common ground. Common ground is a flexible notion which may be negotiated in the conversation. Obviously draws attention to the hearer’s perspective and what is taken to be shared knowledge in the conversation. It is used at stages in the evolving conversation where the speaker wants to make the hearer aware of their commonalities (common ground) particularly if speaker and hearer are close friends sharing interests and cultural norms.
The changes of obviously in the direction of a higher degree of involvement or engagement can also be explained as the result of changing discourse practices or styles. Young, mostly female speakers position themselves with respect to the adult world as fashionable and cool by using obviously. The frequency changes undergone by obviously have also been observed in American English supporting the fact that changes in frequency also take place on a global level.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Frequencies of Words for Groups within the Demographic Category of Age (from Love 2017:156)
| Age | BNC1994DS | Spoken BNC2014S |
|---|---|---|
| 0-14 | 435,286 | 69,362 |
| 15-24 | 596,113 | 957,924 |
| 25-34 | 816,024 | 395,679 |
| 35-46 | 825,857 | 656,501 |
| 46-59 | 859,736 | 597,901 |
| 60+ | 783,594 | 928,154 |
| Total | 4,316,610 | 3,535,521 |
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.
