Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
In this sense - and of course I shall hope to demonstrate the validity of these claims in the following analytical chapters - positive and negative facework as equilibric activity can be conceptualised as a collaborative claiming, ratification and support of claims to both sameness and difference, solidarity and autonomy (see fig. 3.4). Fig. 3.4 Positive and Negative Conversational Claims + SOCIABLE ICASUAL CONVERSATION Consensus over and Differentiation over support of actions; and challenging of definitions; attitudes; actions; definitions; and experience. attitudes; and experience. Considered within the context of conversational episodes, these claims (and variations between them) in terms not just of their propositional content, but also in terms of their interpersonal functions would seem to function to achieve solidarity with and independence from others; i. e., provide a conversational resource for the claiming of face needs. Having proposed a relationship between the dynamics of sociable conversation per se and both the equilibric and positive - negative paradigms of facework, I now want to consider how we might more formally present such proposition in terms of a workable framework for the analysis of facework in English and German sociable episodes. Specifically, I want to do this by drawing on three central concepts variously referred to in the preceding pages as being intrinsically bound up with facework, that is, equilibrium, the self, and the notion of alignment. Alignment is a concept variously used in social sciences to refer to the relationship conversationalists take up to each other during focused interaction (e. g. Goffman 1981; Katdel 1986; Nofsinger 1991). Nofsinger (1991) provides perhaps the most comprehensive account of how alignment can been taken to refer to a whole host of conversational phenomena. These can include various responses to signal understanding and comprehension (e. g. 'hm', 'oh really'), through conversational repair conducted by speakers or hearers in talk to allow on
orderly and meaningful conversation to proceed (see e. g. Schegloff 1992), to the prospective and retrospective aligning of action and meaning (e. g. 'Could I ask you a personal question'; 'I didn't mean to sound nasty there'). Alignment in this sense is associated with the achievement of intersubjectivity between speaker and hearer in the achievement of 'smooth' conversation. Alignment is not restricted in use to refer to the achievement of intersubjectivity though but can also apply to what is essentially the alignment of particular selves. For example, in responding (aligning ones conversational utterance) to a speakers introduction of something 'newsworthy' or 'interesting', speakers may align in effect a surprised or informed self (for e. g. in the use of 'oh really' or'you don't say'). This effectively signals not only an appropriate comprehension of meaning, but also an appropriate alignment of symbolic self, thereby both ratifying the self proffered by the speaker ('interesting newsteller) and, equally as importantly, setting up the appropriate conversational environment (albeit a temporary one) for the speaker and hearer to continue to mobilise appropriate selves. This focus on the relationship between conversational action and the symbolic representation of the self been addressed more closely in symbolic interactionist circles. Here, the concept of alignment has been used variously to refer to largely verbal actions taken to align both individual lines of conduct, and that conduct with wider cultural norms. Essentially, 'aligning actions' (see Stokes and Hewitt 1976) are commonly perceived in sociological studies as actions which proscriptively seek to define or retrospectively seek to get potentially face-threatening behaviourback on track', to a state of non-conflict and mutual acceptance of the definitions of the situation and proffered selves (Malone 1997, 138). For instance Stokes and Hewitt (1976), although again associating alignment with the achievement of intersubjectivity, focus on negative selves that might be warded off or redefined with the use of aligning actions. Persons may for example employ disclaimers to proscriptively define upcoming information proffered about the self or others, or may employ explanations following some negatively sanctioned action. In this sense, aligning actions are synonymous with alignments of the self. Alignment has also been employed at a wider cultural level. Katriel (1986) extends these prior conceptions of alignment to the study of specific cultural contexts. In her ethnographic study of the Israeli interactional idiom of straight talk, she identifies a two-way alignment, which aligns ensuing potentially face- 91
- Page 49 and 50: Tannen's work (1981 a; 1981 b) perh
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 2 ANGLO-SAXON CHALK AND TEU
- Page 57 and 58: impolite. However, I soon came to r
- Page 59 and 60: in potential or actual conflict sit
- Page 61 and 62: salient differences. For example, G
- Page 63 and 64: Watts observed that German conversa
- Page 65 and 66: Finally, although Watts argued that
- Page 67 and 68: elatively little overlap, and a gen
- Page 69 and 70: contributions, with the former set
- Page 71 and 72: fully and substantively, what was r
- Page 73 and 74: oriented to unmitigated disagreemen
- Page 75 and 76: 2.3 Communicative Underpinnings The
- Page 77 and 78: service but by more confrontational
- Page 79 and 80: Finally, additional explanatory dim
- Page 81 and 82: specific communicative practices, a
- Page 83 and 84: Brown and Levinson (1987). Indeed,
- Page 85 and 86: Notes to Chapter 2 11 use the term
- Page 87 and 88: This chapter then can be regarded a
- Page 89 and 90: asic irreducible sociological varia
- Page 91 and 92: Fraser (1990) who, in also attempti
- Page 93 and 94: particularly amenable to such a heu
- Page 95 and 96: identify certain underlying dynamic
- Page 97 and 98: In fact, these two opposing orienta
- Page 99: at any given point in the flow of c
- Page 103 and 104: locally managed and constantly in d
- Page 105 and 106: Poles of Alignment Fig. 3.6 Sociabl
- Page 107 and 108: toward a clearer understanding of w
- Page 109 and 110: Notes to Chapter 3 1 See also Brown
- Page 111 and 112: 4.1 Research Questions In the previ
- Page 113 and 114: eferring to as sociable includes in
- Page 115 and 116: The decision on quantity of data wa
- Page 117 and 118: largely anecdotal evidence from whi
- Page 119 and 120: such as laughter sequences. I also
- Page 121 and 122: Table 4.3 Data: Omissions from Anal
- Page 123 and 124: The obtrusiveness of my recording w
- Page 125 and 126: hand, I did not want to engage in t
- Page 127 and 128: German. However, these episodes asi
- Page 129 and 130: presented here provides a necessary
- Page 131 and 132: two chapters (Chapters 6 and 7). He
- Page 133 and 134: Hand shakes for example were infreq
- Page 135 and 136: eing invariably solidaric in nature
- Page 137 and 138: claimed on the part of the particip
- Page 139 and 140: Table 5.1 Sociable Topics Topic Cat
- Page 141 and 142: in my observations of German sociab
- Page 143 and 144: collective past peppered with indiv
- Page 145 and 146: In the next chapter I want to explo
- Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 6 ALIGNMENT IN ACTION: NEGA
- Page 149 and 150: shall not be carried forward into t
orderly and meaningful conversation to proceed (see e. g. Schegl<strong>of</strong>f 1992), to the<br />
prospective and retrospective aligning <strong>of</strong> action and meaning (e. g. 'Could I ask you<br />
a personal question'; 'I didn't mean to sound nasty there'). Alignment in this sense<br />
is associated with the achievement <strong>of</strong> intersubjectivity between speaker and hearer<br />
in the achievement <strong>of</strong> 'smooth' conversation.<br />
Alignment is not restricted in use to refer to the achievement <strong>of</strong><br />
intersubjectivity<br />
though but can also apply to what is essentially the alignment <strong>of</strong><br />
particular selves. For example, in responding (aligning ones conversational<br />
utterance) to a speakers introduction <strong>of</strong> something 'newsworthy' or 'interesting',<br />
speakers may align in effect a surprised or informed self (for e. g. in the use <strong>of</strong> 'oh<br />
really' or'you don't say'). This effectively signals not only an appropriate<br />
comprehension <strong>of</strong> meaning, but also an appropriate alignment <strong>of</strong> symbolic self,<br />
thereby both ratifying the self pr<strong>of</strong>fered by the speaker ('interesting newsteller) and,<br />
equally as importantly, setting up the appropriate conversational environment<br />
(albeit a temporary one) for the speaker and hearer to continue to mobilise<br />
appropriate selves. This focus on the relationship between conversational action<br />
and the symbolic representation <strong>of</strong> the self been addressed more closely in<br />
symbolic interactionist circles. Here, the concept <strong>of</strong> alignment has been used<br />
variously to refer to largely verbal actions taken to align both individual lines <strong>of</strong><br />
conduct, and that conduct with wider cultural norms. Essentially,<br />
'aligning actions'<br />
(see Stokes and Hewitt 1976) are commonly perceived in sociological studies as<br />
actions which proscriptively seek to define or retrospectively seek to get potentially<br />
face-threatening behaviourback on track', to a state <strong>of</strong> non-conflict and mutual<br />
acceptance <strong>of</strong> the definitions <strong>of</strong> the situation and pr<strong>of</strong>fered selves (Malone 1997,<br />
138). For instance Stokes and Hewitt (1976), although again associating alignment<br />
with the achievement <strong>of</strong> intersubjectivity,<br />
focus on negative selves that might be<br />
warded <strong>of</strong>f or redefined with the use <strong>of</strong> aligning actions. Persons may for example<br />
employ disclaimers<br />
to proscriptively define upcoming information pr<strong>of</strong>fered about<br />
the self or others, or may employ explanations following some negatively<br />
sanctioned action. In this sense, aligning actions are synonymous with alignments<br />
<strong>of</strong> the self.<br />
Alignment has also been employed at a wider cultural level. Katriel (1986)<br />
extends these prior conceptions <strong>of</strong> alignment to the study <strong>of</strong> specific cultural<br />
contexts. In her ethnographic study <strong>of</strong> the Israeli interactional idiom <strong>of</strong> straight talk,<br />
she identifies a two-way alignment, which aligns ensuing potentially face-<br />
91