Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

locally managed and constantly in danger of becoming 'disequilibric') whereby the
faces of participants are mutually supported or allowed to proceed unchallenged. In
terms of sociable / casual conversation, it is what we perceive as free-flowing,
easy-going, spontaneous talk, in which one can immerse oneself in the
conversational milieu with like-minded individuals. At its height, it approaches a
type of interactional nirvana. Rather than being perceived as fixed and static state
however, as Earley (1997) has noted equilibrium is best regarded as a dynamic
ongoing process rather than a fixed state, contingent on the unfolding interaction
and contex?. Equilibrium in this sense, is something akin to a sociable balancing
act, whereby one change in footing from one participant may require appropriate
compensatory moves from the other to in effect prevent the conversational boat
from rocking too much, or tipping over altogether.
If we assume that participants in sociable conversation make claims to
solidarity with and autonomy from their sociable counterparts, and that these claims
can lead to alignments, then, employing the concept of equilibrium as an
interactional balancing act we can surmise that equilibrium will be maintained in
and through both positive and negative alignments. This basic proposition is
outlined in fig. 3.5.
Fig 3.5 Face, Alignment, Equilibrium
pa 7 meters of Sociable Equilibri
ALIGNMENT AS SOCIABLE CONVERSATIONAL
Positive Negative
Claims Claims
These then are the essential components for a heuristic model at its most
basic'O: Positive face conceptualised as the conversational need for conversational
solidarity with others; negative face, conceptualised as the conversational need for
conversational autonomy from others"; alignment, treated as the co-joint
orientation of conversational claims to achieve both positive and negative face
needs; and equilibrium, the culturally specific parameters for sociable / casual
conversation.
014