Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
counter on the transcriber, I noted the sections of each tape at which such episodes began and ended. As I noted earlier (see Chapter 3), the concept of episode has been employed frequently in studies addressing ongoing discourse (e. g. Katriel 1986; Malone 1997; Tannen 1984; Watson and Potter 1962) as well as those more specifically concerned with facework (e. g. Penman 1990; Wood and Kroger 1991). The term however is quite a fuzzy one, and implies an objective and bounded period of interaction which is normally ill defined in studies applying the term. I did not employ any formal criteria as such beyond treating an episode as a period of interaction where participants were'doing' some common conversational topic together whereby they shared a common cognitive and conversational focus of attention. In this sense, I focused on topics that became 'conversational', that is, topics that were picked up and developed by participants. Similar to Tannen (1984), 1 used instances of focused topic talk as the basis for delineating 'sociable 'episode'. In the light of the propositions set out in Chapter 3,1 assumed that such a criteria for episode selection would yield instances of both negative and positive alignment. Having audited the tapes and identified suitable conversational episodes, I gave each one a'working title', e. g. 'Good and bad pubs', or'Unemployment', and made brief analytical notes, noting salient aspects of talk such as how the topic was framed (e. g. in a serious or humorous manner), in how far participants were displaying solidarity of differentiation (i. e. positively or negatively aligning), and any particular images of self that were being proffered and sustained over the course of such episodes of talk (e. g. knowledgeable expert or humorous storyteller). Alongside helping me to identify a manageable 'sample frame', this process gave me an overall 'feel' for the interaction and presentational stances in both gatherings. The next step was to playback the selected segments and roughly transcribe the talk. I was primarily concerned here with providing as accurate a representation as possible of what was actually said. Alongside verbatim transcription, I included characteristics such as noticeably increased volume and speed of speaker turns, as well as overlap, and non-lexical phenomenon JOR
such as laughter sequences. I also included line numbering and identification of speakers. Each participant was represented in the transcripts and appendices two letters (e. g. KP). These letters are not fictitious but represent the real names of participants. A major reason for this was to avoid confusion for myself which may arise out of entirely fictitious nomenclature. However, it is hoped however that anonymity is maintained throughoutlo. These rough transcripts were then printed out and read through. Again, I focused on general conversational alignment to topic (e. g. what topics were chosen, how deeply were they being developed, were they treated seriously or lightly? ) and instances of solidaric and autonomous mobilisation of selves. Finally, I selected and more precisely transcribed what I perceived as exemplar excerpts, i. e., what I thought of from my own experience as the English being English, and the Germans being German. Two points of clarification need to be made about the nature of and importance accorded transcriptions: First, a transcript does not constitute data but rather represents it, and second, as scholars such as Tannen (in Straehle 1997,65) have noted, the transcription process is a transformative process, taking conversation as it happens and turning it into conversation as it can be written down. Although within sociological studies, certain sets of transcription conventions are usually observed, the final 'product' as it were down differs across studies. For example, those conducting sociological work under the general rubric of 'conversation analysis' employ similar techniques of intricate transcription necessary for the practical purposes of this particular type of analysis (the sequential organisation of conversation per se) (see e. g. Button and Lee 1987,9-17). Other sociologists employ less minutely detailed methods, again, largely due to their specific research interest. For example, scholars such as Blum-Kulka (1997), Malone (1997) and Tannen (1984) represent data to demonstrate, amongst other things, conversational moves as a way of mobilising selves. Others such as Goffman, equally successfully illustrate how selves are presented in talk by drawing on simply transcribed data, showing barely more than the propositional content of speaker turns. 1 OCI
- 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 and 100: at any given point in the flow of c
- Page 101 and 102: orderly and meaningful conversation
- 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: largely anecdotal evidence from whi
- 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
- Page 151 and 152: These various symbols are intended
- Page 153 and 154: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 155 and 156: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rather than
- Page 157 and 158: 19 EP: ' [Although I mean that [now
- Page 159 and 160: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 161 and 162: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 163 and 164: detrimental effects foreigners are
- Page 165 and 166: 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
- Page 167 and 168: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
such as laughter sequences. I also included line numbering and identification <strong>of</strong><br />
speakers. Each participant was represented in the transcripts and appendices<br />
two letters (e. g. KP). These letters are not fictitious but represent the real<br />
names <strong>of</strong> participants. A major reason for this was to avoid confusion for myself<br />
which may arise out <strong>of</strong> entirely fictitious nomenclature. However, it is hoped<br />
however that anonymity is maintained throughoutlo.<br />
These rough transcripts were then printed out and read through. Again, I<br />
focused on general conversational alignment to topic (e. g. what topics were<br />
chosen, how deeply were they being developed, were they treated seriously or<br />
lightly? ) and instances <strong>of</strong> solidaric and autonomous mobilisation <strong>of</strong> selves.<br />
Finally, I selected and more precisely transcribed what I perceived as exemplar<br />
excerpts, i. e., what I thought <strong>of</strong> from my own experience as the English being<br />
English, and the Germans being German.<br />
Two points <strong>of</strong> clarification need to be made about the nature <strong>of</strong> and<br />
importance accorded transcriptions: First, a transcript does not constitute data<br />
but rather represents it, and second, as scholars such as Tannen (in Straehle<br />
1997,65) have noted, the transcription process is a transformative process,<br />
taking conversation as it happens and turning it into conversation as it can be<br />
written down. Although within sociological studies, certain sets <strong>of</strong> transcription<br />
conventions are usually observed, the final 'product' as it were down differs<br />
across studies. For example, those conducting sociological work under the<br />
general rubric <strong>of</strong> 'conversation analysis' employ similar techniques <strong>of</strong> intricate<br />
transcription necessary for the practical purposes <strong>of</strong> this particular type <strong>of</strong><br />
analysis (the sequential organisation <strong>of</strong> conversation per se) (see e. g. Button<br />
and Lee 1987,9-17). Other sociologists employ less minutely detailed methods,<br />
again, largely due to their specific research interest. For example, scholars such<br />
as Blum-Kulka (1997), Malone (1997) and Tannen (1984) represent data to<br />
demonstrate, amongst other things, conversational moves as a way <strong>of</strong><br />
mobilising selves. Others such as G<strong>of</strong>fman, equally successfully illustrate how<br />
selves are presented in talk by drawing on simply transcribed data, showing<br />
barely more than the propositional content <strong>of</strong> speaker turns.<br />
1 OCI
Change language