Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
CHAPTER 5 ALIGNING FOR ALIGNMENT: COLLECTIVE ORIENTATION TO SOCIABLE GATHERINGS 5.0 Introduction In the previous chapter I mentioned something of the contingencies of conducting social research in sociable gatherings - what I referred to as social(b)l(e) science. Comments made there may well also have reflected those pointed to earlier as to the nature of sociability per se (e. g. Blum-Kulka 1997; Riesman and Watson 1964; Schiffrin 1984; Simmel 1949 [1911]; Tannen 1984; Watson 1958; Watson and Potter 1962). To begin my analysis of facework as alignment then, I want to consider how participants in each sociable milieu can be demonstrated to align for sociability in general, and more specifically, align for the activity of sociable conversation. I will first consider how participants come together to constitute and dissolve sociable gatherings, in the enactment of what are commonly termed greeting phases (see e. g. Goffman 1971; House 1982a; and Kotthoff 1994) (5.1). Following this I shall consider some characteristics of general alignment within what I will loosely refer to as main phases of gatherings, specifically in terms of how participants align to the joint activity of sociable conversation (5.2). Here I shall consider such things as the topics chosen for sociable conversational in each milieu, and how participants generally align to sociable topic development in terms, to begin with, of their general handling. (5.2). Finally I shall conclude the chapter (5.3). In terms of the study as a whole, the chapter can be regarded as the most generalised level of analysis. Its primary function is to provide an holistic or macro-overview of English and of German interaction in terms of general participant orientations to engaging in and aligning to sociability. In the wider context of the study as a whole, and subsequent chapters in particular, the work 118
presented here provides a necessary analytical backdrop to later, more detailed analysis of facework as alignment within sociable episodes (see Chapters 6 to 8). The approach to presenting and analysing the data drawn upon will be, in general terms, ethnographic in nature. That is, rather then relying on transcribed conversation, I shall draw upon largely observational data, my own knowledge of both field of inquiry, and occasionally anecdotal'. As with all chapters presented, the current chapter can be read in isolation as a single piece of work. However, it should be regarded as one small part of the study as a whole, and for that reason can only provide a limited picture of facework in both cultures. 5.1 Aligning for Sociability In Chapter 31 drew on Simmel's general comments on the nature of sociability in terms of its ethos and status as a distinct social reality, marked by solidarity and the minimisation of difference in terms of sociological variables such as distance and power. Drawing on these comments, I want to discuss first of all how participants can be conceived of as aligning to this sociable reality -what I will term initially as aligning for sociability. I am using the term sociable gathering to refer here to the sociable event in its entirety, that is, gatherings begin when the first guests arrive, and conclude when the last guests leave. As can be seen from appendix B, the gatherings that constitute my data-set are not standardised, in terms of for example length, location, dates, numbers of participants, gender-mixes, or relationships between participants. Their only common denominator is that they are sociable events, carried out as an end in themselves (Simmel 1949 [1911 As I outlined in Chapter 3, sociable gatherings display their own recognisable ethos. Hence, people move out of a pre-sociable state, into and through sociable gatherings over the course of their trajectory, then back into a post- sociability state. liq
- 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 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: German. However, these episodes asi
- 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
- Page 169 and 170: 28 HB: but at the end of the day >1
- Page 171 and 172: approach, I hope to further illumin
- Page 173 and 174: 37 KJ: I never had any day to day (
- Page 175 and 176: 2 bevor (. ) die Schlange nicht zeh
- Page 177 and 178: ot non-ratifi cation and non-suppor
CHAPTER<br />
5<br />
ALIGNING FOR ALIGNMENT: COLLECTIVE<br />
ORIENTATION TO SOCIABLE GATHERINGS<br />
5.0 Introduction<br />
In the previous chapter I mentioned something <strong>of</strong> the contingencies <strong>of</strong><br />
conducting social research in sociable gatherings - what I referred to as<br />
social(b)l(e) science. Comments made there may well also have reflected those<br />
pointed to earlier as to the nature <strong>of</strong> sociability per se (e. g. Blum-Kulka 1997;<br />
Riesman and Watson 1964; Schiffrin 1984; Simmel 1949 [1911]; Tannen 1984;<br />
Watson 1958; Watson and Potter 1962). To begin my analysis <strong>of</strong> facework as<br />
alignment then, I want to consider how participants in each sociable milieu can be<br />
demonstrated<br />
to align for sociability in general, and more specifically, align for the<br />
activity <strong>of</strong> sociable conversation.<br />
I will first consider how participants come together to constitute and<br />
dissolve sociable gatherings, in the enactment <strong>of</strong> what are commonly termed<br />
greeting phases (see e. g. G<strong>of</strong>fman 1971; House 1982a; and Kotth<strong>of</strong>f 1994)<br />
(5.1). Following this I shall consider some characteristics <strong>of</strong> general alignment<br />
within what I will loosely refer to as main phases <strong>of</strong> gatherings, specifically in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> how participants align to the joint activity <strong>of</strong> sociable conversation (5.2).<br />
Here I shall consider such things as the topics chosen for sociable<br />
conversational in each milieu, and how participants generally align to sociable<br />
topic development in terms, to begin with, <strong>of</strong> their general handling. (5.2).<br />
Finally I shall conclude the chapter (5.3).<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the study as a whole, the chapter can be regarded as the<br />
most generalised level <strong>of</strong> analysis. Its primary function is to provide an holistic<br />
or macro-overview <strong>of</strong> English and <strong>of</strong> German interaction in terms <strong>of</strong> general<br />
participant orientations to engaging in and aligning to sociability. In the wider<br />
context <strong>of</strong> the study as a whole, and subsequent chapters in particular, the work<br />
118