Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
as face and politeness. Although topic is widely recognised as a central organising feature in conversational interaction (Brown and Yule 1983), several scholars have noted that defining, identifying, and labelling topic(s) in naturally occurring conversation is far from clear cut. (Atkinson and Heritage 1984) In fact, several scholars have come to regard attempts to formally'pin down' topic as perhaps an impossible task (Brown and Yule 1983). There is a considerable body of work which goes some way to aiding an identification of topic in discourse, focusing on things such as topic initiators or elicitors (e. g. Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Wilson 1989), topic transitions such as switching, drifting, or shading from one topic to another (e. g. Drew and Holt 1998; Jefferson 1993; Crow 1983), and techniques for topic closings (e. g. Schegloff and Sacks 1973). In terms of what the 'content' of the topic actually is, a range of work has attempted to identify the linguistic basis for deriving topic, ranging from studies of the grammatical constituents of noun phrases, through propositional content of contiguous utterances, to more global notions of 'aboutness'(e. g. Brown and Yule 1983, Bublitz 1988; Maynard 1980, Tannen 1984). 1 will not attempt to enter into the debate about what topic is, or should be as a discourse notion here, but rather should mention briefly how the notion of topic afforded me some analytical purchase for my initial analysis of sociable episodes. First, there were practical considerations. The total corpus of conversational data on which this study is based exceeds 70 hours (see table 4.2). It would not have been possible for me as a single researcher to transcribe all this data. Even with the memo-scriber (see table 4.1), the sample I selected from this total data for closer analysis required many hours to transcribe'. More generally, I would have found it impossible to maintain an overview of all the data, or make sense of it in any systematic 'sociological' way. I thus thought it more prudent to concentrate on one aspect of discourse, rather than spread myself thin as it were, over the whole data set'. Second, there were empirical considerations. As I noted earlier (see Chapter 2) topic talk had been demonstrated to be one of the salient ways in which German and English conversational style differed, in terms of both the general orientation to topic development, and the positive social values oriented to and images of selfhood 126
claimed on the part of the participants (Byrnes 1986, Straehle 1997, Watts 1989). Thus, focusing on topic would give some access to the conversational reality that I was interested in. Further, focusing on episodes of topic talk from both speech communities would, I hope, provide in effect a standardised procedure for eliciting a 'sample frame'. Topic would seem then to add both validity (topic can be taken as a valid indicator of conversational style) and reliability (topic occurs ubiquitously throughout talk and may therefore be drawn upon consistently across studies addressing other cultures) to the study as a whole. Third, there were analytical considerations. As demonstrated by scholars such as Tannen (1984) topic can provide a basis for deriving an initial unit of analysis of conversational activity, particularly for the close inspection of the type and manner of self-presentation, which, as I suggested in Chapter 3, is a primary concern here. More specifically, the way topic is drawn upon and managed has been shown to be informed by face concerns of interlocutors. The classic example of face influenced topic choice and development, cited by both Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987) is that of the idea of 'safe topics' (e. g. the weather). Potentially face-threatening topics are usually avoided, or, handled in their development in a way that will avoid threatening any of the faces of the participants. Aside from the risk to face that guide conversational ists in their choice and development of topic, scholars such as Tannen have also identified topic as a site for presentation of self. Thus, conversational topic appeared to be an ideal site to examine the interplay of both presentational practices and face-concerns. I outlined in Chapter 1 that facework could be conceived of as occurring within episodes. In Chapter 31 further drew on the notion of episodes within sociable gatherings to arrive at the term 'sociable episodes'. 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 will not attempt a formal definition here beyond treating an episode as a period of interaction where participants are 'doing' some common conversational topic together whereby they share a 127
- 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 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: eing invariably solidaric in nature
- 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
- Page 179 and 180: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 181 and 182: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 183 and 184: What happens in this particular exc
- Page 185 and 186: To reiterate, positive threshold br
as face and politeness. Although topic is widely recognised as a central<br />
organising feature in conversational interaction (Brown and Yule 1983), several<br />
scholars have noted that defining, identifying, and labelling topic(s) in naturally<br />
occurring conversation is far from clear cut. (Atkinson and Heritage 1984) In<br />
fact, several scholars have come to regard attempts to formally'pin down' topic<br />
as perhaps an impossible task (Brown and Yule 1983).<br />
There is a considerable body <strong>of</strong> work which goes some way to aiding an<br />
identification <strong>of</strong> topic in discourse, focusing on things such as topic initiators or<br />
elicitors (e. g. Schegl<strong>of</strong>f and Sacks 1973; Wilson 1989), topic transitions such as<br />
switching, drifting, or shading from one topic to another (e. g. Drew and Holt<br />
1998; Jefferson 1993; Crow 1983), and techniques for topic closings (e. g.<br />
Schegl<strong>of</strong>f and Sacks 1973). In terms <strong>of</strong> what the 'content' <strong>of</strong> the topic actually is,<br />
a range <strong>of</strong> work has attempted to identify the linguistic basis for deriving topic,<br />
ranging from studies <strong>of</strong> the grammatical constituents <strong>of</strong> noun phrases, through<br />
propositional content <strong>of</strong> contiguous utterances, to more global notions <strong>of</strong><br />
'aboutness'(e. g. Brown and Yule 1983, Bublitz 1988; Maynard 1980, Tannen<br />
1984). 1 will not attempt to enter into the debate about what topic is, or should<br />
be as a discourse notion here, but rather should mention briefly how the notion<br />
<strong>of</strong> topic afforded me some analytical purchase for my initial analysis <strong>of</strong> sociable<br />
episodes.<br />
First, there were practical considerations. The total corpus <strong>of</strong><br />
conversational data on which this study is based exceeds 70 hours (see table<br />
4.2). It would not have been possible for me as a single researcher to transcribe<br />
all this data. Even with the memo-scriber (see table 4.1), the sample I selected<br />
from this total data for closer analysis required many hours to transcribe'. More<br />
generally, I would have found it impossible to maintain an overview <strong>of</strong> all the<br />
data, or make sense <strong>of</strong> it in any systematic 'sociological' way. I thus thought it<br />
more prudent to concentrate on one aspect <strong>of</strong> discourse, rather than spread<br />
myself thin as it were, over the whole data set'. Second, there were empirical<br />
considerations. As I noted earlier (see Chapter 2) topic talk had been<br />
demonstrated to be one <strong>of</strong> the salient ways in which German and English<br />
conversational style differed, in terms <strong>of</strong> both the general orientation to topic<br />
development, and the positive social values oriented to and images <strong>of</strong> selfhood<br />
126