Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
world presented as of interest to the group as a whole. These topics included for instance good and bad experiences of holidays, visits to restaurants, or public service encounters. Additional topics based around unique but newsworthy experiences could also be drawn upon as resources for pursuit of reportable talk; And finally 'Biographicals' were those topics in and through which participants presented some aspect of their personal lives to be shared with the rest of the group. For example health issues, job plans, or personal projects such as home decorating were included under this heading. Although these topic categories can be regarded as nicely encapsulating salient and frequently drawn upon topic in both sociable milieu, differences emerged in terms of the second of the two characteristics of sociable topic development that I want to consider here, namely, how participants generally aligned to the activity of sociable conversational topic development. As I noted at the beginning of Chapter 2, on first participating in German sociable gatherings, I was struck by, not so much what got talked about, but how it was talked about. For example, I initially observed that almost any statement or proposition could be legitimately taken up as a basis for topic development. Once taken up, the topic could then be retained as a conversational resource over quite extended periods. The nature of the discussion could be quite intense, and lead to a necessity to take a stand and open oneself up to the possibility of having it knocked down. It was the German preparedness to topicalise and talk extensively about anything in the general manner described above that caused my initial conversational assimilation problem (Cf. similar observations made by Schiffrin 1984 in Jewish sociability). During my early participation in German sociable gatherings, I once found myself listening with some disbelief, as a conversation of several tens of minutes was intensely debated arising out of a side comment made by myself of 'what should or should not be thrown on the compost heap'7. Conversely, candidate topics not to be taken up were frequently met with slight pauses, followed by "Hm:: ", then another slightly longer pause to effectively signal that topic would not be further developed. This leaves the speaker essentially -and the interaction itself - temporarily out on a conversational limb until another candidate topic worthy of discussion is proffered by somebody. In general then, 1 -ýn
in my observations of German sociable conversation, a topic either got talked about properly, or didn't get talked about at all. Conversely, English sociable conversation (as I knew it to be and as the data demonstrated) seemed to be characterised by a habitual cursory development of any proffered topic. Further, unlike German, it seemed to be peppered with rather isolated 'throwaway' comments similar to the compost heap statement, ones which might be instantly seized upon by German speakers as the initiating point of an extended debate but were instead accorded limited conversational discourse. In short, whereas the Germans seemed to prefer to talk - if they were going to talk - about anything extensively, the English seemed to prefer to talk about anything cursorily (see Fig 5.2). Fig 5.2 Candidate Topic Development Preference in German and English8 'All or nothing' 40 development 40 CANDIDATE TOPICS Hi Level of topic develop- Cursory ment developmen These two tendencies seemed to be corroborated upon listening to my own conversational data. In a nutshell - and this is something I shall develop in subsequent chapters - during the development of sociable topic talk, alongside quantitative differences, qualitative ones emerged. The character of English conversation can be best described as narrative in nature. Speakers tended to use conversational turns for replaying some strip of experience, and recipients 1141
- 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 and 136: eing invariably solidaric in nature
- Page 137 and 138: claimed on the part of the particip
- Page 139: Table 5.1 Sociable Topics Topic Cat
- 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
- Page 187 and 188: 41 LIP: [IN FACT THERE WAs quite a
- Page 189 and 190: What happens here is that KIP proff
in my observations <strong>of</strong> German sociable conversation, a topic either got talked<br />
about properly, or didn't get talked about at all.<br />
Conversely, English sociable conversation (as I knew it to be and as the<br />
data demonstrated) seemed to be characterised by a habitual cursory<br />
development <strong>of</strong> any pr<strong>of</strong>fered topic. Further, unlike German, it seemed to be<br />
peppered with rather isolated 'throwaway' comments similar to the compost<br />
heap statement, ones which might be instantly seized upon by German<br />
speakers as the initiating point <strong>of</strong> an extended debate but were instead<br />
accorded limited conversational discourse. In short, whereas the Germans<br />
seemed to prefer to talk - if they were going to talk - about anything extensively,<br />
the English seemed to prefer to talk about anything cursorily (see Fig 5.2).<br />
Fig 5.2 Candidate Topic Development Preference in German and<br />
English8<br />
'All or nothing'<br />
40<br />
development 40<br />
CANDIDATE<br />
TOPICS<br />
Hi<br />
Level<br />
<strong>of</strong> topic<br />
develop-<br />
Cursory ment<br />
developmen<br />
These two tendencies seemed to be corroborated upon listening to my<br />
own conversational data. In a nutshell - and this is something I shall develop in<br />
subsequent chapters - during the development <strong>of</strong> sociable topic talk, alongside<br />
quantitative differences, qualitative ones emerged. The character <strong>of</strong> English<br />
conversation can be best described as narrative in nature. Speakers tended to<br />
use conversational turns for replaying some strip <strong>of</strong> experience, and recipients<br />
1141
Change language