Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
of such narratives commonly acted as suitably interested, surprised, and entertained audiences (see Goffman 1974). English sociable topic development often centred around the affective domain, with habitual uses of humour; wise- cracks, funny anecdotes, rude / naughty play on words etc. German conversation was characterised more by discussion of topics common to all participants. Thus, the cognitive domain was one around which German conversation tended to develop, with topic talk was based more on close consideration of fact and the ability to quickly take in, process, and deduce some proposition. Emotive inner sharing seemed to be generally avoided in favour of well thought out discussion. A nice difference for this metaphor in terms of the self might be that English conversations was akin to a conversational staging of selves, whereas German appeared more akin to a conversational arena for selves (see table 5.2). Table 5.2 Some Characteristics of Speaker / Hearer Alignments to Developing Conversational Topic English German Speakers > Took up moderate turn space > Held the floor for extensive to proffer amusing and periods to outline personal interesting narrative stances > Formulated turns on basis of > Formulated turns on the basis personal feelings towards of personal knowledge, experience of a topic understanding, and logical reasoning Recipients > Listened with frequent back- > Listened intently to what channel markers to signal another person may be saying amusement and interest with minimum back-channel > Intervened when points of markers agreement were identified > Intervened quickly when flaws (yeah yeah) in stance were identified (aber pass auf [but hold on a minute] A prime function of such topic development was undoubtedly to signal commonality and solidarity between participants. Once underway however, there opened up the possibility for development of more individuated nuances of a common theme. Thus, as well as allowing an expression of commonality of selves, Reminiscences talk seemed also to facilitate the invocation of a 132
collective past peppered with individualised past activities; Agonisers also seemed to allow for both the expression solidarity and commonality over a common problem as well as more individualistic ones; Reportables such as travel talk appeared to allow participants the conversational space to present unique accounts whilst at the same time allowing for the expression of commonality or solidarity; and finally Biographicals allowed for a proffered individuated account to be assimilated solidarically with the biographies of other participants present. Thus, although these topic areas appear to some degree inherently differentiating, there was scope for the expression of solidaritY9. Such sociable topics then variously allowed for the collective expression of both solidarity / communality, and autonomy / difference (see fig. 3). Fig. 5.3 Sociable Topic Categories as Resource for Face Needs English German Salient recur(ing topic frame REMINISCENCES AGONISERS REPORTABLES BIOGRAPHICALS ------------------------------------------------------------ NB: Topics are not fixed but move along these continua as they are conversationally developed and various face needs are realised. ----------------------------------------------------- 11414
- 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 and 140: Table 5.1 Sociable Topics Topic Cat
- Page 141: in my observations of German sociab
- 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
- Page 191 and 192: 17 KH: the road (1) >and if he want
collective past peppered with individualised past activities; Agonisers also<br />
seemed to allow for both the expression solidarity and commonality over a<br />
common problem as well as more individualistic ones; Reportables such as<br />
travel talk appeared to allow participants the conversational space to present<br />
unique accounts whilst at the same time allowing for the expression <strong>of</strong><br />
commonality or solidarity; and finally Biographicals allowed for a pr<strong>of</strong>fered<br />
individuated account to be assimilated solidarically with the biographies <strong>of</strong> other<br />
participants present. Thus, although these topic areas appear to some degree<br />
inherently differentiating, there was scope for the expression <strong>of</strong> solidaritY9. Such<br />
sociable topics then variously allowed for the collective expression <strong>of</strong> both<br />
solidarity / communality, and autonomy / difference (see fig. 3).<br />
Fig. 5.3 Sociable Topic Categories as Resource for Face Needs<br />
English German<br />
Salient recur(ing topic frame<br />
REMINISCENCES AGONISERS REPORTABLES BIOGRAPHICALS<br />
------------------------------------------------------------<br />
NB: Topics are not fixed but move along these continua as they are<br />
conversationally developed and various face needs are realised.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------<br />
11414
Change language