Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Notes to Chapter 5 1 Due to the nature of the methodology employed (see Chapter 4), recordings of the greeting phases were not systematically made. As a result, recordings of verbal interaction during these phases was in large not collected verbatim. The discussion of the these phases then is based on a mixture of participant observation notes and recollections by both myself and Elke. As greeting phases constitute a peripheral concern here, I would hope that such a method would be admissible without undermining the validity of the thesis. 2 Hosting or'proxy-hosting' appeared to be much more salient in German gatherings, both during greeting phases, and throughout the main phase of the gathering. It appears that German hosts displayed much more commitment to the role of host than the English who, by and large, seemed to display a much more ambivalent attitude to this role. 3 Immediately following extended stays in Germany, upon entering English sociable gatherings, I have often experienced pulling myself back from the brink of offering a 'sociable hand'. 4 On the question of whether or not follow up calls were actually made, I make this statement based on my own experience of both English and German milieus. 5 Generally, I found that 1 minute of talk required at least 10 minutes of transcription time. Extrapolate this to around 25 hours of data that was transcribeable, and the task of transcribing all data is proved an impossibility. 6 See Tannen (1984), and more recently Straehle (1997) who, in dealing with similar sized corpora of conversation, note that constructing an outline of topics in any given conversation provides a convenient way of '"... get[ting] a handle on the data" when one is confronted with massive amounts of it' (Shuy 1981, cited in Straehle 1997., p. 1 10). 7 Alongside these linguistic and non-lexical differences was the fact that German conversationalists also displayed this state of heightened attentiveness by non-verbal means such as direct eye contact and fixed gaze, but again with minimal gestural recognition of agreement or disagreement. 8 See Straehle (1997) who, in presenting similar findings in comparing US-English - German conversation, refers to such tendencies as'topic diving' and lopic surfing'. 9 What this implies is that some topic types per se are skewed towards either solidaric (i. e. 'when we were kids) or autonomous (i. e. What I have to report as part of my personal experience / knowledge) expression. I can not expand on this proposition here however, but future research into topics as vehicles for solidaric or individuated expression might consider the skewness of topic proposition. 10 Of course, the distinction implied here is not a sudden reality shift from one to the other. On approaching sociable gatherings, one often feels temporarily displaced, in a sort of in between world, between what the concrete reality one has just left behind, and the sociable reality one is about to enter. 13A
CHAPTER 6 ALIGNMENT IN ACTION: NEGATIVE AND 6.0 Introduction POSITIVE SOCIABLE ALIGNMENT In Chapter 31 set out a general model of facework as alignment. This was based on a reading of both Goffman's (1967) notion of ritual equilibrium in talk, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) fundamental face needs. Central to this proposed model was the notion of alignment, specifically, what I referred to as positive and negative alignments. To recap, I used the term positive alignment to refer to talk characterised by the expression of solidarity, similarity, and commonality. In and through such talk, it was suggested that participants' positive face needs were realised. Conversely, I used the term negative alignment to refer to talk characterised by the expression of individuated and unique standpoints, definitions, or experiences. In and through such talk, negative face needs could thus be realised. I argued that both types of alignments were endemic to sociable conversation. In short, I suggested that sociable conversation could be seen to operate between these two poles of alignment. Importantly, I posited such alignments as occurring within a wider set of boundaries or thresholds, ones which guided participants in their achievement and management of general equilibrium, a notion drawn directly from Goffman's (1967) conceptual i sati on of ritual equilibrium. I noted that, although both positive and negative alignments were a necessary part of sociable conversation, continuing the logic of the alignment model I suggested that there may be limits or boundaries beyond which equilibric conversation became disequilibric. Such limits should apply to both positive and negative alignments. For example, I argued that too much negative alignment might individuate or differentiate a 137
- 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 and 142: in my observations of German sociab
- Page 143 and 144: collective past peppered with indiv
- Page 145: In the next chapter I want to explo
- 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
- Page 193 and 194: 1 2 3 4 5 6 which a new set of indi
- Page 195 and 196: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Notes to Chapter 5<br />
1 Due to the nature <strong>of</strong> the methodology employed (see Chapter 4), recordings <strong>of</strong> the greeting<br />
phases were not systematically made. As a result, recordings <strong>of</strong> verbal interaction during these<br />
phases was in large not collected verbatim. The discussion <strong>of</strong> the these phases then is based<br />
on a mixture <strong>of</strong> participant observation notes and recollections by both myself and Elke. As<br />
greeting phases constitute a peripheral concern here, I would hope that such a method would<br />
be admissible without undermining the validity <strong>of</strong> the thesis.<br />
2 Hosting or'proxy-hosting' appeared to be much more salient in German gatherings, both<br />
during greeting phases, and throughout the main phase <strong>of</strong> the gathering. It appears that<br />
German hosts displayed much more commitment to the role <strong>of</strong> host than the English who, by<br />
and large, seemed to display a much more ambivalent attitude to this role.<br />
3 Immediately following extended stays in Germany, upon entering English sociable gatherings,<br />
I have <strong>of</strong>ten experienced pulling myself back from the brink <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering a 'sociable hand'.<br />
4 On the question <strong>of</strong> whether or not follow up calls were actually made, I make this statement<br />
based on my own experience <strong>of</strong> both English and German milieus.<br />
5 Generally, I found that 1 minute <strong>of</strong> talk required at least 10 minutes <strong>of</strong> transcription time.<br />
Extrapolate this to around 25 hours <strong>of</strong> data that was transcribeable, and the task <strong>of</strong> transcribing<br />
all data is proved an impossibility.<br />
6 See Tannen (1984), and more recently Straehle (1997) who, in dealing with similar sized<br />
corpora <strong>of</strong> conversation, note that constructing an outline <strong>of</strong> topics in any given conversation<br />
provides a convenient way <strong>of</strong> '"... get[ting] a handle on the data" when one is confronted with<br />
massive amounts <strong>of</strong> it' (Shuy 1981, cited in Straehle 1997., p. 1 10).<br />
7 Alongside these linguistic and non-lexical differences was the fact that German<br />
conversationalists also displayed this state <strong>of</strong> heightened attentiveness by non-verbal means<br />
such as direct eye contact and fixed gaze, but again with minimal gestural recognition <strong>of</strong><br />
agreement or disagreement.<br />
8 See Straehle (1997) who, in presenting similar findings in comparing US-English - German<br />
conversation, refers to such tendencies as'topic diving' and lopic surfing'.<br />
9 What this implies is that some topic types per se are skewed towards either solidaric (i. e.<br />
'when we were kids) or autonomous (i. e. What I have to report as part <strong>of</strong> my personal<br />
experience / knowledge) expression. I can not expand on this proposition here however, but<br />
future research into topics as vehicles for solidaric or individuated expression might consider the<br />
skewness <strong>of</strong> topic proposition.<br />
10 Of course, the distinction implied here is not a sudden reality shift from one to the other. On<br />
approaching sociable gatherings, one <strong>of</strong>ten feels temporarily displaced, in a sort <strong>of</strong> in between<br />
world, between what the concrete reality one has just left behind, and the sociable reality one is<br />
about to enter.<br />
13A