Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Fig. 6.1 General Equilibric Model of Conversation (Positive and Negative Alignment) (see Chapter 3) S0CIABLE C0NVERSAT 10 N Alignment of conversational alignment selves NEGATIVE FACE THREAT threshold +alignment/-alignment alignment threshold POSITIVE FACE THREAT As I noted in Chapter 3, what this model allows for is a range of conversation contingencies, both equilibric and disequilibric. In order to explicitly point out instances of these particular contingencies in actual sociable conversation, I will employ in this chapter a basic notation system (see table 1). Table. 6.1 Alignment Contingencies: Basic Notation Symbol Meaning N Positive self claim ratified H Negative self claim ratified (+x) Positive self claim non-ratified (-x) Negative self claim non-ratified (+b) Positive threshold breach (potential negative face threat) (-b) Negative threshold breach (potential positive face threat) (+r) Positive threshold breach repair / remedy (-r) Negative threshold breach repair / remedy L q i. dn
These various symbols are intended to directly reflect the conversational contingencies covered by the general equilibric model. The notation consists initially of the generic symbols (+) and (-) to indicate both positive and negative alignment. I shall use these to point to what I shall posit as moments of positive alignment in each cultural milieu. Alongside these primary symbols I have included additional ones to indicate instances of non-ratification and non- support of both positive (+x) and negative claims (-x). That is, moments during sociable conversation when various claims are made on the basis of assumed solidarity with or individuation from fellow participants, but not ratified as such by fellow conversationalists. These four possibilities exist as equilibric conversation. The two pairs of symbols can be seen to essentially disequilibric alignments. Thus, the symbols (+b) and (-b) shall be used to refer to positive and negative threshold breaches (-b) respectively. The former can be evidenced in talk which threatens conversational autonomy or equilibrium, the latter, talk which threatens solidirty between participants. Finally, related to this last pair of symbols are those pointing to instances of alignment repair or remedy of such breaches. These shall be used to indicate participants attempts to remedy positive threshold breaches by instigating more negatively aligned talk (+r ), and those made to remedy negative threshold breaches by adopting more solidaric, positively aligned talk ( -r). These eight notation symbols represent all the contingencies suggested by the model on which my general interpretive approach is based 1. As I noted earlier, I shall employ these symbols here to further clarify how the alignment contingencies set out in the facework alignment model may be manifest in sociable conversation. In this sense they should be regarded as sociable signposts rather than rigid categories of conversational claims. The reader should thus focus in the first instance on the textual development of the argument presented here. data. I shall now move on to demonstrate alignment in my own conversational 141
- 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 and 146: In the next chapter I want to explo
- Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 6 ALIGNMENT IN ACTION: NEGA
- Page 149: shall not be carried forward into t
- 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
- Page 197 and 198: and English differences in conversa
- Page 199 and 200: Notes to Chapter 6 1 The only insta
These various symbols are intended to directly reflect the conversational<br />
contingencies covered by the general equilibric model. The notation consists<br />
initially <strong>of</strong> the generic symbols (+) and (-) to indicate both positive and negative<br />
alignment. I shall use these to point to what I shall posit as moments <strong>of</strong> positive<br />
alignment in each cultural milieu. Alongside these primary symbols I have<br />
included additional ones to indicate instances <strong>of</strong> non-ratification and non-<br />
support <strong>of</strong> both positive (+x) and negative claims (-x). That is, moments during<br />
sociable conversation when various claims are made on the basis <strong>of</strong> assumed<br />
solidarity with or individuation from fellow participants, but not ratified as such<br />
by fellow conversationalists. These four possibilities exist as equilibric<br />
conversation. The two pairs <strong>of</strong> symbols can be seen to essentially disequilibric<br />
alignments. Thus, the symbols (+b) and (-b) shall be used to refer to positive<br />
and negative threshold breaches (-b) respectively. The former can be<br />
evidenced in talk which threatens conversational autonomy or equilibrium, the<br />
latter, talk which threatens solidirty between participants. Finally, related to this<br />
last pair <strong>of</strong> symbols are those pointing to instances <strong>of</strong> alignment repair or<br />
remedy <strong>of</strong> such breaches. These shall be used to indicate participants attempts<br />
to remedy positive threshold breaches by instigating more negatively aligned<br />
talk (+r ), and those made to remedy negative threshold breaches by adopting<br />
more solidaric, positively aligned talk ( -r). These eight notation symbols<br />
represent all the contingencies suggested by the model on which my general<br />
interpretive approach is based 1.<br />
As I noted earlier, I shall employ these symbols here to further clarify<br />
how the alignment contingencies set out in the facework alignment model may<br />
be manifest in sociable conversation. In this sense they should be regarded as<br />
sociable signposts rather than rigid categories <strong>of</strong> conversational claims. The<br />
reader should thus focus in the first instance on the textual development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
argument presented here.<br />
data.<br />
I shall now move on to demonstrate alignment in my own conversational<br />
141
Change language