Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Although both'Tommy Fields' and 'Schlange bei Aldi'have demonstrated instances of negative alignments. Comparatively speaking, these two excerpts index important differences between English and German conversationalists. Whereas propositions in objective discussion seem not so fruitful for negative alignment in English, narrative (the favoured format for negative alignment in English) seems equally unfertile conversational ground for German negative alignment. In English, attempts to claim highly individuated stances in objective discussion are routinely framed as non-serious, or resolved rapidly in an attempt to assimilate the negative alignment under the umbrella of solidarity. In German, attempts to claim uniqueness via narrative are often negated, as interlocutors quickly invoke similar experiences (see 4.2), in effect taking the wind of uniqueness out of the sails of relayed narrative. I will discuss cross- cultural differences in greater detail in Chapters 7 and 8. Thus, prevailing sociable styles can be seen to a reliable conversational resource for both negative and positive clams, and for the collective alignment in the ratification and support of these claims. Having demonstrated how both negative and positive conversational claims are proffered and ratified in and through alignment practices, I now want to consider instances of talk where such claims are refused ratification, but refused equilibrically. That is instances of sociable conversation were one or the other participant makes a conversational claim which assumes either solidarity with or autonomy from the preceding or anticipated claims of co-participants but which, in and through subsequent claims, is not aligned in a way that ratifies that assumption. Although I shall focus predominantly on alignment which does ratify and support both positive and negative claims, and the images of selfhood indexed therein, as I intimated to above, the purpose of this particular chapter is to evidence the full range of contingencies which the facework as alignment approach to sociable episodes allows for. I shall more explicitly point to areas for further research beyond the empirical focus here in Chapter 9. Importantly, in addressing the full set of contingencies of the facework as alignment 1 rn
approach, I hope to further illuminate the bases for English - German differences in sociable style. 6.4 Positive and Negative Claims: Their Non-Ratification The preceding examples have evidenced supportive conversational facework in each milieu in respect of positive and negative claims. I have employed the concept of alignment to describe the work done by participants to support these proffered claims. The conversational data illustrate quite clearly the ratification and support typical of sociable conversation in each respective cultural milieu. I have also alluded to certain obvious cross-cultural differences in terms of the conversational styles drawn upon for supportive alignments. However, ratification and support of solidaric or individuated, negative or positive claims is not predetermined nor guaranteed but rather contingent on the participants' turn by turn, move by move, claim by claim practices and for that reason does not always occur. Although normative conversation in both cultures can be seen to follow a general conversational maxim which might read 'support proffered solidaric and individuated claims, such a maxim is often breached at various and indeterminate junctures in the routine playing out of actual sociable conversation. Both positive and negative claims are susceptible to having their claimed solidarity or individuation non-ratified and non- supported. Here I want to briefly then draw on instances of non-ratification of both proffered positive and negative conversational claims in each respective culture, beginning again with the English. Importantly, I shall demonstrate here how such routine non-ratification of both solidaric and individuated claims can be achieved within the equilibric boundaries of sociable conversation (Cf. 6.5). 6.4.1 Non-Ratification of Positive Claims A frequent and prime site for the non-ratification and non-support of positive claims occurs in conversational environments where a claim (definition, evaluation, viewpoint, or experience) is being made by one participant on the 1 Al
- 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 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: 28 HB: but at the end of the day >1
- 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
- Page 201 and 202: study is a sociological one, and it
- Page 203 and 204: performer, a player, an image, a fi
- Page 205 and 206: English cultures respectively. In a
- Page 207 and 208: I will shortly illustrate how each
- Page 209 and 210: 18 KJ: [(Graphic drawin)= 19 LM: =O
- Page 211 and 212: The in-the-know self is a second sy
- Page 213 and 214: documentaries to having witnessed r
- Page 215 and 216: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is
- Page 217 and 218: Excerpt 7.6'Up a Hill' The sociable
- Page 219 and 220: RP&EP's mobilisation of an in-the-k
Although both'Tommy Fields' and 'Schlange bei Aldi'have demonstrated<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> negative alignments. Comparatively speaking, these two excerpts<br />
index important differences between English and German conversationalists.<br />
Whereas propositions in objective discussion seem not so fruitful for negative<br />
alignment in English, narrative (the favoured format for negative alignment in<br />
English) seems equally unfertile conversational ground for German negative<br />
alignment. In English, attempts to claim highly individuated stances in objective<br />
discussion are routinely framed as non-serious, or resolved rapidly in an<br />
attempt to assimilate the negative alignment under the umbrella <strong>of</strong> solidarity. In<br />
German, attempts to claim uniqueness via narrative are <strong>of</strong>ten negated, as<br />
interlocutors quickly invoke similar experiences (see 4.2), in effect taking the<br />
wind <strong>of</strong> uniqueness out <strong>of</strong> the sails <strong>of</strong> relayed narrative. I will discuss cross-<br />
cultural differences in greater detail in Chapters 7 and 8.<br />
Thus, prevailing sociable styles can be seen to a reliable conversational<br />
resource for both negative and positive clams, and for the collective alignment<br />
in the ratification and support <strong>of</strong> these claims.<br />
Having demonstrated how both negative and positive conversational<br />
claims are pr<strong>of</strong>fered and ratified in and through alignment practices, I now want<br />
to consider instances <strong>of</strong> talk where such claims are refused ratification, but<br />
refused equilibrically. That is instances <strong>of</strong> sociable conversation were one or the<br />
other participant makes a conversational claim which assumes either solidarity<br />
with or autonomy from the preceding or anticipated claims <strong>of</strong> co-participants<br />
but which, in and through subsequent claims, is not aligned in a way that ratifies<br />
that assumption.<br />
Although I shall focus predominantly on alignment which does ratify and<br />
support both positive and negative claims, and the images <strong>of</strong> selfhood indexed<br />
therein, as I intimated to above, the purpose <strong>of</strong> this particular chapter is to<br />
evidence the full range <strong>of</strong> contingencies which the facework as alignment<br />
approach to sociable episodes allows for. I shall more explicitly point to areas<br />
for further research beyond the empirical focus here in Chapter 9. Importantly,<br />
in addressing the full set <strong>of</strong> contingencies <strong>of</strong> the facework as alignment<br />
1 rn