Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
efuses to ratify the claim made in the previous line by HB who turns his focus to Aldi. Rather than continue to propagate the positive alignment by also attesting to the size of the queues at Aldi, KN makes a more individuated claims, thereby refusing to ratify the positive claim made by HB. What results is a shifting in alignment between participants as the talk takes on amore discursive footing (I shall further discus this particular episode for its negative alignment qualities below). In both these examples, solidaric claims have been made, and subsequently non-ratified and non-supported. This has variously resulted in some degree of negative alignment as assumed solidarity has been superseded by manifest individuation. There are of course inherent risk associated with such non-ratification and non-support of proffered positive claims, not least because sociability is reliant on an assumed underlying solidarity. However, what I have demonstrated in the preceding data is even at such moments, participants are able to re-align and do so in a manner which can remain equilibric, i. e. allow the episode to progress as evidently sociable (C. f. 6.5). As I noted above, non-ratification and non-support can be demonstrated to apply equally to proffered individuated claims as it does to solidaric ones. Now I what to turn data from two further episodes to evidence this as part and parcel of the achievement of equilibric sociability. 6.4.2 Non-Ratification of Negative Claims Where the general maxim for the ratification and support of positive claims is taken here to be the conversational norm, but may be routinely breached, a similar set of possibilities exists in respect of negative claims. As I stated earlier, negative claims are essentially individuated in nature. Although individuated claims are frequently made by participants in conversation and routinely ratified and supported, there are moments during the playing out of sociable conversation where such claims - based on assumed individuation of claimed definition, evaluation, viewpoint, or experience - are not ratified and not supported. At such moments, the participant making that particular claim is denied the conversational resources necessary for negative alignment. Again, 1 rr.
ot non-ratifi cation and non-support of negative claims is evident in the conversational data from both cultures' sociabilities, as the following episodes illustrate. Again, as with non-ratification of solidaric claims, no n-ratifi cation of individuated claims is achieved as part and parcel of recognisable sociable style in both cultures. I illustrated above how a prime and routine way for English participants to proffer negative claims was in the replaying of unique experience. In order for this to be successful, appropriate conversational action needs to be taken on the part of both the current speaker and the recipients: The speaker tells the tale and the recipients 'allow` the tale to be told by appropriately aligning. However, this need not always be the case. In this narrative environment, examples of non-ratification of uniqueness claims in English can be seen to occur for example in moments where a participant is not permitted to produce or complete a narrative, tell a story, or relay some experience (cutting someone out' or 'cutting someone short' as the English idioms run). This may indeed be perceived as rude in some contexts. More specifically, if for example humorous claims are being made (a salient aspect of English narrative delivery - see Chapters 5 and 8), non-ratification and non- support might be to stop the speaker telling a joke on the grounds that one had 'heard that joke before', or alternatively come in with the punch line oneself, thereby robbing the speaker of his / her comic zenith. Not laughing at the joke may have a similar non-ratificatory and non-supportive effect. In terms of the substantive basis of conversational clams, when for example an individual in English makes a uniqueness claim such as that made by KP&LP in Tommy Fields (see excerpt 6.5), it is not expected (or appropriate) that recipients will 'take the floor away from the current speaker; fail to display appropriate expressive response; or respond with an account of identical or even more dramatic experience. To do so would be to seriously undermine the uniqueness claimed by that speaker and again run the risk of appearing impolite (see Chapter 9). Any English person will recognise the feelings of non-ratification when proffering what we claim as unique experiences, only to be responded to JR7
- 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 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: 2 bevor (. ) die Schlange nicht zeh
- 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
- Page 221 and 222: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 223 and 224: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 225 and 226: Excerpt 7.10 Was muss Mann machen?
efuses to ratify the claim made in the previous line by HB who turns his focus<br />
to Aldi. Rather than continue to propagate the positive alignment by also<br />
attesting to the size <strong>of</strong> the queues at Aldi, KN makes a more individuated<br />
claims, thereby refusing to ratify the positive claim made by HB. What results is<br />
a shifting in alignment between participants as the talk takes on amore<br />
discursive footing (I shall further discus this particular episode for its negative<br />
alignment qualities below).<br />
In both these examples, solidaric claims have been made, and<br />
subsequently non-ratified and non-supported. This has variously resulted in<br />
some degree <strong>of</strong> negative alignment as assumed solidarity has been superseded<br />
by manifest individuation. There are <strong>of</strong> course inherent risk associated with<br />
such non-ratification and non-support <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>fered positive claims, not least<br />
because sociability is reliant on an assumed underlying solidarity. However,<br />
what I have demonstrated in the preceding data is even at such moments,<br />
participants are able to re-align and do so in a manner which can remain<br />
equilibric, i. e. allow the episode to progress as evidently sociable (C. f. 6.5).<br />
As I noted above, non-ratification and non-support can be demonstrated<br />
to apply equally to pr<strong>of</strong>fered individuated claims as it does to solidaric ones.<br />
Now I what to turn data from two further episodes to evidence this as part and<br />
parcel <strong>of</strong> the achievement <strong>of</strong> equilibric sociability.<br />
6.4.2 Non-Ratification <strong>of</strong> Negative Claims<br />
Where the general maxim for the ratification and support <strong>of</strong> positive<br />
claims is taken here to be the conversational norm, but may be routinely<br />
breached, a similar set <strong>of</strong> possibilities exists in respect <strong>of</strong> negative claims. As I<br />
stated earlier, negative claims are essentially individuated in nature. Although<br />
individuated claims are frequently made by participants in conversation and<br />
routinely ratified and supported, there are moments during the playing out <strong>of</strong><br />
sociable conversation where such claims - based on assumed individuation <strong>of</strong><br />
claimed definition, evaluation, viewpoint, or experience - are not ratified and not<br />
supported. At such moments, the participant making that particular claim is<br />
denied the conversational resources necessary for negative alignment. Again,<br />
1 rr.
Change language