Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
demonstrated to be conversational contingencies allowed for by the model. It is theses aspects of sociable episodes - what I shall refer to as positive and negative threshold breaches - that I want to briefly address. 6.5 On the Boundaries of (Conversational) Politeness: Negative and Positive Threshold Breaches I suggested in Chapter 3 that sociable interaction is synonymous with equilibric interaction. It is interaction where participants work hard to foster an ethos of recognisable sociability and facilitate the claiming of both positive and negative through conversational claims. At the very least, participants in sociable episodes are expected to take part in making sure that sociability remains on a even keel. In this sense, the preceding examples have been instances of what I would refer to as equilibric alignments, as none have posed a potential or actual threat to the underlying ethos of sociability. Now, just as this equilibrium can be sustained by the symbolic acts of those co-present, so it can be threatened. Let me take metaphorical liberties by identifying two alignment extremes: (+x): During a sociable episode, a sociable argument escalates to the point where it breaks out into a 'wild west' style brawl. ' (-x): During another sociable episode, agreement is reached to the point where it develops into a farcical state of solidarity. These are exaggerated examples of course, but they do point to extremes on the solidarity-individuation dimension that underlies sociable conversation. Fortunately, these types of events seldom occur. In fact, moments of what I shall refer to as positive or negative threshold breaches are the exception to much of the talk that goes on. However, I shall attempt to identify some instances here. 1 There is an interesting scene from the Woody Allen movie Zelig where an example of this is used to comic effect. 174
To reiterate, positive threshold breaches occur at moments when positive alignment threatens the fabric of sociability. At these points, negative faces may be threatened. Conversely, negative threshold breaches occur at moments where negative alignment has 'done to far' or become too intense. In such moments, positive face can be threatened. Threshold breaches in sociability normally consist of two elements: The breach itself (actual or potential) itself; and attempts made by fellow participants to repair or remedy the breach in the hope of restoring sociable equilibrium. I noted above that a positive threshold breach would be characterised by for instance, participants becoming too solidaric in their conversational claims, to the point where conversational autonomy was threatened. In English for example, this might manifest as the talk topic crying up, as participants found it difficult to add some new and individuated definitive or evaluative dimension to a topic. A negative threshold breach would be characterised by excess individuation, beyond the point were participants found it hard to incorporate individuated claims as 'sociable'. Under such conditions, positive face threat would occur as the solidarity between participants would be brought into question. I will not spend too much time addressing threshold breaches here. Indeed, in the following analytical chapters I shall focus almost exclusively on 'equilibric' rather than virtual or actual disequilibric conversation. However, in order to fully illustrate the model set out above, I shall conclude this chapter by pointing to instances of actual or potential threshold breaches in both cultural milieu, as evidenced in the conversational data and as drawn from my own observations. This last aspect of the model is one that I shall suggest in Chapter 9 subsequent studies may focus on. 6.5.1 Disequilibric Negative Alignment (Positive Threshold Breaches) As narrative is the preferred form of discourse in English sociable interaction, it is here that sociable equilibrium can be threatened via potential or actual disequilibric alignment. There appear to be two main ways in which this can occur. First, the speaker can 'go on too much' in his / her uniqueness claim. Such asymmetrical claiming of conversational goods (i. e. the turn at talk, or more precisely the 'turn allocation system [see Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 17r,
- 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 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: What happens in this particular exc
- 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?
- Page 227 and 228: Often, knowledgeable selves are ali
- Page 229 and 230: 7.4 Positive Selves I suggested ear
- Page 231 and 232: 27 RP: =get out of it= 28 LM: =. HH
- Page 233 and 234: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
demonstrated to be conversational contingencies allowed for by the model. It is<br />
theses aspects <strong>of</strong> sociable episodes - what I shall refer to as positive and<br />
negative threshold breaches - that I want to briefly address.<br />
6.5 On the Boundaries <strong>of</strong> (Conversational) Politeness: Negative<br />
and Positive Threshold Breaches<br />
I suggested in Chapter 3 that sociable interaction is synonymous with<br />
equilibric interaction. It is interaction where participants work hard to foster an<br />
ethos <strong>of</strong> recognisable sociability and facilitate the claiming <strong>of</strong> both positive and<br />
negative through conversational claims. At the very least, participants in<br />
sociable episodes are expected to take part in making sure that sociability<br />
remains on a even keel. In this sense, the preceding examples have been<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> what I would refer to as equilibric alignments, as none have posed<br />
a potential or actual threat to the underlying ethos <strong>of</strong> sociability.<br />
Now, just as this equilibrium can be sustained by the symbolic acts <strong>of</strong><br />
those co-present, so it can be threatened. Let me take metaphorical liberties by<br />
identifying two alignment extremes:<br />
(+x): During a sociable episode, a sociable argument escalates to the point<br />
where it breaks out into a 'wild west' style brawl. '<br />
(-x): During another sociable episode, agreement is reached to the point<br />
where it develops into a farcical state <strong>of</strong> solidarity.<br />
These are exaggerated examples <strong>of</strong> course, but they do point to<br />
extremes on the solidarity-individuation dimension that underlies sociable<br />
conversation. Fortunately, these types <strong>of</strong> events seldom occur. In fact, moments<br />
<strong>of</strong> what I shall refer to as positive or negative threshold breaches are the<br />
exception to much <strong>of</strong> the talk that goes on. However, I shall attempt to identify<br />
some instances here.<br />
1 There is an interesting scene from the Woody Allen movie Zelig where an example <strong>of</strong> this is<br />
used to comic effect.<br />
174