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