Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
forthcoming, he I she may alter footing to either counter his / her own standpoint and, as a potential side effect add some nuance which may initiate some element of negative alignment in the up to that point solidaric partners. In terms of remedial work, German speakers interestingly often ask after others in order to reinstate some element of negative alignment (e. g. 'Und was ist deine Meinung' [And what's your opinion? ']). Prima facie this would seem to be initiating a narrative type episode, but what it often leads to is a quick contradiction of the invoked response. In this sense another's opinion is forced out as suitable conversational resource for negative alignment (see my discussion of the German 'examinatory self in Chapter 7). 6.6 Alignment Contingencies: Summary What I have done in this chapter is to move on from the general observations of alignment within sociable gatherings outlined in chapter 5 to more closely examine sociable conversational occurring within what I referred to in chapter 5 as the main phase of sociability - or more precisely, sociable episodes where participants develop some common topic, theme, or issue. I have moved beyond considering sociable conversation in each culture under the general heading of 'style' (see Chapter 2), to consider more specifically how sociable conversation can be analysed for its alignment properties. In drawing on the model of facework as alignment outlined in chapter 3,1 have outlined the range of alignment contingencies, including both equilibric alignment, and what I referred to disequilibric ones. Importantly, aside from illustrating these alignment contingencies per se, I have demonstrated how German and English sociable conversation displays salient differences in terms of the nature of claims made by participants during each of these various alignment phases. In short, alignment in English sociable episodes seems to reflect the preference for narrative and personalisation of topics. German alignment seems to be characterised by the claiming of both solidarity and individuated in and thorough more objective discussion. These findings corroborate much of what was said in Chapter 2 in terms of German 1 Rr,
and English differences in conversational style in general (e. g. Byrnes 1986, Straehle 1997, Watts 1989). What the findings presented above have also pointed to is the positive social values (Goffman 1967) which were earlier argued to guide participants in each culture (Byrnes 1986, Friday 1994, Straehle 1997, Watts 1989) in their conversational behaviour, and ones which were linked to images of selfhood. (see Chapter 3). It is these images of selfhood - what I have already referred to as sociable selves - and their role in both positive and negative alignment which I want to move on to explore more closely in the following chapter. 6.7 Conclusion In this chapter I have provided evidence of how the model of equilibrium suggested in Chapter 3 might be evidenced to be conversationally played out in English and German vernacular cultures. I have included conversational excerpts from my particular gatherings primarily as illustrative data to furnish the application of the heuristic model of conversational facework. These data illustrate the operation of positive and negative dynamics in both conversational milieus in terms of their co-present occurrence, ratification and non-ratification, and the potential for disequilibrium by conversational moves which may breach either positive or negative thresholds of sociability. Alongside the application of these concepts, I have sought to weave into the discussion a comparative dimension, by highlighting cultural differences between German and English sociability. Comparatively, a picture of the English and German sociability should be coming more clearly into focus, and for those already acquainted, begin to reinforce and be validated by what they will have experienced themselves of facework in each culture. 1 R7
- 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 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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 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
- Page 235 and 236: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is
- Page 237 and 238: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 239 and 240: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 241 and 242: of these selves at conversational w
- Page 243 and 244: develop the comparative focus, one
- Page 245 and 246: CHAPTER 8 ALIGNING SELVES IN THE AC
forthcoming, he I she may alter footing to either counter his / her own standpoint<br />
and, as a potential side effect add some nuance which may initiate some<br />
element <strong>of</strong> negative alignment in the up to that point solidaric partners. In terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> remedial work, German speakers interestingly <strong>of</strong>ten ask after others in order<br />
to reinstate some element <strong>of</strong> negative alignment (e. g. 'Und was ist deine<br />
Meinung' [And what's your opinion? ']). Prima facie this would seem to be<br />
initiating a narrative type episode, but what it <strong>of</strong>ten leads to is a quick<br />
contradiction <strong>of</strong> the invoked response. In this sense another's opinion is forced<br />
out as suitable conversational resource for negative alignment (see my<br />
discussion <strong>of</strong> the German 'examinatory self in Chapter 7).<br />
6.6 Alignment Contingencies: Summary<br />
What I have done in this chapter is to move on from the general<br />
observations <strong>of</strong> alignment within sociable gatherings outlined in chapter 5 to<br />
more closely examine sociable conversational occurring within what I referred to<br />
in chapter 5 as the main phase <strong>of</strong> sociability - or more precisely, sociable<br />
episodes where participants develop some common topic, theme, or issue.<br />
I have moved beyond considering sociable conversation in each culture<br />
under the general heading <strong>of</strong> 'style' (see Chapter 2), to consider more<br />
specifically how sociable conversation can be analysed for its alignment<br />
properties. In drawing on the model <strong>of</strong> facework as alignment outlined in<br />
chapter 3,1 have outlined the range <strong>of</strong> alignment contingencies, including both<br />
equilibric alignment, and what I referred to disequilibric ones.<br />
Importantly, aside from illustrating these alignment contingencies per se,<br />
I have demonstrated how German and English sociable conversation displays<br />
salient differences in terms <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> claims made by participants during<br />
each <strong>of</strong> these various alignment phases. In short, alignment in English sociable<br />
episodes seems to reflect the preference for narrative and personalisation <strong>of</strong><br />
topics. German alignment seems to be characterised by the claiming <strong>of</strong> both<br />
solidarity and individuated in and thorough more objective discussion. These<br />
findings corroborate much <strong>of</strong> what was said in Chapter 2 in terms <strong>of</strong> German<br />
1 Rr,