Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

English cultures respectively. In a nutshell, the Germans, it was suggested
valued such things as being able to display one's knowledge in any given
discussion, proffer a well thought out standpoint, necessarily defend
conversational claims, closely monitor fellow interlocutors conversational
contributions for possible errors, and in general conduct oneself with a certain
demeanour. The English in their conversational orientation were posited as
being guided by a different set of values, such as being able to treat fellow
interlocutor with certain ritual care, avoid conflict, and display a degree of
deferential support in their verbal interactions. Goffman' s notion of face was of
course based in the idea of prevailing positive social values, recognised and
oriented to by persons in their self-presentations and perceptions of others
similar presentations (see Goffman 1967).
One would expect then that prevailing positive social values would inform
the conversational practices of participants in both cultures considered here.
Specifically, one would expect the conversational selves as players'and images
to reflect such prevailing cultural values.
7.2 Solidaric Selves and Idiomatic Identities: Positive and
Negative Selves as Conversational Players and Images
I stated in the previous chapter that conversation could be conceived of
as operating along the lines of negative and positive conversational claims,
these being made in and through predominant conversational styles. However,
underlying this proffering and alignment at the level of conversation claims lay
one at a more symbolic level, involving not the expression of claims, but the
mobilisation of selves. Upon considering the conversational data, it became
apparent that certain types of selves as conversational players and images
were routinely and recurrently mobilised during sociable episodes in both
cultures. Participants in talk were presenting and enacting recognisably sociable
selves.
195