Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
English and German sociable episodes by within the facework as alignment framework set out in Chapter 3. In this respect, the chapter shall represent the most systematic piece of analysis of the study as a whole. 8.1 Alignment and the Self as Conversational Construal Facework as developed in the current approach is taken to involve not the use of verbal strategies per se, but rather the mobilisation, ratification and support, and alignment of conversational selves. Fundamental to this approach is the idea that sociable selves are dependent for their conversational survival on the recognition and ratification by others, i. e. on the alignments taken by both speakers and recipient(s). In this sense, sociable conversation can be conceived of as an ongoing flow of alignment of selves, working normatively in a ratificatory and supportive way. Conversationally this manifests itself in the way topic is handled. It has been argued that, where participants in sociable episodes focus on a common theme for the purposes of expressing solidarity and communality, they will also normatively express variation on this common theme during the course of its development (i. e. proffer individuated viewpoints or experiences). The converse of this is also true (i. e. topics chosen for individuated development will also often be used for the joint expression of solidarity. I have attempted to frame this recurrent sociable phenomenon as positive and negative alignment (see Chapter 6). Further, in considering English and German data in particular I have identified a range of sociable selves commonly mobilised in each culture to achieve these alignments (see Chapter 7). In general, what I classed as predominantly positive selves assume and express some solidarity between fellow participants. In this sense, in terms of the relationship between participants, positive alignment serves to draw selves closer together. At its extreme or example, positive alignment would result in the assimilation of selves to the point of complete and total solidarity in terms of their viewpoints, experiences, or definitions. This, I have argued occurs seldom, or if so, only briefly, due to what I have pointed to as normative solidaric thresholds governing equilibric interaction (see Chapter 6). Conversely, negative selves express and support some degree of individuation between one or the other participant. Negative alignment then refers to the claiming, 236
atification and support of unique, autonomous, or individuated selves. At its extreme, negative alignment would result in the differentiation of selves to the point of total incommensurability and a loss of grounds for commonality and solidarity. As with positive alignment, this, I would argue, is seldom, or if so, only briefly realised due again to the normative regulating mechanisms of sociable conversation (see Chapter 6). Thus, conversational facework is essentially a matter of selves-work. Fundamentally, it is a matter of alignment of selves, ones essentially operating on an underlying positive-negative continuum which underlies not only sociable conversation per se but more specifically both Goffman's and Brown and Levinson's approaches. These propositions when considered in the light of, not the conversational content of the self as player or image (see Chapter 7) but rather the positive and negative status of the seff in talk point to the analytical purchase afforded by the second conceptual i sati on of the self informing this study, that is, the self-construal (see Chapter 1). In such a conceptual isation the self can be conceived of as being surrounded by various boundaries, starting with the individual as the locus and expanding to include variously the selves of others. Cross-cultural work addressing facework practices has identified certain salient cultural differences in how the self is perceived in terms of these boundaries and thus how face is perceived. Fundamentally, work has shown that the culturally predominant status of the self in terms of the self-construal directly affects communicative style in that particular culture and forms the basis for normative facework practices (see Chapter 1). This cultural reading of the self as a culturally varying construal can I believe help consolidate the seeming fluidity of the self across the positive and negative flow of conversation. First, I am employing the term self in a way similar to the Goffman's comprehensive conceptual isation. That is, the self can be regarded as an enacted and enacting entity, contingent on recognition, ratification, and support by others. This conceptual isation was used as the basis for the discussion in the previous chapter. Second however, I would argue that 237
- 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
- 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: CHAPTER 8 ALIGNING SELVES IN THE AC
- Page 249 and 250: Fig 8.2b The Individuated Selves (a
- Page 251 and 252: Excerpt 8.1 'Cookie's Party' I LM:
- Page 253 and 254: Beginning with the topic of convers
- Page 255 and 256: as re-invoking selves. The category
- Page 257 and 258: An interesting phenomenon which is
- Page 259 and 260: An additional consequence of alignm
- Page 261 and 262: Conversely, in considering the next
- Page 263 and 264: 100 KP: I mean you see two or three
- Page 265 and 266: however, such narrating selves are
- Page 267 and 268: Running alongside these narrative s
- Page 269 and 270: capabilities of KP&EP and in this w
- Page 271 and 272: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 273 and 274: 6 (0.5) 7 EP: America is booming at
- Page 275 and 276: own unemployment levels -a concern
- Page 277 and 278: In terms of the selves mobilised, t
- Page 279 and 280: in 'Cookie's Party'- again, a secon
- Page 281 and 282: 35 GB: kann man nie als [endgültig
- Page 283 and 284: is HB: =Yeah not at all but e:: rm=
- Page 285 and 286: episode takes place. Rather, the ta
- Page 287 and 288: The excerpt begins as HB is proffer
- Page 289 and 290: What this talk demonstrates is that
- Page 291 and 292: N work or'Arbeit' being an extremel
- Page 293 and 294: demeaned and knowledgeable selves (
- Page 295 and 296: preceding comments regarding sociab
atification and support <strong>of</strong> unique, autonomous, or individuated selves. At its<br />
extreme, negative alignment would result in the differentiation <strong>of</strong> selves to the<br />
point <strong>of</strong> total incommensurability and a loss <strong>of</strong> grounds for commonality and<br />
solidarity. As with positive alignment, this, I would argue, is seldom, or if so, only<br />
briefly realised due again to the normative regulating mechanisms <strong>of</strong> sociable<br />
conversation (see Chapter 6).<br />
Thus, conversational facework is essentially a matter <strong>of</strong> selves-work.<br />
Fundamentally, it is a matter <strong>of</strong> alignment <strong>of</strong> selves, ones essentially operating<br />
on an underlying positive-negative continuum which underlies not only sociable<br />
conversation per se but more specifically both G<strong>of</strong>fman's and Brown and<br />
Levinson's approaches.<br />
These propositions when considered in the light <strong>of</strong>, not the<br />
conversational content <strong>of</strong> the self as player or image (see Chapter 7) but rather<br />
the positive and negative status <strong>of</strong> the seff in talk point to the analytical<br />
purchase afforded by the second conceptual i sati on <strong>of</strong> the self informing this<br />
study, that is, the self-construal (see Chapter 1). In such a conceptual isation the<br />
self can be conceived <strong>of</strong> as being surrounded by various boundaries, starting<br />
with the individual as the locus and expanding to include variously the selves <strong>of</strong><br />
others. Cross-cultural work addressing facework practices has identified certain<br />
salient cultural differences in how the self is perceived in terms <strong>of</strong> these<br />
boundaries and thus how face is perceived. Fundamentally, work has shown<br />
that the culturally predominant status <strong>of</strong> the self in terms <strong>of</strong> the self-construal<br />
directly affects communicative style in that particular culture and forms the basis<br />
for normative facework practices (see Chapter 1).<br />
This cultural reading <strong>of</strong> the self as a culturally varying construal can I<br />
believe help consolidate the seeming fluidity <strong>of</strong> the self across the positive and<br />
negative flow <strong>of</strong> conversation. First, I am employing the term self in a way<br />
similar to the G<strong>of</strong>fman's comprehensive conceptual isation. That is, the self can<br />
be regarded as an enacted and enacting entity, contingent on recognition,<br />
ratification, and support by others. This conceptual isation was used as the basis<br />
for the discussion in the previous chapter. Second however, I would argue that<br />
237