Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

handled sociable topics, in terms of for example the nature of topics developed,
the extent to which topics were collaboratively developed, and how topics were
commonly framed, for example in either a narrative of more substantive
manner. In effect I attempted to demonstrate how participants aligned for the
achievement of sociability as a socially and culturally recognisable style.
In Chapters 6 to 81 moved from a focus on observational to transcribed
conversational data. The main thrust of Chapter 6 was to illustrate how sociable
conversation could be seen to be characterised by instances of what I termed
both positive and negative alignment, including illustrating the range of possible
alignment contingencies suggested by the interpretive framework set out in
Chapter 3 in both English and German sociable episodes. From the analysis of
the conversational data from both milieu, it was concluded that instances of
both positive and negative alignments - at the level of conversational claims -
were evidently intrinsic to sociable conversation in both English and German
sociable settings. Importantly, the nature of these alignments clearly reflected
some of the salient aspects of conversational style in general identified in
Chapter 2.
In Chapter 71 extended and developed the discussion of the self
(Goffman 1953; 1967) as a symbolic resource for alignment (Goffman 1981;
Katriel 1986; Malone 1997; Nofsinger 1991; Stokes and Hewitt 1976). Specifically,
again by drawing on conversational data from both cultures, I identified certain
salient conversational selves routinely mobilised by participants in each milieu.
These conversational selves were posited as being necessary symbolic
resources to both engage in the sociable style demonstrated in each respective
culture, and allowed for the claiming and ratification of prevailing positive social
values. Fundamentally, such selves were seen to be the symbolic resources
through which participants were able to achieve both positive and negative
alignment, and thus, over the flow of the conversation have both positive and
negative face needs met within a wider reciprocal framework of mutually
supportive ritual equilibrium.
Finally, in Chapter 9,1 conducted an analysis of conversational data
employing all these elements of the facework as alignment approach. The
291