Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
communicative style between English and German speakers and apparent cultural variations in the importance accorded to self and other face concerns in verbal face-to-face interaction (Blum-Kulka and House 1989; Byrnes 1986; Fetzer 1996,1997; Friday 1994; Hellweg, Samovar, and Skow 1994; House 1979,1982a, 1982b, 1982c, 1989; House and Kasper 1981; Kofthoff 1989, 1991,1993,1994; Straehle 1997; Watts 1989). The remit was to consider these differences within one particular conversational context; that of the sociable gathering. In particular, I attempted to focus on instances of sociable conversation (Riesman and Watson 1964; Simmel 1949 [19111; Watson 1958; Watson and Potter 1962). In an attempt to delineate in some way such moments of sociability, I focused in from considering alignment to sociability as a situated type of activity per se, to look at more closely at conversational behaviour in what I termed main phases of sociability. Drawing on the notions of topic and the general notion of episode (Katriel 1986; Malone 1997; Penman 1990; Tannen 1984; Watson and Potter 1962; Wood and Kroger 1994), 1 identified my main unit of analytical interest as conversational behaviour within what I termed 'sociable episodes'. I began the comparative analysis in Chapter 5 by providing a broad and largely ethnographically informed account of sociability in both milieus. Participants in both cultures were shown to equally recognise and align to their entrances into and departures from the situational world of sociability. In what I termed aligning for alignment, I identified certain differences between each lingua-culture in the first instance in terms of the type of topics generally favoured, and the extent to which and nature of topic development. Much of what was said in Chapter 5 corroborated aspects of communicative style identified in the previous studies outlined in Chapter 2, particularly those relating to naturally occurring conversational between close friends and acquaintances. In effect this chapter demonstrated that the concept of sociability as being a recognisable context and requiring and certain demonstration of intent to be sociable was common to both cultures, but that the process of sociable conversation per se appeared subject to cultural variability. In Chapter 6,1 looked more closely as sociable conversation in each milieu. Here I was able to demonstrate that the sociable contingencies 298
allowed for by the facework as alignment framework advanced in Chapter 3 could be seen to occur in both English and German episodes. This appeared to run contra- to the propositions outlined in Chapter 3, that English sociability was essentially a positive alignment pursuit whilst German sociability was essentially a negative one. It appeared that sociable episodes in both speech communities equally required both positive and negative alignment for the achievement and sustaining of sociable conversation. However, differences were identified in terms of the nature of conversational claims in each milieu. In Chapter 71 identified rather obvious differences in terms of the type and nature of sociable selves routinely drawn upon by participants to achieve these necessary alignments. In a nutshell, English sociable selves appeared to be more entertaining entities, whilst German sociable selves appeared to be more evaluative ones. Extending the analysis into Chapter 8,1 addressed the question of alignment in both cultures. Drawing on excerpts of talk taken from sociable episodes in both English and German sociable gatherings, I outlined how these essentially entertaining and evaluative and selves were aligned together in the achievement of sociable conversation. Instances of both primarily positive and primarily negative alignment were drawn upon. In looking at these data it became evident that the sociological bases for English German differences in sociable conversation was not any preference for negative alignment over positive, or vice versa, but rather the nature of the selves mobilised to normatively achieve such alignments. In short, what underlay both English and German sociable style was shown to be the availability, mobilisation, and alignment of sociable selves. To conclude then, what this study has demonstrated is that English and German sociable conversations display both positive and negative alignment across and within sociable episodes. Such alignment is directly contingent on the mobilisation of normatively available sociable selves in each culture. The expressive nature of each of these selves though is subject to cross-cultural variation. It is variation at the level of such normatively available and routinely mobilised conversational selves both as conversational players and 299
- 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
- Page 297 and 298: CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION: THE TO AND FR
- Page 299 and 300: identified in conversational behavi
- Page 301 and 302: handled sociable topics, in terms o
- Page 303 and 304: to bring themselves and their inter
- Page 305 and 306: sociable conversation. This sociabl
- Page 307: maintain the underlying equilibrium
- Page 311 and 312: somebody who is overly-friendly, ge
- Page 313 and 314: Fig 9.2 A Maxim of Conversational P
- Page 315 and 316: Notes to Chapter 9 1 When we are ta
- Page 317 and 318: German Participants Name Age Occupa
- Page 319 and 320: German Gatherings Gathering Date Se
- Page 321 and 322: Brown, G., and Yule, G. (1983) Disc
- Page 323 and 324: Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K, and G
- Page 325 and 326: Hellweg, S A., Samovar, L A., and S
- Page 327 and 328: Hu, H C. (1944) The Chinese concept
- Page 329 and 330: - (1979) 'Stylistic Strategies with
- Page 331 and 332: - (1994) 'Facework in Communication
- Page 333 and 334: Snell-Hornby, M.. (1984) 'The Lingu
- Page 335 and 336: Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., and
communicative style between English and German speakers and apparent<br />
cultural variations in the importance accorded to self and other face concerns in<br />
verbal face-to-face interaction (Blum-Kulka and House 1989; Byrnes 1986;<br />
Fetzer 1996,1997; Friday 1994; Hellweg, Samovar, and Skow 1994; House<br />
1979,1982a, 1982b, 1982c, 1989; House and Kasper 1981; K<strong>of</strong>th<strong>of</strong>f 1989,<br />
1991,1993,1994; Straehle 1997; Watts 1989). The remit was to consider these<br />
differences within one particular conversational context; that <strong>of</strong> the sociable<br />
gathering. In particular, I attempted to focus on instances <strong>of</strong> sociable<br />
conversation (Riesman and Watson 1964; Simmel 1949 [19111; Watson 1958;<br />
Watson and Potter 1962). In an attempt to delineate in some way such<br />
moments <strong>of</strong> sociability, I focused in from considering alignment to sociability as<br />
a situated type <strong>of</strong> activity per se, to look at more closely at conversational<br />
behaviour in what I termed main phases <strong>of</strong> sociability. Drawing on the notions <strong>of</strong><br />
topic and the general notion <strong>of</strong> episode (Katriel 1986; Malone 1997; Penman<br />
1990; Tannen 1984; Watson and Potter 1962; Wood and Kroger 1994), 1<br />
identified my main unit <strong>of</strong> analytical interest as conversational behaviour within<br />
what I termed 'sociable episodes'.<br />
I began the comparative analysis in Chapter 5 by providing a broad and<br />
largely ethnographically informed account <strong>of</strong> sociability in both milieus.<br />
Participants in both cultures were shown to equally recognise and align to their<br />
entrances into and departures from the situational world <strong>of</strong> sociability. In what I<br />
termed aligning for alignment, I identified certain differences between each<br />
lingua-culture in the first instance in terms <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> topics generally<br />
favoured, and the extent to which and nature <strong>of</strong> topic development. Much <strong>of</strong><br />
what was said in Chapter 5 corroborated aspects <strong>of</strong> communicative style<br />
identified in the previous studies outlined in Chapter 2, particularly those relating<br />
to naturally occurring conversational between close friends and acquaintances.<br />
In effect this chapter demonstrated that the concept <strong>of</strong> sociability as being a<br />
recognisable context and requiring and certain demonstration <strong>of</strong> intent to be<br />
sociable was common to both cultures, but that the process <strong>of</strong> sociable<br />
conversation per se appeared subject to cultural variability.<br />
In Chapter 6,1 looked more closely as sociable conversation in each<br />
milieu. Here I was able to demonstrate that the sociable contingencies<br />
298