Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
conversational images that results in what is manifest conversationally as differences in sociable style. In short, sociable selves lie at the heart of sociable style. Fundamentally, both English and German sociable styles have been shown to be organised around the mutual and normative support of both negative and positive face needs. In order to both have supported and support positive and negative face needs in English and German sociable settings, one needs to have access to and be able to normatively mobilise appropriate sociable selves over the flow of the conversation. 9.4 The Facework as Alignment Model of Conversation: A Symbolic Terrain for Future Research Due to its focus on sociability this study has been essentially skewed in the direction of equilibrium. Indeed, on those grounds alone it has gone of at somewhat of a tangent to the majority of facework and politeness studies which largely concentrate on what might be termed 'disequilibric! interaction, i. e., moments of talk when face emerges into the conscious of interlocutors to be a salient central issue in need of some redress or repair. However, the approach that I have sketched out here does allow for disequilibric alignment. That is, when sociable / casual conversation becomes not so sociable, or more conscious work than casual play. I noted above that negative threshold breaches threaten positive face, and positive threshold breaches threaten negative face. For example, a classic example of negative threshold breach (at least to British speakers), is the situation where the self is mobilised as aloof from co-present others, or different to such an extent as to move slightly too far from others. Participants mobilising and aligning such selves in effect signal 'we are not the same', or'l am different from you'. A less motivated but more frequent example is the conversational participant who is aligning him- / herself quite equilibrically, until he or she makes a conversational faux pas, and in doing so crosses the threshold beyond which autonomy can no longer be easily accepted as equilibric. Positive threshold breaches might be seen to occur for example in situations where 300
somebody who is overly-friendly, gets too close, or appears to be 'creeping' in some way, overly-underplaying difference as it were. Of course, these breaches may be the bases of cross-cultural misunderstanding, with one culture perceiving the other as 'creepy' or alternatively aloof and snobbish. When such instances of autonomous alignment occur, conversationalists much do much work to incorporate the offender back into the overarching equilibric bonds which underlies their solidarity. This area of breach, its repair or avoidance might warrant further research. Additionally, aggressive uses of both positive and negative alignments may be addressed. A much harder task may be to attempt to measure these heuristic boundaries to show for instance, how much negative or positive alignment is too much and do different cultures or different contexts have different normative tolerances. Aside from working on disequilibric terrain or at the boundaries of equilibrium / disequilibrium, further studies might attempt tot address facework as alignment in different contexts. The work here has focused on in-group settings. The formality of the suggested analytical framework allows for analysis of any setting however where sociable or casual conversation takes place. Indeed, the studying of different contexts and different relational milieu might allow for the reincorporation of sociolinguist variable underlying current politeness research to be mobilised, such as power and social distance or any of the variant on these developed in work following Brown and Levinson. Work of this nature may also identify the particular situational selves routinely mobilised by participants in situ and consider the way these are aligned. Although I posited my work here as essentially a research enterprise, I feel the approach taken and findings presented may have practical implications, particularly for English - German cross-cultural interaction. For example, those interested in cross-cultural communication might draw on the findings presented here in aiding the understanding of the nature of sociability in each culture. Similarly, language teaching may well focus not just on the conversational grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, but also on the way language can be used to manifest more symbolic exchanges of conversational selfhood fundamental to normative conversation. 301
- 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 and 308: maintain the underlying equilibrium
- Page 309: allowed for by the facework as alig
- 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
conversational images that results in what is manifest conversationally as<br />
differences in sociable style. In short, sociable selves lie at the heart <strong>of</strong> sociable<br />
style. Fundamentally, both English and German sociable styles have been<br />
shown to be organised around the mutual and normative support <strong>of</strong> both<br />
negative and positive face needs. In order to both have supported and support<br />
positive and negative face needs in English and German sociable settings, one<br />
needs to have access to and be able to normatively mobilise appropriate<br />
sociable selves over the flow <strong>of</strong> the conversation.<br />
9.4 The Facework as Alignment Model <strong>of</strong> Conversation: A<br />
Symbolic Terrain for Future Research<br />
Due to its focus on sociability this study has been essentially skewed in<br />
the direction <strong>of</strong> equilibrium. Indeed, on those grounds alone it has gone <strong>of</strong> at<br />
somewhat <strong>of</strong> a tangent to the majority <strong>of</strong> facework and politeness studies which<br />
largely concentrate on what might be termed 'disequilibric! interaction, i. e.,<br />
moments <strong>of</strong> talk when face emerges into the conscious <strong>of</strong> interlocutors to be a<br />
salient central issue in need <strong>of</strong> some redress or repair. However, the approach<br />
that I have sketched out here does allow for disequilibric alignment. That is,<br />
when sociable / casual conversation becomes not so sociable, or more<br />
conscious work than casual play.<br />
I noted above that negative threshold breaches threaten positive face,<br />
and positive threshold breaches threaten negative face. For example, a classic<br />
example <strong>of</strong> negative threshold breach (at least to British speakers), is the<br />
situation where the self is mobilised as alo<strong>of</strong> from co-present others, or different<br />
to such an extent as to move slightly too far from others. Participants mobilising<br />
and aligning such selves in effect signal 'we are not the same', or'l am different<br />
from you'. A less motivated but more frequent example is the conversational<br />
participant who is aligning him- / herself quite equilibrically, until he or she<br />
makes a conversational faux pas, and in doing so crosses the threshold beyond<br />
which autonomy can no longer be easily accepted as equilibric. Positive<br />
threshold breaches might be seen to occur for example in situations where<br />
300
Change language