Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

I suggested in Chapter 1 that existing models of politeness were
inadequate to capture facework in ongoing conversation. In Chapter 31 posited
sociable / casual conversation as particularly recalcitrant to politeness based
research, due essentially to its apolite nature. That is, sociable conversation
was shown to be relatively free of conventional politeness based on variables
such as status and power differences between interlocutors. The question begs
then, can there then be such a thing then as conversational politeness?
The proposition I would like to make here is that appropriate alignment of
'appropriate selves' is the hallmark of polite behaviour. Ratifying the self
proffered by the other, reciprocating with an appropriate self, and co-jointly
engaging in the ritual of that particular episode is what makes for polite
conversation'. In the light of the preceding discussion, I would define
'conversational politeness' then as the symbolic recognition (ratification,
reciprocation, and ritual) of conversational selves. This is done, not primarily
through the use of appropriate language use, but through the mobilisation of
appropriate selves.
In this sense, politeness isn't necessarily saying the right things, it's more
mobilising the right selves. Politeness is an expressive order that one adheres
to in the practice of everyday life. Between strangers, engaging in for example
speech acts or formulaic intercourse, conventional politeness might be used.
This can be regarded as an alignment of appropriate selves and orient to a
shared definition of the situation (service encounter, asking a stranger for
directions). During less formal encounters, as with the ones studied here,
conventional politeness diminishes, but symbolic politeness continues.
Appropriate selves are mobilised and aligned to create a an equilibric milieus in
which action may be carried out. Both - conventional and sociable politeness -
are examples of the alignment of appropriate selves.
One might posit a general rule of polite sociable conversation as being
'allow your interlocutor to proffer both solidaric and individuated selves'.
Translated to a 'maxim', this might read something like fig. 9.2.
302