Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository 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
Fig 9.2 A Maxim of Conversational Politeness SUPPORT AND RATIFY PROFFERED POSITIVE AND AfEGATIVE CONVERSATIONAL SELVES a) Maximise the expression of solidarity between selves b) Minimise the expression of individuation of selves a) Maximise the expression of individuation of selves b) Minimise the expression of solidarity between selves I think that future politeness research might gain some purchase by employing the facework as alignment approach and be in a position to bring the sociological concept of the self more in line with linguistic practice. I have concentrated specifically on two cultures here - the English and the Germans. Alongside further exploration of these two particular speech communities, I believe the facework as alignment approach has relevance for cross-cultural studies of facework in general. A dichotomy revealed in the initial review of face and facework in Chapter 1 was that between Eastern and Western conceptual i sati on s of face. Indeed, the differences between Eastern and Western conceptual isations of the self formed one of the foundational objections to Brown and Levinson's conceptualisation of face, particular the negative aspect which was framed as overly individualistic. I believe that my appropriation of the positive and in particular negative aspects of face here might help resolve this apparent East-West contradiction. The self as conversational construal, manifest as normative conversational behaviour, is not a fixed one but a conversationally contingent one. Thus, work in Asian Cultures may begin by examining actual ongoing conversation (very few do) to see a) what salient conversational selves are routinely mobilised, and b) how selves are mobilised along a solidarity-autonomy dimension in the playing out of equilibric conversational interaction (i. e., how do conversationalists in Asian cultures safely negatively align themselves and claim autonomous stances? ). 303
- 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 and 310: allowed for by the facework as alig
- Page 311: somebody who is overly-friendly, ge
- 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
I suggested in Chapter 1 that existing models <strong>of</strong> politeness were<br />
inadequate to capture facework in ongoing conversation. In Chapter 31 posited<br />
sociable / casual conversation as particularly recalcitrant to politeness based<br />
research, due essentially to its apolite nature. That is, sociable conversation<br />
was shown to be relatively free <strong>of</strong> conventional politeness based on variables<br />
such as status and power differences between interlocutors. The question begs<br />
then, can there then be such a thing then as conversational politeness?<br />
The proposition I would like to make here is that appropriate alignment <strong>of</strong><br />
'appropriate selves' is the hallmark <strong>of</strong> polite behaviour. Ratifying the self<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>fered by the other, reciprocating with an appropriate self, and co-jointly<br />
engaging in the ritual <strong>of</strong> that particular episode is what makes for polite<br />
conversation'. In the light <strong>of</strong> the preceding discussion, I would define<br />
'conversational politeness' then as the symbolic recognition (ratification,<br />
reciprocation, and ritual) <strong>of</strong> conversational selves. This is done, not primarily<br />
through the use <strong>of</strong> appropriate language use, but through the mobilisation <strong>of</strong><br />
appropriate selves.<br />
In this sense, politeness isn't necessarily saying the right things, it's more<br />
mobilising the right selves. Politeness is an expressive order that one adheres<br />
to in the practice <strong>of</strong> everyday life. Between strangers, engaging in for example<br />
speech acts or formulaic intercourse, conventional politeness might be used.<br />
This can be regarded as an alignment <strong>of</strong> appropriate selves and orient to a<br />
shared definition <strong>of</strong> the situation (service encounter, asking a stranger for<br />
directions). During less formal encounters, as with the ones studied here,<br />
conventional politeness diminishes, but symbolic politeness continues.<br />
Appropriate selves are mobilised and aligned to create a an equilibric milieus in<br />
which action may be carried out. Both - conventional and sociable politeness -<br />
are examples <strong>of</strong> the alignment <strong>of</strong> appropriate selves.<br />
One might posit a general rule <strong>of</strong> polite sociable conversation as being<br />
'allow your interlocutor to pr<strong>of</strong>fer both solidaric and individuated selves'.<br />
Translated to a 'maxim', this might read something like fig. 9.2.<br />
302