Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Thus, agonistic discussion, although being an apparent arena for ego- centric presentation of incommensurable selves, could be seen to facilitate a mutual orientation whereby both self-oriented demeanour and other-oriented deference could be equilibrically played out. This is important in that it suggests that facework as a mutually reciprocative activity (being an effective balancing act between respect for self and considerateness for others) can actually be played out conversationally as an apparent surface level face-threatening activity (Cf. Blum-Kulka 1987; VVierzbicka 1985; Katriel 1986; Tannen 1981 a; 1981b; Schiffrin 1984) (see 1.3). The final body of work that I want to review here is the one that has addressed quite specifically instances where both US-English and German conversationalists have been involved in the potentially face-threatening activity of disagreement. What this work has shown is that the cultural differences discussed I terms of a general orientation above, can actually be seen to have informed the turn-by-turn normative organisation of talk itself. Specifically, Kotthoff (1989; 1991; 1993; 1994) has explore the preference for establishing and defending one's standpoint in German as compared to US-English conversation, not in terms of a preference in the sense of 'disposition' or cultural tendency per se - one commonly employed in several of the studies already cited - but in the more technical sense of conversational preference as used in Conversational Analysis (Sacks 1987; Pomerantz 1984). That is, preference organisation as referring to the culturally institutionalised way of, in this particular case, agreeing and disagreeing in terms of how turns are formulated and sequentially organised in conversation. Kotthoff focused specifically on dispute sequences in US-English and German conversation to look for structural and sequential variations in the conversational organisation. Salient differences were identified in the way American and German speakers oriented to potentially argumentative encounters. Again, reflecting previous findings, American speakers were shown to be more oriented to maintaining consensual conversation (what Kotthoff termed Konsens), this being evident in their routine collaborative avoidance of open disagreement. Conversely, German speakers were shown to be more 9
oriented to unmitigated disagreement (what Kotthoff termed Dissens) characterised by a more intense focus on the topic itself as the bone of contention (Kotthoff 1989). Importantly, the orientation to dissens and konsens was not realised solely at a propositional or semantic level, but at a sequential one, at the level of preference organisation of turns. Kotthoff (1991; 1993) demonstrated how the general preference for agreement in Anglo-American conversation8 (see e. g. Pomerantz 1984) may in German actually be reversed, as conversationalists move from agreement into disagreement sequences (Cf. Schiffrin 1984). For example, in German argumentative exchanges, over a series of turns disagreement becomes less and less modulated as participants move towards what Kotthoff termed 'opposition formats'. The result is a re-contextualising of the talk from a preference for agreement into a preference for disagreement. This re-contextualisation brings certain expectations and obligations on the part of the participants involved. For example, interlocutors in such contexts produce, and expect others to produce, unmitigated disagreement, each attempting to undermine his / her interlocutors position whilst strengthening their own. This orientation is accompanied by a heightened state of strategic attention to what is being said, and a readiness to quickly retaliate against an interlocutors position using any point of weakness in his / her argument. Concessions in such exchanges are understandably regarded as potentially face-threatening (by for example indicating submissiveness, weakness, or an inability to defend a position already argued for). Thus, when concessions are made, they are not made suddenly, but marked by strategies such as hesitancy, extensive listening without offering a counter-argument, and concession to the central point of their interlocutors position. This may have face-saving functions for the conceding participant as he / she is able to concede in a way that can be viewed as a result of ones own thinking rather than a passive submission to or defeat at the hands of one's interlocutor. Conversely, Kotthoff (1199 1) noted that in her American data there were no such opposition formats. Rather than counter-posing and intensely scrutinising personal stances, interlocutors oriented collaboratively towards maintaining a harmonious relationship, with potential dissent being minimised as much as possible in Al
- Page 21 and 22: including the application of the fa
- Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER I FACE AND FACEWORK: CONCEP
- Page 25 and 26: 1.1 Foundational Texts In order to
- Page 27 and 28: communicative action could be seen
- Page 29 and 30: Fig. 1.1 Goffman's Model of Ritual
- Page 31 and 32: distribution of his feelings, and t
- Page 33 and 34: empirically difficult' phenomenon (
- Page 35 and 36: etween self and other). Conversatio
- Page 37 and 38: allowing in effect a speaker to cri
- Page 39 and 40: as an equilibric practice, allowing
- Page 41 and 42: universality, particularly in studi
- Page 43 and 44: Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and C
- Page 45 and 46: Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) emplo
- Page 47 and 48: Mao (1994) addresses this tension b
- Page 49 and 50: Tannen's work (1981 a; 1981 b) perh
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 2 ANGLO-SAXON CHALK AND TEU
- Page 57 and 58: impolite. However, I soon came to r
- Page 59 and 60: in potential or actual conflict sit
- Page 61 and 62: salient differences. For example, G
- Page 63 and 64: Watts observed that German conversa
- Page 65 and 66: Finally, although Watts argued that
- Page 67 and 68: elatively little overlap, and a gen
- Page 69 and 70: contributions, with the former set
- Page 71: fully and substantively, what was r
- Page 75 and 76: 2.3 Communicative Underpinnings The
- Page 77 and 78: service but by more confrontational
- Page 79 and 80: Finally, additional explanatory dim
- Page 81 and 82: specific communicative practices, a
- Page 83 and 84: Brown and Levinson (1987). Indeed,
- Page 85 and 86: Notes to Chapter 2 11 use the term
- Page 87 and 88: This chapter then can be regarded a
- Page 89 and 90: asic irreducible sociological varia
- Page 91 and 92: Fraser (1990) who, in also attempti
- Page 93 and 94: particularly amenable to such a heu
- Page 95 and 96: identify certain underlying dynamic
- Page 97 and 98: In fact, these two opposing orienta
- Page 99 and 100: at any given point in the flow of c
- Page 101 and 102: orderly and meaningful conversation
- Page 103 and 104: locally managed and constantly in d
- Page 105 and 106: Poles of Alignment Fig. 3.6 Sociabl
- Page 107 and 108: toward a clearer understanding of w
- Page 109 and 110: Notes to Chapter 3 1 See also Brown
- Page 111 and 112: 4.1 Research Questions In the previ
- Page 113 and 114: eferring to as sociable includes in
- Page 115 and 116: The decision on quantity of data wa
- Page 117 and 118: largely anecdotal evidence from whi
- Page 119 and 120: such as laughter sequences. I also
- Page 121 and 122: Table 4.3 Data: Omissions from Anal
Thus, agonistic discussion, although being an apparent arena for ego-<br />
centric presentation <strong>of</strong> incommensurable selves, could be seen to facilitate a<br />
mutual orientation whereby both self-oriented demeanour and other-oriented<br />
deference could be equilibrically played out. This is important in that it suggests<br />
that facework as a mutually reciprocative activity (being an effective balancing<br />
act between respect for self and considerateness for others) can actually be<br />
played out conversationally as an apparent surface level face-threatening<br />
activity (Cf. Blum-Kulka 1987; VVierzbicka 1985; Katriel 1986; Tannen 1981 a;<br />
1981b; Schiffrin 1984) (see 1.3).<br />
The final body <strong>of</strong> work that I want to review here is the one that has<br />
addressed quite specifically instances where both US-English and German<br />
conversationalists have been involved in the potentially face-threatening activity<br />
<strong>of</strong> disagreement. What this work has shown is that the cultural differences<br />
discussed I terms <strong>of</strong> a general orientation above, can actually be seen to have<br />
informed the turn-by-turn normative organisation <strong>of</strong> talk itself.<br />
Specifically, Kotth<strong>of</strong>f (1989; 1991; 1993; 1994) has explore the<br />
preference for establishing and defending one's standpoint in German as<br />
compared to US-English conversation, not in terms <strong>of</strong> a preference in the sense<br />
<strong>of</strong> 'disposition' or cultural tendency per se - one commonly employed in several<br />
<strong>of</strong> the studies already cited - but in the more technical sense <strong>of</strong> conversational<br />
preference as used in Conversational Analysis (Sacks 1987; Pomerantz 1984).<br />
That is, preference organisation as referring to the culturally institutionalised<br />
way <strong>of</strong>, in this particular case, agreeing and disagreeing in terms <strong>of</strong> how turns<br />
are formulated and sequentially organised in conversation.<br />
Kotth<strong>of</strong>f focused specifically on dispute sequences in US-English and<br />
German conversation to look for structural and sequential variations in the<br />
conversational organisation. Salient differences were identified in the way<br />
American and German speakers oriented to potentially argumentative<br />
encounters. Again, reflecting previous findings, American speakers were shown<br />
to be more oriented to maintaining consensual conversation (what Kotth<strong>of</strong>f<br />
termed Konsens), this being evident in their routine collaborative avoidance <strong>of</strong><br />
open disagreement. Conversely, German speakers were shown to be more<br />
9