Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Specifically, 'in matching, individuals assert that they are in fact alike, because they
have - or say they have - similar positions, attdbutes, views, or experiences.
Conversely, in poladsation individuals differentiate themselves from one another,
exaggerating their differences (ibid., 256-257).
Watson and Potter went on to develop further the nuances of these
underlying sociable dimensions along which sociable conversation is played out.
However, in themselves, these fundamental dynamics of sociable conversation
provided a useful appendix to Simmels more general statements (see fig. 3.2).
Fig. 3.2 Central Dynamics of Sociable Conversation
I Sociable
Sociable Conversation
Sharing '4-0ý Presenting
Matching '4-0' Polarisation
More recently, Eggins and Slade (1997) have focused on the more nebulous
discourse type of casual conversation. This has not only emphasised the
importance of non-goal directed talk for discourse research, but also identified
certain dynamics which strongly echo those identified as characteristic of sociable
conversation. In a nutshell, what this work has suggested is that, although the joint
establishment and maintenance of solidarity in conversation is a fundamental
concern for participants, equally as important is the exploration of difference.
Successful casual conversation was posited as being characterised by a tension
between. '... one the one hand, establishing solidarity through the confirmation of
similarities, and on the other, asserting autonomy through the exploration of
differences (Eggins and Slade 1997,22). Although not citing work from the Watson
et al, nor, surprisingly Simmel, nor paying any reference to face or facework,
Eggins and Slade draw on a range of other authors who have pointed to fact that in
part, conversation is motivated not only by commonality, but by the expression of
difference (e. g. Burton 1980; Kress 1985).
RA