Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

eing invariably solidaric in nature (see Goffman 1971; Brown and Levinson
1987), they functioned to index commonality, and allow for the early revealing
and testing of sociable selves and lines which may be later taken (see Goffman
1967). In a way, these phases reminded me somewhat of snowstorm
ornaments commonly available at Christmas time -a
frantic sociable maelstrom
in which participants are momentarily caught up. This feeling was exacerbated
by the short lived bodily movement up to the point where seats were commonly
taken and things settled down in preparation for the main phase of sociability.
Indeed, there appeared to be limits on how much of this conversational work
could be done in both cultures however, whilst still maintaining a semblance of
sincerity. Much complimentary solidaric behaviour of this sort seemed to have a
limited conversational, indeed sociable, lifespan. Conversation generally turned
away from in situ conversational resources, as matters from the outside world
were introduced as the basis of topic development. It is these episodes of
focused conversational topic talk that I want to focus on in some detail in
subsequent chapters as it is here that I feel the talk was less conditioned by the
rules of the sociable occasion, than by the rules of sociable conversation (see
Watson and Potter 1962).
5.2 Aligning for Alignment
As things settled down in both milieus, the collective focus turned to
conversation - to things of common interest that could be talked about beyond
ratificatory greetings or the 'here and now' environment. In short, topics of
conversation were sought for sociable development. These topics were not
prescribed or agended ones, but rather proffered and taken up as part of the in
situ practices of sociability by the participants themselves. Before moving on to
the in depth analysis of the conversational data I want to outline the general
essence on sociable episodes in both cultures by considering what topics were
commonly talked about; and how participants generally aligned to the activity of
sociable topic talk as evidenced in the nature of their contributions.
I should briefly here say something more about the notion of topic. Upon
consulting the literature, topic proved to be as conceptually slippery and illusive
125