Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

45 JW: =1 know--
46 EP: =Hm ((clear throat))
47 (1)
48 JW: That's right
49 (0.5)
50 RP: Yeah definitely (0.5) we=we'll do that in the next few weeks
51 (1)
52 RP: you know=
53 ZW: =yeah
54 0
55 RP: We'll do that
In'More Often', ZW&JW, and RP&EP - married couples respectively -
invoke a past sociable gathering, specifically, what is recalled is a 'Raclette'
evening held at the home of RP&EP some weeks earlier (the current hosts
being JW&ZW). Once invoked, this common past event is accorded strong
evaluative treatment. Both couples speak warmly about the occasion attest to
and the enjoyment they had. In addition to and apparently predicated on this
past shared experience, suggestions for a similar future gathering are made,
again treated with similar positive attestations. This positive alignment achieves
a level of unmitigated solidarity between the two couples, to the point where JL
intervenes for a necessary clarification as to what exactly a Raclette evening is
(which she incidentally also attests to the potential sociability of after RP's brief
explanation). One might speculate that the solidarity being developed between
these two couples is so intense that it in effectfreezes out' JL and her partner
AL (i. e. in achieving solidarity between ZW&JW, and RP&EP, this alignment
threatens solidarity with others co-present).
Neither disagreement, differing opinions, nor individual nuances of
experience (e. g. "well the thing I liked about it was )e', "Oh well I enjoyed the y
more actually") are expressed during this phase of alignment. This is of course
not to say that negative alignment is precluded. In fact, as I have intimated to
already and shall illustrate below, more individuated nuances may well become
necessary if the unmitigated agreement were to go on for too long. In effect
though, what this data illustrates is a moment within an English sociable
episode marked by heightened ethos of consensual solidarity.
1 r.; n