Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

In the following chapters I shall spell out more comprehensively the
particular analytical framework I wish to employ here (Chapter 3) and general
methodology for data collection and initial analysis (Chapter 4). However, in the
light of the preceding comments I want to draw this chapter to a close by briefly
spelling out the basic premises of my intended approach to the study of
facework in English and German sociable episodes.
First, in terms of data, in line with comments by House, Watts, and
Straehle (1997), 1 shall be basing my analysis of German and English facework
on naturally occurring conversational data, that is, data not drawn from
constructed scenarios involving role play, but rather non pre-determined
conversational talk as it is actually played out in situ by members of each
particular culture. Secondly, in terms of the actual data sites from which my data
will be drawn, in line with comments made by Watts (1989) in particular, I shall
be focusing on essentially closed-group gatherings, that is, gatherings involving
friends or family members. I shall refer to such data sites from here on as
sociable gatherings, and data drawn there from as 'sociable episodes'.
In terms of my analytical interests, I shall focus in large on the salient
points of difference between the two speech communities in terms of their
conversational style. Indeed, it is due to these differences that I embarked on
this research project, in order to understand the bases for my own uneasy
introduction into another culture's communicative practices. I do however have
specific conceptual concerns, ones which I have argued are central to
understanding the sociological bases for these differences. Thus, I shall attempt
to apply a broad Goffmanian notion of equilibrium in an attempt to understand
the nature of such equilibrium in each culture. In order to do this, I shall explore
further what might be termed the style-selfhood linkage which is implied in much
of the work reviewed. That is, my focus for the basis of the variations in
conversational style in the two cultures is not in the first instance a linguistic
one, but more a sociological one, namely, the'self in talk and its relationship to
equilibric practice in the achievement of cultural style. Although conducted in
the first instance from a Sociological perspective, I shall not neglect the positive
- negative framework for the interpretation of facework practices advanced by
79