Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

at any given point in the flow of conversation. The central question is of course,
how might these observations of the underlying dynamics of sociable conversation
per se help us in establishing a model its systematic analysis for facework
practices? What can be gleaned from these eclectic observations in terms of
establishing a suitable framework for the analysis of facework in episodes of
ongoing sociable conversation?
3.3 Sociable Conversation as Facework
I have said that sociable conversation is essentially apolite. For the
facework researcher this causes something of a problem, namely, how can one
study facework in a discourse context where communicative behaviour normatively
associated with facework, such as politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987) or
apologies and-accounts (Goffman 1967), are normatively and routinely minimised
as part and parcel of the achievement of sociability. Can, and if so how can, the
observations made about the dynamics of sociable and casual conversation aid in
the quest for an appropriate framework for the analysis of facework in sociable
episodes?
Earlier I argued for a move from considering positive and negative facework
as properties of specific utterance, to treating them more as heuristic or sensitising
devices. In terms of ongoing naturally occurring conversation as a discourse type, I
suggested that they could be considered as essentially omnipresent properties of
the flow of conversation. How might though one take positive and negative as
heuristic devices and apply them in the analysis of episodes of naturally occurring
discourse? What I want to suggest here - and in the light of the preceding
discussion certain readers may have already anticipated this, is that, the positive -
negative paradigm advanced by Brown and Levinson can be directly mapped onto
the salient propensities underlying sociable conversation. That is, in claiming
sameness and difference (Eggins and Slade 1997), presenting and sharing
(Watson and Potter 1962), or binding and loosening (Simmel (1949 [1911 ]),
participants in sociable encounters are directly indexing both positive and negative
face needs. Further, these collective practices are operating to ratify and support
an over-arching sociable ethos.
89