Negotiation of face in web chats

Abstract

Using conversation analytic methodology, this paper investigates how ‘politeness’ and ‘face’ are negotiated in web chats. Following previous conversation analytic research (Heritage 1984), we first tie the concepts face and social solidarity to the conversation analytic concept of preference organization. We then proceed to describe the system of communication of chats, delineating some technological constraints of the medium that have an impact on the resources available for participants for indicating preferred and dispreferred turns. Specifically, we indicate that some resources available in ordinary talk-in-interaction are not available in web chats, while web chats also allow for certain resources not available in ordinary talk-in-interaction. By analyzing requests (i. e., first pair parts) and second assessments (i. e., second pair parts), we demonstrate how participants adapt their interaction to the specific environment of web chats when negotiating issues of social solidarity.

When once is not enough: Politeness of multiple requests in oral proficiency interviews

“…Politeness can thus be seen as a relational category (Watts 2003) in two senses Ϫ (1) as the discursive organization of social relationship in the sense of orientation to face (Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006;Lerner 1996), marking of stance (Kärkkäinen 2003;Wu 2004), or embodiment of affiliation (Drew 2006), and (2) as an activity-specific and contingent orientation of interactional conduct. In this dual sense of 'relational', politeness can be shown to operate as a participant category.…”

“…Although variably referred to as face (Lerner 1996), stance (Kärkkäinen 2004;Wu 2004), social solidarity (Heritage 1984), or affiliation (Drew 2006), CA researchers' distinct perspective on these matters is to analyze them as a participant's concern, located in situated social activities, interactionally occasioned, and publicly available to participants and analysts in the details of interactional conduct. The most fundamental and pervasive interactional resource through which participants orient to relational concerns is preference organization (Boyle 2000;Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006;Heritage 1984;Lerner 1996), a set of methods by which actions are indexed as 'preferred' or 'dispreferred'. Participants orient to preferred actions as the 'interactionally relevant normative structure' (Lerner 1996: 305) by doing such actions without delay or accounts.…”

“…By contrast, dispreferred actions are recognizable through such sequence-organizational practices as delays in turn transition, pre-sequences (which is not to suggest that all pre-sequences imply dispreference) and turn-constructional practices such as hesitation, accounts, and (in the case of disagreements) weak agreements, all of which delay the projected action (cf. Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006).…”

Emoticons in transactional and interactional exchanges: social networking chitchat versus working negotiation

“…Yet, "little is known about the functional range of emoticons" (Vandergriff 2013: 1). Previous research has pointed out to their functions as boosters of group rapport (Derks et al 2008;Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006;Hancock 2004 or Walther andD'Addario 2001), expressions of politeness, e.g. as face-saving strategies (Darics (2010), Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm (2006) or markers of illocutionary force (Dresner and Herring 2010).…”

“…Prior research has revealed emoticons can also function as face-saving strategies (cf. Darics 2010; Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006;Dresner and Herring 2010). As already mentioned, they can be targeted both at saving the speaker's or the addressee's face, or both simultaneously.…”