Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



Much of the research on affiliation to date has focused on how people (dis)affiliation. This paper explores the remedial work that instances of disaffiliation between interactants who are getting acquainted. Building on an interactional pragmatics analytical approach informed by methods and research in conversation analysis, findings indicate that extended remedial accounts recurrently follow moments of disaffiliation in initial interactions. These remedial accounts enable participants to reposition a prior disaffiliative stance as (ostensibly) affiliative. It appears in initial interactions, then, that remedial accounts play an important role in modulating troubles in affiliating. We propose that the considerable interactional work undertaken by these participants to modulate such troubles reflects a general preference for agreeability in initial interactions, at least amongst (Australian and British) speakers of English.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Antaki, Charles
    1994Explaining and Arguing. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse Studies14 (5): 531–547. 10.1177/1461445612454074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454074 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arundale, Robert B.
    2010 “Constituting Face in Conversation: Face, Facework, and Interactional Achievement.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2078–2105. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew
    1979Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑04057‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Asmuß, Birte
    2011 “Proposing Shared Knowledge as a Means of Pursuing Agreement.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 207–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Buttny, Richard
    1993Social Accountability in Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven E.
    1992 “Caveat Orator: Audience Disaffiliation in the 1988 Presidential Debates.” Quarterly Journal of Speech78 (1): 33–60. 10.1080/00335639209383980
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383980 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clift, Rebecca
    2016 “Don’t Make Me Laugh: Responsive Laughter in (Dis)Affiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics100: 73–88. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Curl, Traci S., John Local, and Gareth Walker
    2006 “Repetition and the Prosody – Pragmatics Interface.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (10): 1721–1751. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen
    2012 “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk32 (4): 433–451. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  12. Englebretson, Robert
    2007Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferrara, Kathleen
    1992 “The Interactive Achievement of a Sentence: Joint Productions in Therapeutic Discourse.” Discourse Processes15 (2): 207–228. 10.1080/01638539209544809
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544809 [Google Scholar]
  14. Flint, Natalie
    2016 “That’s What I Thought as Well”: Doing Affiliation in Initial Interactions. Unpublished BA dissertation. York St John University.
  15. 2018 Accounting for Disaffiliations: Remedying (Dis)Affiliations in Initial Interactions between American and British Speakers of English. Unpublished MA dissertation. York St John University.
  16. Flint, Natalie, and Andrew John Merrison
    . Under review. “On the Collaborative Nature of Accounting: Remedying Potentially Divisive and/or Delicate Topics in Intercultural Initial Interactions.”
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goffman, Erving
    1971 “Remedial Interchanges.” InRelations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, 95–187. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    2007 “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse & Society18 (1): 53–73. 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. byAlessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael
    2011 “Humour, Face and Im/politeness in Getting Acquainted.” InSituated Politeness, ed. byBethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh and Andrew John Merrison, 165–184. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 “Conversational Interaction.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 251–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.014 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2015 “Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics86 (1): 36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2017a “Mockery and (Non-)Seriousness in Initial Interactions Amongst American and Australian Speakers of English.” InHandbook of Communication in Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. byDonal Carbaugh, 104–117. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017b “Jocular Language Play, Social Action and (Dis)Affiliation in Conversational Interaction.” InMultiple Perspectives on Language Play, ed. byNancy Bell, 143–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Haugh, Michael, and Donal Carbaugh
    2015 “Self-Disclosure in Initial Interactions Amongst Speakers of American and Australian English.” Multilingua34 (4): 461–493. 10.1515/multi‑2014‑0104
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0104 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haugh, Michael, and Danielle Pillet-Shore
    2018 “Getting to Know You: Teasing as an Invitation to Intimacy in Initial Interactions.” Discourse Studies31 (2): 246–269. 10.1177/1461445617734936
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734936 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayashi, Makoto
    2013 “Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 167–190. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1988 “Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” InAnalyzing Lay Explanation: A Case Book of Methods, ed. byCharles Antaki, 127–144. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Holt, Elizabeth
    2012 “Using Laugh Responses to Defuse Complaints.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (4): 430–448. 10.1080/08351813.2012.726886
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.726886 [Google Scholar]
  32. Iwasaki, Shimako
    2015 “Collaboratively Organized Stancetaking in Japanese: Sharing and Negotiating Stance within the Turn Constructional Unit.” Journal of Pragmatics83: 104–119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1988 “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems35 (4): 418–441. 10.2307/800595
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1990 “List Construction as a Task and Resource”, InInteraction Competence, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 63–92. Washington DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction26 (1): 1–30. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  38. Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1987 “Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. byGraham Button and John R. E. Lee, 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Joyce, Jack
    2015 A Partial Sketch of Membership Categorisation Devices in Initial Interactions. Unpublished BA dissertation. York St John University.
  40. Kangasharju, Helena
    2002 “Alignment in Disagreement: Forming Oppositional Alliances in Committee Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (10): 1447–1471. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00073‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00073-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 “The Terms of Not Knowing.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society22 (2): 193–216. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lerner, Gene H.
    1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society20 (3): 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1992 “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology15 (3): 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1994 “Responsive List Construction: A Conversational Resource for Accomplishing Multifaceted Social Action.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology13 (1): 20–33. 10.1177/0261927X94131002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94131002 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1996 “Finding “Face” in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly59 (4): 303–321. 10.2307/2787073
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004 “Collaborative Turn Sequences: Sentence Construction and Social Action.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 225–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.12ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler [Google Scholar]
  48. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 “Affiliation in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 350–369. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Maynard, Douglas W., and Don H. Zimmerman
    1984 “Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships.” Social Psychology Quarterly47 (4): 301–316. 10.2307/3033633
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633 [Google Scholar]
  51. McLaughlin, Margaret L., Michael J. Cody, and Nancy E. Rosenstein
    1983 “Account Sequences in Conversations between Strangers.” Communication Monographs50 (2): 102–125. 10.1080/03637758309390157
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390157 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mitchell, Nathaniel, and Michael Haugh
    2015 “Agency, Accountability and Evaluations of Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research11 (2): 207–238. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nichols, Lawrence
    1990 “Reconceptualizing Social Accounts: An Agenda for Theory Building and Empirical Research.” Current Perspectives in Social Theory10: 113–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ochs, Elinor
    1996 “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity.” InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. byJohn J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 407–438. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    2010 “Making Way and Making Sense: Including Newcomers in Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly73 (2): 152–175. 10.1177/0190272510369668
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510369668 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2011 “Doing Introductions: The Work Involved in Meeting Someone New.” Communication Monographs78 (1): 73–95. 10.1080/03637751.2010.542767
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.542767 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pomerantz, Anita
    1975 Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
  58. 1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs55 (4): 360–373. 10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage
    (2013) “Preference.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sacks, Harvey
    1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. byGraham Button and John R. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 1995Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70 (6): 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  64. 1988 “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” InErving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. byPaul Drew and Anthony Wooton. 89–135. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schneider, Klaus P.
    1988Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schönbach, Peter
    1990Account Episodes: The Management or Escalation of Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M. Lyman
    1968 “Accounts.” American Sociological Review33 (1): 46–62. 10.2307/2092239
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239 [Google Scholar]
  69. Semin, Gün R., and Antony S. R. Manstead
    1983The Accountability of Conduct: A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2010 “An Overview of the Question–Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2772–2781. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  72. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367–392. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  74. Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
    2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1): 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  75. Stokoe, Elizabeth
    2010 ““Have You been Married, Or…?”: Eliciting and Accounting for Relationship Histories in Speed-Dating Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (3): 260–282. 10.1080/08351813.2010.497988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497988 [Google Scholar]
  76. Svennevig, Jan
    1999Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2014 “Direct and Indirect Self-Presentation in First Conversations.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology33 (3): 302–327. 10.1177/0261927X13512307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13512307 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tannen, Deborah
    2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error