Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions

Abstract

Much of the research on affiliation to date has focused on how people do (dis)affiliation. This paper explores the remedial work that follows 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.

Divided by a common language? Jocular quips and (non-)affiliative responses in initial interactions among American and Australian speakers of English

“…Indeed, we did not identify any instances in our collection of jocular quips in which responses to these quips were disaffiliative per se. However, we did observe a number of cases in which responses to jocular quips were nonaffiliative (Flint et al Forthcoming;cf. Stivers 2008;Stivers et al 2011).…”

Talking about breast symmetry in the breast cancer clinic: What can we learn from an examination of clinical interaction?

“…Research shows that patients may downplay the seriousness of aforementioned concerns in a bid to secure the clinician's acknowledgement of their presenting problem 63,64 . Here, by minimizing her concerns, the patient further invites the surgeon's support and alignment—which she now gets 65 …”

“…Here again, the patient minimizes the significance of the concerns she has just described, this time using the self‐deprecation: ‘It might jus’ all be in me head’ (line 36). We know that self‐deprecations can be used by speakers to 'do' identity work, by presenting themselves as reflexive, analytic beings, able to recognize the potential criticism of others (in this case, that the patient may be ‘imagining it’), at the same time as inoculating themselves against, and preventing, just such criticism 65 . It appears to be used here to invite clinician alignment at precisely the point where such alignment may be lacking (note the barely audible ‘°°Mmm°°’ on line 35) 67,68 .…”

“…Once again, the patient: Minimizes the significance of the concerns she has expressed, in this case through the self‐deprecatory meta‐comment, 65 ‘shouldn’t be making such a fuss’ (lines 2‐3); …”

Indexical and Sequential Properties of Criticisms in Initial Interactions: Implications for Examining (Im) Politeness across Cultures

“…In short, criticising the other persons seems, at first glance, to be an impolite thing to do in an initial interaction. This raises a puzzle as to why they occur so readily, especially given the emphasis typically placed on avoiding disagreement in such contexts (Haugh 2015a;Flint, Haugh & Merrison 2019). One possibility is that criticisms can be a means of inviting intimacy, particularly if they are construed by participants as teasing or playful (Dayter & Rüdiger 2018;Haugh & Pillet-Shore 2018;Hambling-Jones & Merrison 2012).…”