The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation
Open accessAbstract
Through stories, tellers communicate their stance toward what they are reporting. Story recipients rely on different interactional resources to display alignment with the telling activity and affiliation with the teller's stance. In this article, I examine the communication resources participants to tellings rely on to manage displays of alignment and affiliation during the telling. The primary finding is that whereas vocal continuers simply align with the activity in progress, nods also claim access to the teller's stance toward the events (whether directly or indirectly). In mid-telling, when a recipient nods, she or he claims to have access to the teller's stance toward the event being reported, which in turn conveys preliminary affiliation with the teller's position and that the story is on track toward preferred uptake at story completion. Thus, the concepts of structural alignment and social affiliation are separate interactional issues and are managed by different response tokens in the mid-telling sequential environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977) · Language · doi:10.2307/413107 · Cited by 5,150
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941 · Cited by 829 · cited 7×
“…Schegloff, 1982).1 Although M. H. Goodwin (1980) and Jefferson (1983) have discussed the former as “acknowledgments,” Schegloff (1982) as “continuers,” and Bavelas et al. (2000) as “generic responses,” there is general agreement among these researchers that mm hm, uh huh yeah, and nods form a…”
BackgroundInfluentialBetween and within: alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments
Goodwin, C. (1986) · Human Studies · doi:10.1007/bf00148127 · Cited by 659
Cited by
Advances in the Cross‐Linguistic Study of Ideophones
Dingemanse, M. (2012) · Language and Linguistics Compass · doi:10.1002/lnc3.361 · Cited by 586
An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation
Stivers, T. (2010) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 · Cited by 339
Self-citationThe Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction
Nevile, M. (2015) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499 · Cited by 272
Seuren, L. M., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., Cameron, D., A'Court, C., & Shaw, S. E. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16694 · Cited by 120
Blink as you sync: uncovering eye and nod synchrony in conversation using wearable sensing
Gupta, A., Strivens, F. L., Tag, B., Kunze, K., & Ward, J. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Wearable Computers · doi:10.1145/3341163.3347736 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Stivers, T.
- Venue
- Research on Language and Social Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-02-29
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-57
- ISSN
- 0835-1813 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2151369449
- Cited by
- 1,408
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 180.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08351810701691123
- The paper
- Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.