This is another way of saying that you completely agree with someone. Accepting and contradicting are not in a simple binary relationship: there can be several nuances, the degree of this behavior (in whole or in part), indecision about which opinion to follow or defend it (uncertainty) or even a total lack (indifference). Recognition of these variants of the agreement/objection is a key factor for mediating a successful conversation: incompetence or misinterpretation of convergence events can even lead to the total failure of the given interaction. Although languages generally have a number of lexical and syntactic means to express this behavior, it can still be misleading to rely exclusively on the linguistic form. For example, if actor B agrees with actor A, he could say yes; However, the same “yes” can also be used to suggest exactly the opposite, i.e. signify differences of opinion, depending on how the “yes” is pronounced. Alternatively, one can agree or contradict by not even saying a word, but simply by remaining silent: here too, it is the non-verbal behavior that contributes to the understanding of the context, effectively to the pragmatic interpretation of the event. To correctly identify cases of pragmatic compliance/disagreement functions, it is therefore necessary to take into account all available modalities, verbally or non-verbally, either audio or visually. But there is another challenge in this area. If someone expresses consent by saying “yes” and nodding at the same time, this agreement is identified as the simultaneality, the virtual temporal orientation of both events (verbal and gestural). But how can we justify the wisdom of the proverb “silence gives consent”, that is, how to interpret convergence on the basis of the absence of simultaneous appearance of behavioral events? In fact, it`s not like we`re facing zero en-entry. We assume that after a certain period of observation, when we collect data from all available modalities (verbal and non-verbal), we will arrive at the interpretation of (a certain degree). In doing so, we go beyond simply looking for simple temporal orientations for certain events, but we try to identify behaviors that consist of events that occurred over a longer observation period.
It is indeed a cognitive process in which the patterns thus identified are compared to stereotypical patterns of behavior that we already know (either as innate or acquired), and the pragmatic function of the best concordance is attributed to the given pattern found during the observation period, in our case the one related to approval/disagreement. . . .