Consent and contradict are not in a simple binary relationship: There may be several nuances, degrees of this behavior (total or partial), indecision to maintain or advocate (uncertainty), or even a total lack of that (indifference). Recognition of these variants of agreement/disagreement is a key factor in teaching a successful conversation: non-recognition or misinterpretation of the events of the agreement can even lead to the total failure of the given interaction. Although languages generally have a number of lexical and syntactic means for expressing this behaviour, it can still be misleading to rely exclusively on linguistic form. For example, if Actor B agrees with Actor A, he would say yes; But the same „yes“ can also be used to propose exactly the opposite, i.e. to mean differences of opinion, depending on how the „yes“ is pronounced. Alternatively, one can agree or contradict by not even saying a word, simply by keeping a squeal: again, it is the non-verbal behavior that contributes to the understanding of the context, effectively to the pragmatic interpretation of the event. In order to correctly identify the pragmatic functions of the agreement/disagreement, all available modalities, both orally and non-verbal, both audio and visually, must be taken into account. However, there remains a point of challenge. If someone expresses their consent by saying „yes“ and acquiescing at the same time, this agreement is identified as the concreting, virtual temporal orientation of the two events (verbal and gestural). But how can the wisdom of the adage „silence gives consent“ be justified, i.e. how to interpret concordance on the basis of the absence of any behavioural event? Indeed, it is not as if we are faced with zero contributions. We assume that we do arrive at the interpretation of a (certain) agreement after a certain period of observation, during which we collect data from all available modalities (verbal and non-verbal). In this process, we go beyond simply searching for a simple temporal orientation of certain events, but rather identifying behaviors that consist of events over a longer observation period.

It is indeed a cognitive process in which the models thus identified are intersected with stereotypical patterns of behaviour that we already know (as congenital or acquired), and the pragmatic function of the best match is attributed to the given model that was found during the observation period, in our case to that which is related to agreement/disagreement. This paper focused on the discovery of multimodal models of agreement/disagreement based on hucomtech body data. It advocates a multimodal approach to human interaction, showing the interdependence of text, language and gestures in communication, and demonstrates the importance of implementing human behaviours in more user-friendly human-machine interaction systems. It describes the main characteristics of corpus annotation, with an emphasis on classes, which are primarily responsible for the expression of concordance/disagreement. After a brief introduction to the foundations of the research environment, relevant behavioral models were presented to different complexities discovered by Theme. In the making of language, whether speaking or writing, one of the most important linguistic functions is that of agreement and contradiction. This linguistic funciton is important because it allows locophones to negotiate meaning and make agreements while communicating with others. That is why I will teach you in today`s quick letter how to express your agreement and disagreement in English with a comprehensive list of expressions that will allow you to agree with others and not approve of them. I will also show you a few words to express your opinion, because this is closely related to how we agree or disagree with others. Here is a good list of expressions that do not correspond in English: although our body construction has followed the characteristics