Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



While there is a growing body of research on impoliteness and conflict talk, the role of accusations in interpersonal conflict has been only addressed in passing. In this paper, we focus on accusations in conflict talk amongst interactants who are in a situation demanding the formation of intimate relationships within a relatively short span of time, namely, the television reality show . We examine, in particular, accusation sequences arising in multi-party interactions from the Argentinian and Spanish versions of the show. We analyse the ways in which assertions of fault or wrongdoing are construed as accusations through such responses as denials, counter-accusations and challenges, and the ways in which participants explicitly evaluate each other’s behaviour through such sequences. We conclude that accusations are designed primarily to enact moral denunciation or condemnation of another party, and so almost invariably occasion interpersonal disputes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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]
  2. Beach, Wayne
    1990/91 “Avoiding Ownership for Alleged Wrongdoings.” Research on Language and Social Interaction24 (1): 1–36. 10.1080/08351819009389331
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819009389331 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, Jack
    2014 “Preference and the Conversation Analytic Endeavour.” Journal of Pragmatics64: 52–71. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blas Arroyo, José Luis
    2013 “‘No eres inteligente ni para tener amigos…Pues anda que tú’ [‘You are not even clever enough to have any friends…Look who’s talking!’]: A Quantitative Analysis of the Production and Reception of Impoliteness in Present-day Spanish Reality Television.” InReal Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action, edited byNuria Lorenzo-Dus and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 218–244. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137313461_11
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313461_11 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boxer, Diana
    1993aComplaining and Commiserating. A Speech Act View of Solidarity in Spoken American English. Peter Lang, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1993b “Social Distance and Speech Behaviour: The Case of Indirect Complaints.” Journal of Pragmatics19 (2): 103–125. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90084‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Castor, Theresa
    2015 “Accusatory Discourse”. InInternational Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, edited byKaren Tracy, 20–24. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi052
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi052 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulter, Jef
    1990 “Elementary Properties of Argument Sequences”. InInteraction Competence, edited byGeorge Psathas, 181–203. Lanham, Maryland: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis/University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crow, Bryan K.
    1986 “Conversational Pragmatics in Television Talk: The Discourse of Good Sex.” Media, Culture and Society8: 457–484. 10.1177/0163443786008004006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443786008004006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 35–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dersley, Ian, and Anthony Wootton
    2000 “Complaint Sequences within Antagonistic Argument.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (4): 375–406. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dersley, Ian, and Anthony J. Wootton
    2001 “In the heat of the sequence: Interactional Features Preceding Walkouts from Argumentative Talk.” Language in Society30 (4): 611–638.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dobs, Abby Mueller, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2013 “Impoliteness in Polylogal Interaction: Accounting for Face-threat Witnesses’ Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics53: 112–130. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Drew, Paul
    1978 “Accusations: The Occasioned Use of Members’ Knowledge of ‘Religious Geography’ in Describing Events.” Sociology12 (1): 1–22. 10.1177/003803857801200102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200102 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1997 “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics28 (1): 69–101. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1998 “Complaints about Transgressions and Misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction31 (3/4): 295–325. 10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595 [Google Scholar]
  20. Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Holt
    1988 “Complainable Matters: The Use of Idiomatic Expressions in Making Complaints.” Social Problems35 (4): 398–417. 10.2307/800594
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800594 [Google Scholar]
  21. Duranti, Alessandro
    1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dynel, Marta
    2013 “Impoliteness as Disaffiliative Humour in Film Talk.” InDevelopments in Linguistic Humour Theory, edited byMarta Dynel, 105–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.1.07dyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.07dyn [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards, Derek
    2005 “Moaning, Whinging and Laughing: The Subjective Side of Complaints.” Discourse Studies7 (1): 5–29. 10.1177/1461445605048765
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048765 [Google Scholar]
  24. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2010 “A Genre Approach to the Study of Im-politeness.” International Review of Pragmatics2 (1): 46–94. 10.1163/187731010X491747
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731010X491747 [Google Scholar]
  25. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, and Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
    2013 “Reality Television: A Discourse-analytical Perspective.” InReal Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action, edited byNuria Lorenzo-Dus and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 9–23. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137313461_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313461_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Garcia, Angela
    1991 “Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument.” American Sociological Review56 (6): 818–835. 10.2307/2096258
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096258 [Google Scholar]
  27. García, Carmen
    2009 “The Performance of a Rapport-Challenging Act (Blaming) by Peruvian Spanish Speakers.” Journal of Politeness Research5: 217–241. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.012 [Google Scholar]
  28. García-Gómez, Antonio
    2012 “Perceptions of Assertiveness among Women: Triggering and Managing Conflict in Reality Television.” Discourse & Communication6 (4): 379–399. 10.1177/1750481312457500
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312457500 [Google Scholar]
  29. Garfinkel, Harold
    1956 “Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies.” American Journal of Sociology61 (5): 420–424. 10.1086/221800
    https://doi.org/10.1086/221800 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk26 (4/5): 513–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin
    1987 “Children’s arguing.” InLanguage, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective, edited bySusan Philips, Susan Steel and Christine Tanz, 200–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugh, Michael
    2015aIm/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110240078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2015b “Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017 Implicature and the Inferential Substrate. InImplicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, edited byPiotr Cap and Marta Dynel, 281–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.13hau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.13hau [Google Scholar]
  35. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    , forthcoming. “Offence and Conflict Talk.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Conflict edited by Jim O’Driscoll and Lesley Jeffries. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hill, Annette
    2015Reality TV. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
    1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German.” InConversational Routine: Explorations in Standardised Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, edited byFlorian Coulmas, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hutchby, Ian
    2001 “Confrontation as a Spectacle: The Argumentative Frame of the Ricki Lake Show.” InTelevision Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle, edited byAndrew Tolson, 155–172. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2008 “Impoliteness and Emotional Arguments.” Journal of Politeness Research4: 243–265. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  41. Koshik, Irene
    2005Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  42. Komter, Martha L.
    1994 “Accusations and Defences in Courtroom Interaction.” Discourse & Society5 (2): 165–187. 10.1177/0957926594005002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926594005002002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Laforest, Marty
    2002 “Scenes of Family Life: Complaining in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1595–1620. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00077‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2009 “Complaining in Front of a Witness: Aspects of Blaming Others for Their Behaviour in Multi-party Family Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (12): 2452–2464. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.043
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.043 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
    2009 “‘You’re barking mad, I’m out’: Impoliteness and Broadcast Talk.” Journal of Politeness Research5: 159–187. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Marquez Reiter, Rosina
    2013 “The Dynamics of Complaining in a Latin American for-profit Commercial Setting.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 231–247. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.024 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Olshtain, Elite, and Liora Weinbach
    1987 “Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior among Native and Non-native Speakers of Hebrew.” InThe Pragmatic Perspective, edited byJef Verschueren and Marcella Bertucelli-Papi, 195–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.5.15ols
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.15ols [Google Scholar]
  49. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    2015 “Complaints.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, edited byKaren Tracy, 186–192. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi145
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi145 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pomerantz, Anita
    1978 “Attributions of Responsibility: Blamings.” Sociology12 (1): 115–121. 10.1177/003803857801200107
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200107 [Google Scholar]
  51. 1980 “Telling My Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a ‘Fishing’ Device.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  52. 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimating Claims.” Human Studies9: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage
    2013 “Preference.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pomerantz, Anita and Robert E. Sanders
    2013 “Conflict in the Jury Room. Averting Acrimony and Engendering It.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict1 (2): 141–164. 10.1075/jlac.1.2.01pom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.2.01pom [Google Scholar]
  55. Scannell, Paddy
    1991 “Introduction: The Relevance of Talk.” InBroadcast Talk, edited byPaddy Scannell, 1–13. London, Newbury Part and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (2): 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  57. 1988 “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation”. InErving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order, edited byPaul Drew and Anthony Wootton, 89–135. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2005 “On Complainability.” Social Problems52 (4): 449–476. 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449 [Google Scholar]
  59. Selting, Margaret
    1996 “Prosody as an Activity-type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair.” InProsody in Conversation, edited byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margaret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2015 “‘There’s definitely gonna be some serious carnage in this house’ or how to be genuinely impolite in Big Brother UK.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict3 (2): 317–348. 10.1075/jlac.3.2.04sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.2.04sin [Google Scholar]
  61. 2017 “Variability in Group Identity Construction: A Case Study of the Australian and British Big Brother Houses.” Discourse, Context & Media20 (1): 70–82. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society39 (1): 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  63. Stokoe, Elizabeth
    2009 “Doing Actions with Identity Categories: Complaints and Denials in Neighbor Disputes.” Text & Talk29 (1): 75–97. 10.1515/TEXT.2009.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.004 [Google Scholar]
  64. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1990Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [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