Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict - Volume 6, Issue 2, 2018

This paper studies a speech behavior commonly referred to as “bickering,” which occurs primarily among interlocutors of close social distance (e.g. partners, spouses, siblings, roommates). Using ethnographic methodology, the study analyzes 100 naturally occurring sequences of familial conflict conversation supplemented by ten open-ended interviews. These data enable the disambiguation of “bickering” from other speech behaviors such as “complaining” and “nagging.” The analysis offers conclusions on the typical topics, interlocutor relationships and speech behaviors inherent in the bickering event.

This study looks at the way in which four members of a Midwestern American family co-construct the adult child identity of two graduate school students by using particular discursive practices while discussing topics related to parental expectations and decision-making. More specifically, it focuses on what constitutes “guilting” in the adult child-parent interactions. The data shows that guilting, both direct and indirect, is accomplished through making complaints and assessments. Participants orient to particular utterances as guilting and respond with justifications, explanations, or deflection. Guilting is shown to be used as a tool to control others’ future actions and/or to establish closer connection.

The analysis of conflict in family discourse has often been characterised by ethnographic approaches and/or fine-grained analysis of unique conflict episodes. This article, by contrast, uses a c.175,000-word spoken corpus of Irish family discourse, in conjunction with a corpus pragmatic approach, to explore specific linguistic aspects of conflict discourse. Conflict episodes are identified and analysed in the corpus using a range of linguistic “hooks” (Rühlemann 2010) that have been previously associated with prefacing disagreement such as the marker well, mitigators (I think, I mean, I guess) or the counterargument strategy yes but. The analysis reveals that the family members most frequently use the yeah but strategy in conflict episodes which facilitates immediate disagreement. This strategy is often accompanied by a range of mitigators, predominantly in turn final position, some of which have not been previously identified as indexing conflict sequences.

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 Big Brother. 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.

This chapter analyzes conflict discourse between domestic partners/couples. The interactions, recorded in Rosario, Uruguay, were part of a larger study on the refusal behavior of Uruguayan women in various spheres of life (domains). From this corpus, 41 refusal sequences were extracted in which a female participant rejected or refused her male partner in some respect (e.g. request, offer, suggestion). Refusal sequences found in couples talk positively correlated with aggravating moves and the use of upgraders, and negatively with mitigating moves and the use of downgraders. These results are discussed in terms of Wolfson’s (1988) Bulge theory of social distance.

This article shows the role of verbal irony in conflict talk among relatives and friends. Excerpts from ten naturally occurring multiparty conversations among relatives and friends were analyzed. The analysis shows that the introduction of verbal irony in the conversation by one of the participants can: (1) end the conflict between two other participants by switching the topic of the interaction; (2) extend the conflict; (3) fail to alter the trajectory of the conflict sequence because one of the participants does not acknowledge the irony; (4) defuse a dispute about an unpleasant topic for one or two of the participants; or (5) initiate a dispute among relatives and/or friends whose relationship is not a friendly one. The analysis in this article is qualitative rather than quantitative; the tendencies presented are not based on frequency.

This study investigates family conflict talk in a computer-mediated environment from a language-in-interaction focus. It is based on two different data sets of six WhatsApp groups that feature arguing British families, and of six WhatsApp groups that feature arguing Spanish families. It looks at the different linguistic strategies that participants deploy when taking up opposing stances on a given issue. Through a detailed discourse analysis of the conflict-based episodes in English and Spanish, the results not only show a differentiated linguistic process in the way(s) in which the study participants managed conflict, but also suggest that smartphone-mediated interpersonal conflict needs to be understood as an attempt to inhabit legitimate subject positions in and through discourse.