Robles2026
| Robles2026 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Robles2026 |
| Author(s) | Jessica S. Robles |
| Title | Morally-preferred contrasts in troubles talk complaints |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis, Complaint, Troubles talk |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2026 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 58 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 353-371 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2025.2567820 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Sometimes when people are sharing troubles in their lives with friends and family members, they distinguish problematic behavior from hypothetically more normal, preferable, or even ideal behavior. In so doing, they demonstrate social-moral reasoning and how persuasion is embedded in interactional practices. This article describes two positions in troubles talk where contrasts differentiate and rank categories of people in a corpus of recorded naturally-occurring conversations in U.S. English: in troubles expansion, to recruit affiliation with a complaint about a non-present third party; and wherein the troubles teller responds after encountering possible disaffiliation from the recipient. Both cases show how contrasts may advance the teller’s reasonable stance regarding troubles, recruit the recipient into affiliation, and draw moral boundaries around behavior. This research contributes to our understanding of why and how participants use contrasts in conversation, to accomplish what social actions, and with regard to what moral orientations matter to them.
Notes
