tl;dr-ELT

Language plays its part in every type of human interaction. It’s there when we bond with someone, when we negotiate a deal, when we show empathy, when we test boundaries. Trust, in particular, is something we perform through language long before we ever feel it. Which is why a recent Cambridge University Press study by Matteo Fuoli, Nix, Wickert & Van Riper (University of Birmingham) is such an intriguing read: it shows how trust is built, bent & repaired through everyday talk, even when the stakes are ethically questionable.

In a recent post I explored trust incongruence in supervisor–subordinate relationships. That study focused on perception. This new Cambridge research looks at performance: the linguistic moves people use to build, bend & repair trust in real time.

The Study

The researchers examined thousands of recorded phone calls between Enron traders in the period leading up to the company’s collapse. Using corpus linguistics & discourse analysis, they coded every instance of trust‑related behaviour: bonding, building, confiding, probing & repairing. The Enron phone‑call corpus gives researchers something rare: authentic workplace talk captured in the moment, not reconstructed from memory.

The findings

The team identified five core “trust moves”:

• Bond: creating solidarity (“We’ve got each other’s backs”)
• Build: signalling reliability (“I’ll sort this out”)
• Confide: sharing sensitive information
• Probe: testing alignment (“No one else needs to know, right?”)
• Repair: restoring trust after a wobble

If you squint a little, these trust moves aren’t far from what we’d call functional language: signalling alignment, managing rapport, sharing information, repairing misunderstandings. The context here is wildly different, but the underlying communicative functions are surprisingly familiar.

Interpretation

Bonding & building were the most common, often used to pave the way for more sensitive exchanges. Confiding typically appeared only after several rounds of bonding. Probing was subtle but essential for maintaining secrecy. Repair moves were surprisingly frequent, showing how fragile trust can be when wrongdoing is involved.

A key insight was the fact that trust isn’t a stable state. It’s a continuous negotiation. Even long‑term colleagues repeatedly checked alignment before sharing anything risky.

This resonates with Goffman’s work on face, Luhmann’s view of trust as a social mechanism, & Tannen’s research on conversational rapport. It also echoes findings in SLA on willingness to communicate, where trust acts as a precondition for linguistic risk‑taking.

Picture two colleagues planning a shortcut. One says, “We’ve pulled this off before” (bond). The other replies, “Leave the paperwork to me” (build). Later, one asks, “You didn’t mention this to finance, did you?” (probe). If tension arises, you might hear, “Sorry about earlier—I wasn’t trying to blame you” (repair). The moves are universal, even if the context shifts.

Teacher Takeaways?

Although this study sits far from ELT classrooms, the dynamics it uncovers offer some thought‑provoking parallels for how trust is negotiated in learning environments.

• Trust is co‑constructed Even though the study examines corporate wrongdoing, the underlying idea holds: trust isn’t a static trait, it’s something people build moment by moment. In classrooms, small relational moves -checking in, acknowledging effort, inviting opinions- help learners feel the trust you intend to communicate.
• Learners often probe safety before taking risks Just as Enron traders subtly tested alignment before sharing sensitive information, learners often test the “safety” of a classroom before taking linguistic risks. A hesitant “Is this right?” or a cautious attempt at a new structure can be a probe, not a lack of confidence.
• Repair language matters Repair moves in the study show how people restore trust after a wobble. In teaching, modelling repair language (“I think I misunderstood you earlier” or “Let’s try that again together”) can help learners feel secure enough to keep experimenting with language.

Where do you see trust being negotiated in your professional life?