In this article we present discourse analysis of initial systemic family therapy sessions, focusing on family members' responses to therapists' attempts to introduce a systemically neutral, relational perspective on their troubles, by means of circular questioning and the final team message. The article draws from a qualitative study of family therapy problem talk with a sample of nine videotaped first and second sessions with six families and four therapists. The sessions were transcribed verbatim and subjected to discourse analysis following the discursive action model. Our analysis indicates that family members may decode the therapists' discursive moves as attributing blame or responsibility to them and engage in further blaming of the identified patient. We conclude by raising the implications of the present research study for the latent attributional work in clinical practice. We also stress the potential of discourse analysis methodology for studying blaming actions and for enhancing reflexivity about our models and practices.Practitioner points • Family members may decode therapists' attempts for introducing a systemically neutral perspective as allocating blame to them for the presenting problem(s). • Practitioners should be reflexive about their potentially blaming discursive contributions in therapeutic dialogue. • Discourse analysis methodology can enhance clinicians' reflexivity about their contributions in therapeutic dialogue.

The present article aims at shedding light to the complex ways in which blame and responsibility are negotiated, when family members and the therapist engage in problem definition talk in systemic family therapy. The article draws from a qualitative research study which was designed to explore problem talk in systemic family therapy by means of discourse analysis methodology. Nine videotaped initial systemic family therapy sessions in which four different therapists and six different families with a variety of reported difficulties were sampled. They were transcribed verbatim and subjected to micro-analysis by means of the Discursive Action Model. In the present article, we present the detailed analysis of one of the identified patterns of blame allocation, in which family members are shown to construct the identified patient’s deviation from normality as the cause of their difficulties while the therapist is shown to attempt to exonerate blame from the identified patient by means of positive connotation. We discuss the implications of our analysis for theory development and clinical practice in the field, in the context of a growing body of related research. We also hint to the potential of discourse analysis methodology for family therapy research.