On the Use of “I Just Thought” Formulations for Modifying One’s Stance Toward a Problematic Action

ABSTRACT

This article identifies a practice that speakers use in everyday conversation to distance themselves from accountable actions. By using the phrase “I just thought” (IJT) in connection with a target action—which may or may not already be “on record”—speakers downgrade their commitment to that action, while nonetheless not abandoning it entirely. IJTs can be produced on behalf of the speaker or an interlocutor. When produced on behalf of an interlocutor, speakers distance themselves from the target action in a way that absolves the other of accountability—e.g., by denying that the other is imposing on them. In this way, IJTs accomplish interactional solidarity, supporting the situated selves of speakers and coparties. All data are in American and British English.

Notes

¹ In the analysis that follows, “actions” refers to practices such as requesting, questioning, etc., while “activities” refers to the course(s) of action participants are pursuing (e.g., shopping). Although this distinction is an important one, in my data, IJTs perform the same function (i.e., modifying the speaker’s commitment) with regard to both actions and activities.

² Further, in cases where “just” has a temporal connotation (i.e., “x just came to mind”), it can suggest that the object of the thought was spontaneous, rather than premeditated.

³ In this example and those that follow, the names and identities of all participants have been anonymized.

⁴ As Heritage (1984a, p. 99; see also Garfinkel, 1967) observes, an accountable action can provide an occasion for motive ascription, i.e., speculation as to why the protagonist acted as s/he did. By deflecting the inference that she’s doing more than “just a check,” Leslie’s account deals with this possibility.

⁵ Interestingly, all four of the speed-dating IJT’s in my collection accompanied accounts that were solicited in this way. By contrast, only one such instance, examined in the following, occurs in the ordinary-conversation segments. Perhaps the relative frequency of solicitation-responsive IJTs in speed dating has to do with the accountable character of the situation; that is, perhaps there’s something about certain institutional (or formal) settings that makes explicit account solicitations likely—or at least the production of accounts that involve IJT formulations. A larger and more varied collection would be required before drawing any strong conclusions on the matter.

⁶ In my collection, IJTs are only accompanied by “I don’t know” formulations when they’re produced in response to why-type questions. In such cases, the devices (IJT + “I don’t’ know”) work in tandem to disclaim investment in the target action.

⁷ This example is similar to example 4, in that the IJT targets an action-in-progress, rather than one that’s already been taken. Given the small size of my collection, it’s not possible to determine if there are systematic differences between contemporaneous IJTs and backward-looking ones, as there are too few instances of the former. However, it is possible to identify their similarities: In both environments, IJTs target an accountable action and downplay the speaker’s commitment to/investment in that action, either on behalf of the speaker (self-attentive) or an interlocutor (other-attentive).

⁸ As Leslie notes a bit later in the conversation, she has taken some driving lessons, although she doesn’t yet feel confident enough to drive her car.