‘I dunno’
Initially, claims such as ‘I dunno’ seem unpromising targets for detailed attention because they seem to be a verbalised ‘shrug of the shoulders’, a simple
claim that we lack knowledge of some matter. Moreover, we might be tempted to regard these formulations as ‘uncertainty markers’, thus underlining the
cognitive psychological perspective that language use is ultimately a represen- tation of inner cognitive states or psychological processes.
The discourse view, however, treats ‘I dunno’ formulations as activities produced to address particular kinds of interpersonal work. In his study of
interaction in relationship counselling sessions, Edwards 1995a showed how ‘I don’t know’ was used by a man reporting his partner’s clothing to display a
lack of concern for the topic, when disclosing such close monitoring could itself be cited as warranting accusations of overbearing jealousy. ‘I don’t know’ or
‘I dunno’ formulations, then, can be used by speakers to display their uninterest in, or distance from, claims, opinions or descriptions which are in some way
sensitive, or which may be taken as the basis for sceptical or negative inferences about them.
Potter 1997 has illustrated some of the work being done by ‘I dunno’ for- mulations in his analysis of a now famous interview between a television
journalist, Martin Bashir, and Diana, Princess of Wales, shown on British tele- vision. It has been argued that this was an important moment in the history of
the monarchy in the United Kingdom Abell and Stokoe, 2001. Some years earlier Diana’s husband, Prince Charles, had given a television interview in
which he admitted infidelity; and it was widely believed that relations between the couple were frosty. Subsequently a biography of Diana was
published by Andrew Morton, which portrayed Diana in a more sympathetic light. This book, and Diana’s complicity in its writing, was regarded as a way
of getting back at Prince Charles.
During the interview, Bashir raises Diana’s motivation for her involvement in the writing of Morton’s book. Potter points out that in her responses Diana
is managing issues of stake and stake inoculation.
6.5 From Potter, 1997: 151
Bashir: Did you . allow your ↑
friends, your close friends,
to speak to Andrew °Morton°
Diana: Yes I did. Y es I did
Bashir: °Why°?
Diana: I was . at the end of my tether .
I was . desperate . I think I was so fed up with being
. seen as someone who was a ba:sket case .
because I am a very strong person . and I know . that causes complications .
DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY 121
关
in the system . that I live in. 1
Diana smiles and purses lips Bashir: How would a book change that.
Diana: I
↑ dunno.
raises eyebrows, looks away Maybe people have a better understanding .
maybe there’s a lot of women out there who suffer . on the same level
but in a different environment . who are unable to: . stand up for themselves .
because . their self esteem is . cut in two. I dunno
shakes head
Bashir is questioning Diana’s motives for her implicit consent for the book. She acknowledges that she was unhappy with how she felt she had been
portrayed, and suggests that the expectations about how members of the Royal Family should conduct themselves clashed with her personality. Bashir
then asks her ‘How would a book change that.’
At this point, Diana’s involvement in the book is a sensitive matter. Its credibility as an accurate account of her mistreatment by the Royal Family
would be at issue if it were to become apparent that it was motivated by revenge or spite. Her answer is prefaced by ‘I dunno’: this portrays Diana’s
uninterest or lack of concern for the possible impact of the book on her own domestic situation. She then goes on to suggest that the book may help other
women who are burdened by expectations and responsibilities, thus portraying altruistic motives for the book. Finally she closes her account with another
‘I dunno’.
These ‘I dunno’ formulations open and close a turn in which Diana has to address her own stake in the production of Morton’s book and its anticipated
consequences. They allow her to manage the range of potentially unsympa- thetic inferences: that she was motivated to cause embarrassment for her
husband and the Royal Family; that she was driven by revenge, and so on. ‘I dunno’, then, performs work in talk-in-interaction, and is not a simple
representation of knowledge, uncertainty, or any other cognitive state.
With that in mind, we will return to the extract from the interview about personal style and appearance. This comes from a study, conducted by
Sue Widdicombe and myself, of the language used by members of youth sub- cultures during informal interviews about their lifestyle. The initial question
in the interview was designed as an indirect attempt to get the respondents to identify themselves in terms of particular subcultural group categories: punk,
gothic and so on. This was because the interviews were initially under- taken as part of a more traditional social psychology project in which it was
necessary to establish the respondents’ subcultural affiliations without explic- itly presenting them with relevant category terms. On occasions when the
respondents described themselves in terms of a subcultural identity, they did so immediately after the interviewer’s question, and their turns were fairly
minimal in design.
122 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
6.6 From Widdicombe and Wooffitt, 1995: 81–2
Tape starts 1 I:
… about your sty:le 2
0.3 3 I:
and who you are 4
0.4 5 I:
how would you describe yourselves 6 R1: huhh huhh hhagh punk rockers
7 R2: punk rockers yeah huhh huhh
However, we noted that at the start of interviews, our respondents used a vari- ety of resources to avoid identifying themselves as members of particular sub-
cultures. For an account why categorical self-identifications were resisted, see Widdicombe and Wooffitt, 1995: 94–107. It was striking that these resistance
strategies were often accompanied by ‘I dunno’ formulations.
6.7 From Widdicombe and Wooffitt, 1995: 96–7
1 I:
can you tell me something about your style and the way 2
you look, 3
0.7 4
I: how would you descri:be yourselves
5 0.7
6 R1: hh
7 0.7
8 R1: I dunno
I hate those sorts of quest ions uhm 9
R2: yeah horrible
10 isn’t it
In this extract, for example, prior to the ‘I dunno’ formulation, there are gaps and a brief exclamation prior to the respondent’s first words in the turn.
‘I dunno’ is produced as a preface to the respondent’s statement ‘I hate those sorts of questions’, which constitutes a complaint about having to provide a
characterisation of herself. This is a clear resistance to the tacit invitation to provide a self-categorisation in that it topicalises the respondent’s objections
to precisely that kind of self-report.
In the next extract the second respondent R2 provides an ‘I dunno’ for- mulation on behalf of him and his friend, and then uses another one to
preface his claim that his distinctive appearance is a reflection of his own personal taste, rather than a recognisable subcultural style.
6.8 2H:F:FP T3SB
8 I: How would you descri:be the way you look,
some lines omitted
DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY 123
关
14 R1: ah huh
h 15
R2: Er::m:: .3 we dunn o
16 R1:
a good question 17
1.3 18
R2: ah dunno =
ah jus’ 19
0.4 20
R2: ah jus dress how I feel like dressin’
Finally, in the following extract the respondent eventually acknowledges the relevance of a subcultural identification. However, this is managed very carefully.
He does not endorse or provide a self-categorisation; rather, he merely acknowl- edges that there is a consensus that his appearance would be described in terms
of a particular subcultural identification. And, again, we find the turn in which this resistance is accomplished is prefaced by an ‘I dunno’ formulation.
6.9 1P:M:KHS: T9SA
1 I:
OKAy: can you tell me something about 2
yourself your style and that, 3
R: er::m 4
1.2 5
R: what sort’ve thing, 6
0.4 7
I: WEll how would you descri:be it.
8 R: erh:
9 1
10 R: ah dunno
11 0.7
12 R: most people describe it as punk ah suppose
These extracts illustrate three ways in which respondents can resist identify- ing themselves in subcultural terms: by complaining, ‘I dunno I hate those
sorts of questions’; by asserting that their subculturally implicative dress and appearance is a reflection of personal preference, ‘ah dunno=ah jus’.4 ah jus’
dress how I feel like dressin’; and by portraying the relevant subcultural label as someone else’s description, ‘ah dunno .7 most people describe it as punk
ah suppose’. ‘I dunno’ formulations thus seem to be clearly implicated in utterances in which self-identification in terms of subcultural categories
is resisted. Perhaps this is not surprising. If, as Potter has argued, ‘I dunno’ formulations allow speakers to mark a lack of concern for a potentially sensitive
object or topic, we might expect them to occur in turns in which speakers actively seek to deny the relevance of particular issues. ‘I dunno’ works here
to allow the speakers to distance themselves from the relevance of particular kinds of self-identification; it is a way of displaying that they have no vested
interest in their identities as punks or whatever, a stance further underlined by the resistance strategies subsequently undertaken in their utterances.
124 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
关 关
On the basis of these remarks, we can outline areas for future research. First, the use of ‘I dunno’ does not mark cognitive uncertainty or whatever; rather
it constitutes interactional activity. It works at least in these data as a device to attend to sensitive or delicate matters generated in interaction. We can ask
then: what other kinds of work does it do, if any? Second, these data suggest that there may be a sequential basis to the use of ‘I dunno’ which requires
more extensive study. Do ‘I dunno’ formulations cluster in particular kinds of activity sequences? Moreover, in the four extracts discussed in this section,
‘I dunno’ claims tend to preface other activities such as complaining, account- ing, explaining, and so on. Is this structural positioning echoed in the use of
‘I dunno’ claims in other instances of talk-in-interaction? These suggestions are based on preliminary observations; but they demonstrate the kind of empiri-
cal inquiries which are opened up if we treat ‘I dunno’ formulations – or other reports of ostensibly cognitive events – as activities in interaction, rather than
representations of psychological states.
Summary
• Discursive psychology grew out of discourse analytic interest in the ways
in which the realm of ostensibly cognitive phenomena were invoked, or their relevance oriented to, in the production of persuasive or factually
oriented discourse. •
Discursive psychology treats avowals of cognitive phenomena as activi- ties in interaction, rather than representations of psychological states.
• It has been used to explore, among other topics, naturally occurring con-
versational rememberings, social identity, attitudes, and formulations of personal knowledge.
The range and varieties of discursive psychology
Discursive psychology rejects the traditional cognitivist paradigm in psychology which treats inner mental processes as the proper topic for empirical research
and theorising. From this dominant perspective, discourses of all kinds – talk and texts – are taken simply as expressing or representing in various ways the
workings of these inner mental processes. Discursive psychologists, however, treat discourse as the proper topic for research. They take seriously the
… ethnomethodological injunction to treat what cognitivists take to be mental objects as things whose ‘reality’ is their
invocation in whatever human activities they appear in – in ‘work talk, ‘intimate talk’ and ‘casual
talk’ as much as in ‘scientific talk’. Condor and Antaki, 1997: 338; original italics
DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY 125
