Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <seely
linguistlist.org>
I think something is missing in your summary of people's account of these expressions. It seems to me, from a certain amount of research as well as intuition, that hedges like these are commonly, if not indeed invariably, meant to express that the speaker recognises and acknowledges the violation of a norm, but wishes none the less to say what he/she has to say in spite of that. The principle seems to be that violation of a norm of politness or etiquette is at least mitigated this way; more recisely still, that the worst violation is the violation that remains unacknowledged -- acknowledgement mitigating the violation on the grounds that it constitutes something of an apology, at least showing that you are sufficiently decent to know the difference and may, then, have some over riding excuse for the violation. F. K. L. Chit HlaingMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue