Use of "I would" as a filler phrase

[TowerStork]

I'm not a pedant as I don't know grammar rules so I can't explain why this annoys me so much.

Recently I've noticed many work colleagues using 'I would' as filler in speech and text. E.G. 'I would recommend you sit down' instead of 'I recommend you sit down'.

I'm in Ireland but I hear it on British and American podcasts too so it seems to be a trend.

I often edit other people's writing and deleting the 'would' just infuriates me. I think it's the fact that someone is trying to make some clear and concrete into something that sounds vague and hypothetical ... But I don't know if there's any basis to that.

I can’t say I have heard it becoming used more often, but I wonder if it is an ‘antidote’ to the imperative which sounds bossy. You see ‘would’ as vague and unclear, others may see it as softening a sentence which might otherwise appear as a directive?

All that said there are far many more grammar issues that annoy me! This is definitely not in my top ten!

That's a good point and softening imperatives is very common in Ireland so that's likely part of it. I normally don't mind that- I do it all the time.

I suppose it's about appropriate use. It doesn't seem right in official reports where the writer is supposed to be offering expert opinion.

It reminds me of people who say 'I feel like' instead of 'I think that'.

Well if it’s a report that is supposed to be definitive then I agree that softening isn’t helpful, unlike a discussion document which is supposed to provoke discourse.

In terms if I think/I feel that is a logic versus emotion issue. Thinking and feeling are different things, one is more rational, logical and cognitive, the other is more emotional, sensitive and sensation-based.

It’s type 2 conditional tense, so may be appropriate.

For example, if someone asks me for advice based on a reported scenario with no evidence, my “I would advise you to…” implies “If what you have told me is accurate and complete I would advise you to …”.

Thanks @SnakesAndArrows

That makes sense and I'm glad I have a term for it now. But the use that seems prevalent to me isn't conditional. It seems to be cultivating the appearance of conditionality as a means to create distance between the person and the statement.

E.G. this morning I heard a government minister say something like 'I would say funding for media is necessary' in response to the question 'will you make a decision on funding media?'

The 'I would' in that sentence seems really odd to me and that's what I've been noticing more frequently

That is exactly what it’s doing - it’s conditional on something. In the case of weasel words from a politician it implies “if I had any say in the matter” or “if we actually cared about the subject”.

But can also be used legitimately for the same reason. It might imply “if you were asking my opinion…” or “if what you say is true” or “if I know all the facts”, or “This piece of guidance is a bit ambiguous, but” where there is some doubt. Or maybe “If I were you, I would say…”.

Although I’m quite sure it’s used as conversational filler as you say.

Women are more likely to use phrases like this because if we use language that's too assertive, it gets men's backs up.

This is why I wouldn't (!) get incensed about it. I've been burnt too many times by the egos of inadequate male managers at work. Now I often couch my suggestions and criticisms in softened little phrases like this.

My feeling is that... my understanding is... the way I see it... just to offer another view on the matter...

Rather than what I want to say and what I really mean, which is usually "Look, buster. You messed up. Here's the situation and here's how you'll have to fix it. Okay?!"

The problem is, I have no poker face and nobody's fooled

I hear that @Mumoftwo1316

I have to do that with my husband! It might be an idea to look at this... I wonder if there's any point in doing it this way ...

"I would argue" is very annoying.

Would you? Well argue it then.

Using would more frequently is a feature of Hiberno-English @RubyRoss.

I googled and found this -

T.P. Dolan, in A Dictionary of Hiberno-English (third edition, 2012), writes:
Christopher Mac Hale (University of Liverpool) draws attention to the vastly extended use of would in HE [Hiberno-English]:
'Among HE-speakers there is a pronounced tendency to replace the simple present tense with the conditional (would) and the simple past tense with the conditional perfect (would have), for example, "Are you concerned about what your children eat?" – "Yes, I would be", "We would have been very close" (meaning that we were, in fact, very close), "He would have gone to school with me" (meaning that he did, in fact, go to school with the speaker, and an English person hearing an utterance like this is inclined at first to wonder what prevented 'him' from going to school with the speaker).'

I am Irish and this is a very familiar speech pattern to me. I use the word 'would' like this all the time myself, especially in speech or casual writing. I am actually slightly taken aback that you are surprised by it as you're Irish too. It's not a recent development, but maybe you've just started noticing it recently? Or perhaps it's used more in some regions here than others?

To be honest though, I'm not sure if it's really the simple present or past that's being replaced?

To me, ''We would have been very close' translates as 'We were always very close' and not just simply as 'We were very close'...so past habitual? Anyway, a different shade of meaning.

Also, in the example above where the mother answers 'I would be' (when asked if she's concerned for her children) - to me that translates as 'I am always concerned on an ongoing basis' not just 'I am concerned'. So habitual again I think.

That's so interesting @TwirlBar

Reading your post I immediately recognise those expressions. Although I don't think they are as common in my home area in the south west as other places. I assume it comes from Irish similar to "I do be" which is common in HE where I'm from

Nevertheless, thanks to your post, I think what I'm noticing is that people in professional roles are using that everyday use of would in formal contexts where it sounds evasive.

@RubyRoss Yes, 'I do be' is a translation of the present habitual. In Irish the verb 'to be' has both present and present habitual forms. 'Do be' was an effort by people who spoke Irish as their first language to 'bend' English to translate exactly what they meant.

So there's 'I am in the garden' vs 'I do be in the garden', with the latter meaning the speaker is in the garden regularly. It's not used formally.
I know you know this already @RubyRoss. I'm just explaining in case anyone else is interested.

I'm in the south too, though not the south-west, and 'do be' isn't used where I am. I say things like 'I would have been in school with her' all the time though. (I actually started that last sentence with 'I'd say' rather than 'I say' before changing it. It's such a natural way of speaking for me!)

I hadn't noticed people using it more in formal contexts. I'll listen out for it.

Actually, thinking about it again, sometimes 'I would have' is used in place of a simple past tense. Depending on context it often means 'I used to' or 'I was always' rather than simply 'I was' but it can mean the latter too.

For example -
Q 'What time were you at the shop yesterday?'

A 'I would have been there at around two o'clock.'
In this case 'I would have' means I was. There is no condition that needed to be fulfilled and no extra bit needed at the end of that sentence in Hiberno-English.

That's so interesting. I'm feeling less annoyed about it, the more I can contextualise it as everyday speech

I love language debates. I haven't noticed this particular trend but I think that there is a lot of softening of language with fillers like these.
The two relative newbies that really annoy me are use of the expression 'reaching out' and prefacing an opinion or position with 'Look' agggghh I find it so pedantic and redundant!!