239upon a process of conversational implicature (Evans 2007 : 374; Dancygier and
Sweetser 2005 : 218) or is “hypothetical” (Heine 2012 ).
Considering its analogy with insubordinated clauses, if I may/ might say
might also be assumed to originate in a biclausal structure, in which the main
clause is the “implicit speech act” of the indirect conditional (Quirk et al.
1985 : 1089) or the paraphrased apodosis of relevance conditionals ( I want you
to know that, I inform you that ) (Sweetser 1990 : 119, 120) (see above, Sections
8.2.2 and 8.2.2.1 ). Quirk et al. ( 1985 : 1089) suggest the following type of main
clause:
She’s far too considerate, if I may say so =
I’m telling you , if I may, that she’s far too considerateDespite the intuitive plausibility of this proposed reconstruction, we do not fi nd
historical evidence. Both Middle English and Early Modern English contain
elliptical clauses if I may/ might (as in 13), but no examples of these occurring
with main clause speech act constructions (such as I say to you ).
(13) a. But I will, if I may , satisfi e these men with the same reason that perswaded
me (1596 Barletti, The historie of George Castriot [EEBO])
b. and if I may , I will give an end to the long pains of these Lovers (1640
Duverdier, The love and armes of the Greeke princes [EEBO])
In its earliest attestations, if I may/ might say so appears to be syntactically
independent and fully pragmaticalized, although there may be greater cogni-
zance of its literal meaning than in contemporary English, as shown by (10d)
“if I may say so, And why may I not ....”
8.2.3.2 Semantic Development. The semantic development of the
comment clause if I may/ might say so may be presumed to followed the cor-
related paths of change proposed by Traugott and Dasher ( 2002 : 40, 281)
from content > procedural and from nonsubjective (objective) > subjective >
intersubjective meaning (see Traugott 2003b : 135, 2010 : 35). As discussed
in the previous section, the change from literal (content) meaning (the direct
conditional ‘if I am able/ permitted to speak’) to pragmatic meaning (the epi-
stemic and politeness functions) seems to have occurred already by the earliest
examples.
We also postulate an increase in subjectivity , defi ned as meanings that
are “based in the [speaker/ writer]’s subjective belief state or attitude toward
what is being said and how it is being said” (Traugott 2003b : 125), and inter-
subjectivity , defi ned as “the explicit expression of the [speaker/ writer]’s
attention to the ‘self’ of addressee/ reader in both an epistemic sense (paying
8.2 If I May/Might Say So