Throat-clearing phrases are empty openers that delay the presentation of your argument. They slow down sentences, waste space, and frustrate readers. These phrases make the reader dig for the point, and some readers will give up before they find it.
What Is Throat Clearing?
Throat-clearing phrases typically appear before the main subject and verb of a sentence. Instead of starting directly with the topic, the writer inserts transitional, tonal, or polite filler that pushes away the main idea. In legal and academic writing, this often includes formal metadiscourse, hedged commentary, or vague background information.
As explained in Style: Lessons on Clarity and Grace by Joseph M. Williams and Gregory G. Colomb (10th edition), throat clearing typically involves several layers of abstraction, making it harder for readers to identify the argument.
Throat clearing usually consists of these features:
- Empty or Redundant Transitions. These phrases link back to the prior sentence but offer no meaningful connection or forward movement. Common examples include and therefore, however, moreover, and in addition. When overused, they create rhythm but lack direction.
- Metadiscourse and Writer Commentary. Also called speech acts, these phrases announce what the writer is doing or thinking before the writer does it. Examples include it is important to note, in my opinion, for the most part, allegedly, politically speaking, or may I respectfully suggest that. They signal tone or attitude but often delay the point and distract from content.
- Hedged or Overly Formal Openings. These constructions attempt to add formality or show caution but rarely help the reader. Phrases like in my considered opinion, it may be remarked that, or it is important to bear in mind that serve more as rhetorical filler than substantive contribution.
- Passive or Impersonal Constructions. Phrases such as it should be noted that and it has been held that often hide the actor (subject) and bury the action (verb). Sentences that rely on there is or there are cause the same problems. These constructions weaken clarity, defer the point, and increase sentence length without adding value.
- Unnecessary Temporal or Contextual Framing. Writers sometimes open with phrases like since 1980, in recent years, under modern conditions, or from a legal standpoint. These vague cues or background information are just pretending to be helpful. Instead, they delay the real subject or issue.
- Overstated Signposting. Slow setups like There are many similarities... or This issue raises several questions..., often followed by numbered elaborations, clutter the writing and make it sluggish. List the information directly to improve pace.
- Vague Contextual Previews. Openers such as In the modern legal landscape or Since the dawn of administrative law give a sense of setting but little else. Readers don’t want to watch as writers gather their thoughts. Bland set descriptions are not substance.
- Generalized Moral or Legal Commentary. Especially in legal writing, some introductions begin with broad declarations about values, institutions, or ideals. Examples include The justice system plays a vital role in preserving liberty or Courts have long recognized the importance of fairness. These gestures may feel meaningful but are rarely helpful.
Ruthlessly revise to cut out these plodding space-wasters. By the time the reader gets past all the unnecessary contextual cues and qualifiers, the sentence has lost its force. It is especially important to cut throat-clearing language when your sentence already requires a dependent clause before the main clause.
Why Throat Clearing Slows Readers Down
Throat-clearing interferes with clarity and structure because it violates reader expectations. Readers expect a sentence to begin with a clear subject and a strong verb. When that doesn’t happen, they have to work harder to find the main subject and verb, then construct the logic for themselves. When multiple sentences begin with vague or abstract phrases, readers get lost and give up.
Even when used to smooth transitions or soften tone, throat clearing rarely adds value. Use structure, grammar, and content to deliver meaning with fewer words and more power. A sentence that truly matters doesn’t need to be announced as important. Sentences that flow don’t need transitions tacked on.
How to Spot and Remove Throat Clearing
The fix begins with revision. Go sentence by sentence and ask: What is the main idea? Does each clause in the sentence help the reader understand the issue or make a decision? If the answer doesn’t appear until the second clause, or if the sentence could start with fewer words, revise it. Make every word earn its place.
Cut any unnecessary language that comes before the subject and verb. Bring the actor and action forward. Use direct, concrete nouns. Keep sentence subjects consistent across a passage to focus the reader’s attention—don’t vary sentence openings just for variety. Repetition of structure, when well-formed, builds momentum and clarity and supports a resolute argument.
This isn't spelling and grammar software. This is editing software to improve brevity and simplicity.
Succinct writing for 40 cents a day.
The Cost of Clutter
The cost of clutter to legal readers is especially high, so legal writers must lead with clarity. Judges, clients, and partners read to make decisions. They want answers fast. So start with your answer, then support it. A soft or vague opening reflects hesitation, implies that the analysis is weak, signals that the writer hasn’t yet figured out the answer, or suggests that the writing is unfinished. None of these assumptions bode well. But direct, clear sentences are convincing, and concise writing shows respect for the reader’s time and effort.
How WordRake Deletes Throat-Clearing Phrases
WordRake excels at improving professional writing through precise deletion. The software broadly cuts sentence-starting clutter and prudently deletes unnecessary transitions. The edits are carefully tailored to the surrounding punctuation, the semantic and syntactic context, and your document’s needs. Here’s how WordRake handles common throat-clearing phrases:
It is respectfully submitted We argue that the plaintiff’s failure to offer admissible evidence on an essential element of her claim entitles the defendant to judgment as a matter of law.
But, nonetheless, it is important to note that, under the Mottley rule since the early 20th century, a federal defense cannot create federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.
And, thus, it should be noted that, as clarified in Belleville Catering, a U.S. citizen without domicile in any state cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction.
And, therefore, it is worth noting that, under § 1332 since the Saint Paul Mercury standard, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 to support diversity jurisdiction.
And, therefore, it is essential to note that after Celotex and Anderson, federal courts since the 1980s have required more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment.
Accordingly, it is worth considering that, in light of Given the Grable framework, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims only when a federal issue is substantial and actually disputed.
Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that, So under International Shoe and its progeny, courts since 1945 have required minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.
But, nonetheless, one must recall that, under Worldwide Volkswagen, mere foreseeability is not enough; a defendant must deliberately target the forum state.
But, importantly, one must bear in mind that, under Byrd v. Blue Ridge, courts weigh state interests against federal policy to determine which rule governs.
And, thus, it is crucial to recognize that, under Burger King v. Rudzewicz, courts must consider both purposeful availment and fairness in personal jurisdiction analysis.
And, therefore, it is important to recognize that summary judgment has become a more structured procedure in federal courts since the 2010 amendments to Rule 56.
And, accordingly, it is useful to recall that, under the test reaffirmed in Burnham, personal service while physically present in the forum remains constitutionally sufficient.
It should be noted that a A party may consent to personal jurisdiction through a forum-selection clause, even if minimum contacts would otherwise be lacking.
But, importantly, it must be noted that, under § 1332 as applied since Strawbridge, complete diversity is required between all opposing parties.
And, therefore, it should be noted that, in mixed law-and-equity cases since Beacon Theatres, juries must decide legal claims first to preserve the right to trial.
And, therefore, it is essential to point out that, under Beacon Theatres, when legal and equitable claims are joined, the jury must decide the legal issues first.
And while many litigants assume they must produce evidence at the summary judgment stage, it should be recalled that, according to Celotex, the moving party may instead show that the nonmoving party lacks evidence on an essential element.
But, nonetheless, one must recognize that, since Mottley, a well-pleaded complaint must show a federal question on its face to support § 1331 jurisdiction.
But, importantly, one should bear in mind that, under Mas v. Perry, a natural person’s domicile—and therefore citizenship—depends on both residence and intent to remain.
And, thus, it is crucial to understand that the definition of “domicile” requires both physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely since Mas v. Perry.
And, therefore, it is important to remember that, in personal jurisdiction disputes since International Shoe, minimum contacts and fairness—not territorial presence—control.
And, accordingly, it should be recognized that, in diversity cases since Saint Paul Mercury, courts will dismiss if it is legally certain that recovery cannot exceed $75,000.
In situations where Where both legal and equitable claims are presented in the same case and involve overlapping factual issues, Beacon Theatres requires that the legal claims be tried first to a jury.
But, interestingly, it should be remembered that, under the outcome-determinative test from Guaranty Trust, even procedural rules may be treated as substantive.
And, thus, it is useful to emphasize that, according to Hanson v. Denckla, purposeful availment—not foreseeability—remains the core of personal jurisdiction analysis.
And, therefore, it is worth considering that, according to Beacon Theatres, when legal and equitable claims are joined, the legal issues must be tried to a jury first.
And, for that reason, it is important to recognize that, in general jurisdiction cases since Helicopteros, contacts must be continuous, systematic, and substantial.
Therefore, it is helpful to recall that, So under Liberty Lobby, summary judgment turns on whether a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, based on the trial burden of proof.
But, nonetheless, it is important to remember that, according to Liberty Lobby, the summary judgment standard aligns with the burden of proof at trial.
But, importantly, it must be remembered that, in Celotex, the Court held that a movant may win summary judgment by showing that the nonmoving party lacks evidence on an essential element.
And, therefore, one must recognize that Article III allows broader federal jurisdiction than § 1331 does following Osborn v. Bank of the United States.
And, therefore, it is helpful to recall that, according to Saint Paul Mercury, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 unless there is legal certainty the plaintiff cannot recover more.
And, accordingly it is helpful to note that federal courts since the 1980s have required more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment.
But, nonetheless, it should be remembered that, in breach of contract claims since the Mottley decision, merely referencing a federal statute does not create federal-question jurisdiction.
But, importantly, it should be noted that, in International Shoe, the Court replaced territorial tests with the “minimum contacts” standard to satisfy due process.
And, therefore, one must recognize that, under Erie v. Tompkins, federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit.
And, therefore, it is important to note that, in diversity cases since Erie, federal courts must apply state substantive law—including that state’s choice-of-law rules, per Klaxon.
And, accordingly, it is essential to keep in mind that, as held in Belleville Catering, a U.S. citizen with no state domicile cannot satisfy the diversity requirement.
It is commonly understood that a A case may be transferred under § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses, provided that venue would have been proper in the transferee district.
But, nevertheless, it is worth remembering that, under Article III and as interpreted in Osborn, any federal ingredient can be enough to create jurisdiction.
And, thus, it is worth remembering that, under Pennoyer v. Neff, traditional personal jurisdiction was grounded in territorial limits and in-state service.
And, therefore, it is worth noting that, in Burnham, the Court reaffirmed the validity of transient jurisdiction based on in-state personal service, even if brief.
And, therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that, under Saint Paul Mercury, a federal court must dismiss a diversity case if there is legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000.
Conclusion
If you struggle to put yourself in your reader’s shoes or you can’t spot the clutter in your own writing, WordRake can help. With WordRake, you can delete needless transition words and other sentence-starting clutter in one click. Sign up for a 7-day free trial so you can quickly cut the wasteful warm-ups and mealy-mouthed metadiscourse.
About the Authors
Ivy B. Grey is the Chief Strategy & Growth Officer for WordRake. Prior to joining the team, she practiced bankruptcy law for ten years. In 2020, Ivy was recognized as an Influential Woman in Legal Tech by ILTA. She has also been recognized as a Fastcase 50 Honoree and included in the Women of Legal Tech list by the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center. Follow Ivy on Twitter @IvyBGrey or connect with her on LinkedIn.
Danielle Cosimo is a Language Usage Analyst for WordRake. Before joining the team, she was a translator and editor for non-native English speakers applying to degree programs in the United States and the UK. Danielle is formally trained in linguistics and has a certificate in computer programming. She is fluent in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. She applies her interdisciplinary knowledge to create WordRake’s editing algorithms. You can find her on LinkedIn.
The easiest way for writers to create more precise and highly polished writing.
- No credit card needed to get started.
- No more agonizing over your writing.
