There are two words that keep showing up when a writer is not sure how their message will land. One makes you sound like you are apologising for your own request. The other sounds like you are correcting someone who did not ask to be corrected. Neither is doing what the writer intended.
"Just" and "actually" are useful words in the right situations. The problem is the situations where people tend to reach for them — which are usually the wrong ones. I noticed this pattern in my own writing first, then started seeing it everywhere.
"Just" as a Minimiser
"Just" acts as a minimiser when it comes before a request, a suggestion, or a statement of what you are doing. Its job in those positions is to make the request seem smaller, less imposing, less worth the reader's attention. The writer adds "just" to be polite. The effect is the opposite.
Before: "I just wanted to check in on the status of the report."
After: "I'm following up on the status of the report."
The "just" version signals that you think your question might be an imposition. The version without "just" signals that the follow-up is normal and reasonable — which it is. When you apologise for a legitimate request, you invite the reader to treat it as one that can wait.
Common patterns to edit out:
- "I just wanted to follow up..." → "I'm following up..."
- "Just a quick question..." → "Quick question:"
- "I just thought I'd mention..." → "Worth noting:"
- "Just checking if you had a chance to..." → "Did you get a chance to..."
The exception: "just" is fine when it means "only" in the literal sense ("the file is just 2MB") or when indicating timing ("I just sent the email"). It is the apologetic minimiser use that does the damage.
"Actually" as an Accidental Correction
"Actually" has a specific problem in writing: it implies the reader has the wrong information and you are about to set them straight. Even when that is not the intent, the word carries that signal.
"Actually, the meeting is on Thursday" reads like the reader believed it was on a different day — even if no date had been mentioned. The word frames your information as a correction.
Before: "The budget for this quarter is actually $50,000."
After: "The budget for this quarter is $50,000."
Before: "Actually, I think there's a better way to approach this."
After: "There might be a better way to approach this — would it help if I outlined an alternative?"
The second version makes the same offer without the implicit "you were wrong" framing.
Where "actually" is safe: in spoken conversation, where intonation softens it, and in situations where you are explicitly countering a stated incorrect claim. In email, remove it by default and only put it back when the corrective meaning is genuinely what you want to convey.
The Combination: "Just Actually" and "Actually Just"
Some writers use both in the same sentence — usually when they are especially uncertain about how the message will land. The effect compounds: apologetic and corrective at the same time.
Before: "I just actually wanted to flag that the data in the slide might actually be from Q2, not Q3."
After: "The data in this slide looks like it's from Q2 — worth checking before we present."
Other Minimisers Worth Auditing
"Just" is the most common, but several others do the same work:
"Only": "I only wanted to ask..." → "I wanted to ask..."
"Quickly": "I just wanted to quickly ask..." → "Can I ask you..."
"Little": "I have a little question..." → "Quick question:"
"Bother": "Sorry to bother you, but..." → Omit entirely for legitimate requests. Use only when the request is genuinely unusual or out of the ordinary.
When Hedging Is the Right Tool
This is not an argument for blunt, unhedged writing in all situations. Hedging serves real functions — it softens criticism, makes requests feel collaborative rather than instructional, and signals you are open to other views. The problem with "just" is that it hedges things that do not need hedging: status checks, factual updates, and normal requests.
Save hedging for when it genuinely serves the reader: delivering difficult feedback, challenging a senior person's decision, or making a significant ask. See the article on the politeness gap in Asian English for a full treatment of where hedging crosses from courtesy into self-undermining.
One useful test: read the sentence aloud and ask whether a confident colleague would include this word. A confident person asking about a report would say "Where are we with the report?" — not "I just wanted to quickly check if you had a chance to maybe look at the report yet." The minimisers accumulate, and each one signals uncertainty. Removing them one at a time is the right approach.
Quick Reference: "Just" and "Actually" Rewrites
| Original phrasing | How a native reader interprets it | Improved version |
|---|---|---|
| "I just wanted to follow up on the invoice." | The writer thinks this follow-up might be an imposition. | "Following up on the invoice — could you confirm the status?" |
| "Just checking if you had a chance to review the brief." | Apologetic; invites the reader to deprioritise the request. | "Did you get a chance to review the brief?" |
| "Actually, the deadline is next Friday, not Thursday." | You are correcting the reader, even if no date was mentioned. | "The deadline is next Friday." |
| "Actually, I think the budget estimate is too low." | Implies the reader's estimate was wrong before you explain why. | "I think the budget estimate is too low — here's what I'd expect." |
| "I just actually wanted to flag a small concern." | Doubly hedged: apologetic and corrective. Hard to take seriously. | "I want to flag a concern before we move forward." |
| "Sorry to bother you, but I just had a quick question." | Three minimisers in one sentence; the question is being buried. | "Quick question:" |
In Practice
Min-jun is a data analyst at a marketing agency in Melbourne. He has been in Australia for two years and prides himself on being considerate with colleagues. When he notices an error in a presentation slide the day before a client meeting, he sends this message to his team lead: "Hi Sarah, sorry to bother you but I just actually wanted to mention that the conversion rate figure on slide 7 might actually be from last quarter's data — just something I noticed, no urgency of course." Sarah reads the message, does not parse the urgency, and does not update the slide.
Min-jun rewrites the message following a Local Tone suggestion: "Hi Sarah — the conversion rate on slide 7 looks like it's pulling from last quarter's data, not this quarter's. Worth fixing before tomorrow's meeting. Let me know if you want me to update it." Sarah updates the slide within the hour. The actual content of both messages was identical — the difference was that the second version did not bury the point under layers of apology and minimisation.
How to Self-Check Before You Send
- Search your draft for every instance of "just" and ask whether it means "only" in a literal sense — if not, delete it.
- Search for "actually" and ask whether you are genuinely correcting a stated wrong claim — if not, delete it.
- Read the opening sentence of each paragraph aloud: does it sound like something a confident colleague would say, or does it sound like an apology?
- Check for stacked minimisers — any sentence with two or more of "just," "quickly," "only," "little," "sorry," "bother" in combination should be rewritten from scratch.
- Look at your requests and follow-ups: if they begin with "I just wanted to..." rewrite them starting with the actual action ("Following up on...", "Checking on...", "Can you...").
- After removing minimisers, re-read the draft and ask whether the meaning has changed — it almost never does, but the confidence level will read very differently.
Frequently Asked Questions
Won't removing "just" make my emails sound too blunt or aggressive?
No — and this is the most common worry people raise. "I'm following up on the report" is not aggressive; it is neutral and clear. "I just wanted to follow up on the report" is also not aggressive, but it does signal that you are pre-apologising for asking. Native English readers do not interpret the word-free version as rude; they interpret it as normal. Bluntness in English comes from tone and word choice, not from the absence of minimisers. You can be warm and direct at the same time.
Is "actually" always a problem in professional writing?
Not always. If someone has stated something incorrect and you need to correct it, "actually" signals that clearly: "You mentioned the deadline was Thursday — actually it's Friday." That is a legitimate use. The problem is when "actually" precedes a statement that does not correct anything — where it implies a correction without one being necessary. In that context, delete it. In email, the default should be no "actually" unless you are explicitly responding to a factual error.
I write in English as a second language. Are these patterns more common in ESL writing?
Yes, particularly for writers from backgrounds where high-context communication is the norm — many East Asian professional cultures, for example. In high-context communication, indirectness signals respect and consideration. When that sensibility translates into English, it often produces over-hedged writing, because the writer is calibrating for a social context that English readers do not share. The fix is not to abandon politeness, but to learn the English-specific signals for it. In English, clarity and directness are themselves a form of respect for the reader's time.
How Local Tone Handles This
Local Tone's analysis flags minimising uses of "just" and corrective uses of "actually" as part of its pattern tracking. After several sessions, the dashboard shows how frequently these appear in your writing, which makes them easier to notice and catch before sending. The rewrite suggestions remove them in their undermining contexts and keep them where they serve a real purpose.
For related reading on register calibration, see the article on when to use passive voice on purpose and the workplace writing escalation guide.