Journal of Pragrmatics 40 (2008) 537�??558
In their article, Janet Bing and Charles Ruhl investigated the pragmatic use of responsibilty statements that usually follow writers' expressions of thanks for colleagues. They explored the face-inhancing value of these statements and compared them to thanks, apologies, and gambits in terms of being "formulaic disclaimers." They argue that claiming responsibilty not only "exonerates others from blame" but also allow authors to claim ownership of and credit for their work. Additionally, responsibility statement allow authors to establish a professional persona and demonstrate that they know the conventions of their profession.
When scholars don't abide but those conventions, they choose to present themselves as "humorous, creative, or individualistic." And most those who do so are famous authors. It is rare that a new writer would not follow this ritual because she/he wants to get the trust of other scholars as well as the readers.
Like conversational disclaimers, responsibilty statements attempt to "forestall a potential
negative evaluation in case readers should discover any errors or shortcomings in the
publication." They also express ritual modesty. However, they differ in terms of being written, relatively formal, and always follow formuals of thanks.
I found it suitable to address this topic as we have been discussing conversational rituals and how they contribute to our relations. You can skim through the article, if you are interested. Just go to the Journal of Pragmatics and click on the relevant volume and issue.