I found online the following:
Pedestrians are pushed off to the sides.
either in the middle or off to the sides.
Off to the sides were open fields.
…flows off to the sides of the…
…swam off to the sides.
Even people off to the sides of these stage speakers enjoy
well-balanced, detailed sound……protesters would stand off to the sides yelling or booing…
Why not at the sides or simply to the sides? I understand swam off to the sides to mean swam away to the sides, but many others elude me.
Back to: "Pedestrians were pushed off to the sides". Interestingly, "push off" is also an idiom/phrasal verb with a totally different meaning. I imagine one can guess in our discussed case "pushed" and "off" are separate. That's one of the hardest things for non-native speakers of English, however, figuring out when those particles are part of the preceding verb, and when they are part of something else in a sencence. It adds to confusion. That's why you hardly ever hear non-natives using phrasal verbs and particles where the meaning is not very very very obvious. In addition I have not heard of a single book on the Enlish language explaining particles beyond the basics. Just saying.
Best Answer
Compare:
to:
In this case, there's the chance of misinterpretation if off is left out. It could sound like the people are directly at the sides of the stage speakers. Off to the sides, however, clarifies that there is distance at play and makes the sentence make more sense.
In other cases where it sounds unnecessary, it may be kept for sonorous purposes. In other words, we say it because it gives the feeling of the language flowing or maintains the rhythm of the sentence.
As another example, compare:
and
In the first example, it's implying a long-range attack; are they shooting her with an arrow?
In the second example, it once again doesn't sound as far away. Maybe they're directly to either side of her or either side of the monster in front of her. In this case, it could conceivably be a close-range attack.