ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on defining and operationalizing linguistic mitigation as a linguistic and socio-pragmatic-affective phenomenon. Several concepts are also discussed concerning how mitigation intersects with vagueness and indirectness. L. A. Czerwionka posits that mitigation represents a modification of language in “response to social and cognitive challenges in contexts of linguistic interaction” following the work of B. Martinovski, W. Mao, J. Gratch, and S. Marsella. Prior to G. Lakoff’s work on vagueness, S. Ullman also noted that “one of the principal sources of vagueness is the generic character of words”, and abstractness in words. M. Terkourafi has also noted that scholars have now proposed expanded definitions of indirectness that go beyond the proposals set forth earlier by H. P. Grice and J. R. Searle. M. Terkourafi has noted, indirect speech may not always be a strategic option on behalf of speakers but instead be “natural and expected under certain circumstances”.
