
handle: 11368/2936345
In this paper, we propose to make some categorizations for pragmatic analysis of mitigation in the medical-scientific text. We tried to apply the pattern of mitigation presented by Caffi (2001) to medical-scientific text, by analyzing some articles in the British Medical Journal. We propose a classification of two types of strategies, bushes (cespugli) and hedges (siepi), and some thoughts about the relationship between bushes and vagueness and between hedges and evidentiality.
KEY WORDS: mitigation, scientific text, hedges, evidentiality, vagueness.
KEY WORDS: mitigation, scientific text, hedges, evidentiality, vagueness.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
