VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/mitigate.1460159/

โ‡ฑ mitigate | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

mitigate

pepe_le_pooh

New Member
English - Ireland
hi

I have always understood the word "mitigate" to mean to "lessen" or to "reduce". For example, in court a prison sentence might be shortened because of "mitigating circumstances", which somehow reduce the level of guilt of the accused.
However, recently I've seen it used as in this example from the BBC News website, in article about cyber attacks in the USA:
<<....a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said the body's US Computer Emergency Readiness Team told federal departments about the issue and of steps "to against such attacks".>>

Is the meaning of the word changing or is this plain wrong?

Pepe
Hi pepe_le_pooh

Mitigate against for militate against is an extremely common error.

It's still an error, though - at least in my view!๐Ÿ‘ Smile :)
The meaning is changing; or rather, the new construction 'mitigate against something' has become more common. We can still use an object: mitigate the severity, mitigate an offence, etc.

'Mitigate against' originated by association with 'militate against'.
The words mitigate and militate are often confused; mitigate means โ€˜make (something bad) less severeโ€™, while militate is used in constructions with against to mean โ€˜be a powerful factor in preventingโ€™.
I have only recently found out how often mitigate against is used in place of militate against. After going through some of the quotes on Google I was surprised to learn that this mistake is extremely common even in academic literature, scientific studies, serious fiction etc.
The usage note in the Merriam Webster dictionary says:

"Mitigate is sometimes used as an intransitive (followed by against) where militate might be expected. Even though Faulkner used it <some intangible and invisible social force that mitigates against him โ€” William Faulkner> and one critic thinks it should be called an American idiom, it is usually considered a mistake"

Still, I can't understand how even careful writers and academics can confuse two verbs which have completely different meanings. Has this malapropism been around for a long time?
Hi giovannino

It's been around for as long as I can remember; and the OED dates it back even ๐Ÿ‘ Smile (:
rolleyes๐Ÿ‘ Smile :)
further:
10. intr. orig. U.S. to mitigate against: (of a fact or circumstance, an action, etc.) to be a powerful factor or consideration against; to counteract (an argument, a condition, etc.); to hinder or inhibit (an outcome).
1893 N. Amer. Rev. Feb. 176 The fact that..the annual product of silver at this ration has been greater than the product of gold does not mitigate against the argument. 1932W. FAULKNER Centaur in Brass in Amer. Mercury Feb. 202/1 It's as though there were some intangible and invisible social force that mitigates against him. 1952 Public Opinion Q. 16 345 A persistent party activity that both mitigates against status-security and conduces to the use of โ€˜challengesโ€™ in political or other discussions. 1963 Times 25 May 12/3 The British social environment and to some extent tax laws, mitigated against a modern merchant adventurer. 1977 Listener (N.Z.) 15 Jan. 30/3 The grass-court scene here, plus travel distances, are the other two factors mitigating against the bigger names coming to Auckland. 1993 Homemaker's Mag. (Toronto) Nov.-Dec. 124/1 Taking amounts well and above the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) may help mitigate against many of the more serious diseases associated with aging.
The OED citations indicate that it's found in a number of varieties of English....

PS. The above is taken from the current on-line edition, labelled DRAFT REVISION Mar. 2010. The second edition of 1989 doesn't include this usage - implying that the OED has only relatively recently decided to include it.
Last edited:
Does the fact that the OED record this usage without any comments indicate that it is is coming to be regarded as acceptable?
Well, I don't think the OED's inclusion of it says anything about its acceptability. But it does indicate that the usage is now seen by the OED as a fact of life, and one which is not going to go away.
What struck me about the examples in the link provided by Packard is that, except in one case, where I think mitigate stands for militate:

Traditional approaches may mitigate against the development of critical thinking skills

in all other cases mitigate is used in its original sense of "make less severe", followed by an unnecessary against (unnecessary, since mitigate is a transitive verb):

We have been advising university clients on measures they can take to mitigate against the potential impact of the Enterprise Act.

The valuation accuracy performance indicator may mitigate against this risk to some extent by placing a limit on the acceptable level of variance

The Bulgarian military contingent in the camp has offered to help make improvements to mitigate against effects of flooding

As a result, the situation is even more confusing than I thought, since mitigate against is being used in two senses: 1) militate against; 2) make less severe.
Fascinating observation, giovannino! I think your analysis is spot on.

Which implies that we've got something of a domino-effect here. First people start replacing "militate" in "militate against" with "mitigate" - presumably because they're not 100% sure of the meaning of either verb. Then "mitigate against" becomes so common that people see it as a perfectly normal and correct collocation. Then people start thinking that if "mitigate against" is correct, "mitigate" tout court must be wrong.

Wouldn't it be nice to come back in 100 years and see what's happened?
If it's been used by world-class writers going back at least to Faulkner and is commonly found in academic literature, journalism, official government statements, etc., I think we can safely conclude that it no longer makes sense to consider it a "mistake".
I think we can safely conclude that it no longer makes sense to consider it a "mistake".

I'd like to hear more opinions about this. How can using a word in a sense which is incompatible not only with its etymology but also with its original, still current sense ("make less severe") not be regarded as a mistake?
How can using a word in a sense which is incompatible not only with its etymology but also with its original, still current sense ("make less severe") not be regarded as a mistake?

... because a linguistic "mistake" that is made by enough people has earned the right to be classified as accepted usage. Some useful linguistic innovations have occurred because of it. In this case, the mistake seems wholly pernicious, but there is no linguistic police to outlaw it.
Nicely put, Pertinax!๐Ÿ‘ Big Grin :D


Here's the acid test: if you found "mitigate against" in a text written by someone else that was to go out under your signature, would you correct it?
... because a linguistic "mistake" that is made by enough people has earned the right to be classified as accepted usage. Some useful linguistic innovations have occurred because of it. In this case, the mistake seems wholly pernicious, but there is no linguistic police to outlaw it.

You've got me there because you are of course completely right: many linguistic innovations started out as "mistakes".
Maybe confusing the two words seems so incomprehensible to me because it could never happen in Italian: mitigare is so clearly related to mite ("mild") that no one could confuse it with militare.

Still, I found another example of the semantic confusion that this mistake linguistic innovation may cause. I googled "militating circumstances" to find out whether it was being used in the sense of "mitigating circumstances". First of all I found out that the phrase "militating circumstances", which I had never heard before, apparently means "compelling circumstances":
Our stance on your not being the vice presidential candidate remains unchanged as the militating circumstances are insurmountable

Well, I found quite a few quotes where I think the writer meant "mitigating" but wrote "militating" instead, such as "a mistake for which there are no militating circumstances" or "although this performance looks poor, there are militating circumstances".

And finally, an example of the reverse process, "militate" being used in place of "mitigate":

For a White House that prides itself on militating the effects of internal drama, the Craig resignation is a real failure
And finally, an example of the reverse process, "militate" being used in place of "mitigate":

For a White House that prides itself on militating the effects of internal drama, the Craig resignation is a real failure
Not a surprise. Spell-checkers are all-pervasive and users of word-processors increasingly reliant on them, rather than on their brains. Grammar checkers do not check meaning, but merely apply rigid rules on sentence construction.

Like dyslexia, Mrs Malaprop lures KO!
Maybe confusing the two words seems so incomprehensible to me because it could never happen in Italian: mitigare is so clearly related to mite ("mild") that no one could confuse it with militare.
I guess that's the difference in English: both words would be quite 'opaque' to most people - there might be a vague feeling that "militate" was somehow connected to "military", though that wouldn't of course take people very far.

It really does look from your researches as though the two words are falling together...

I'll go and check whether the OED's got anything interesting under militate๐Ÿ‘ Big Grin :D

____________

: No, there's nothing in the OED entry for militate to suggest that militate = mitigate has been accepted as a 'fact of life'.
Last edited:
Not a surprise. Spell-checkers are all-pervasive and users of word-processors increasingly reliant on them, rather than on their brains. Grammar checkers do not check meaning, but merely apply rigid rules on sentence construction.

Like dyslexia, Mrs Malaprop lures KO!

Yes, you're right. That was clearly a typo, although probably related to the confusion between the two words. The context makes it clear that the writer meant "mitigate".
However, in the case of "militating circumstances", in quite a few of the quotes on Google I, as a non-native, wasn't sure whether the writer meant "compelling" or "mitigating" (e.g. "the sentence was reduced due to militating circumstances" -- I guess "mitigating" was meant here, but "compelling" might make sense too).
However, in the case of "militating circumstances", in quite a few of the quotes on Google I, as a non-native, wasn't sure whether the writer meant "compelling" or "mitigating"
I find "militating circumstances" quite an odd collocation, in that it implies a transitive use of "militate" (which the OED describes as "now rare").
I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money - maybe even 2 euros!๐Ÿ‘ Eek! :eek:
- that nearly all the writers of "militating circumstances" meant "mitigating"....
hi

I have always understood the word "mitigate" to mean to "lessen" or to "reduce". For example, in court a prison sentence might be shortened because of "mitigating circumstances", which somehow reduce the level of guilt of the accused.
However, recently I've seen it used as in this example from the BBC News website, in article about cyber attacks in the USA:
<<....a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said the body's US Computer Emergency Readiness Team told federal departments about the issue and of steps "to against such attacks".>>

Is the meaning of the word changing or is this plain wrong?

Pepe

Many years on I can report that this battle has been lost! A recent Ofsted report contained the phrase "mitigate against". I have not yet heard one commenator take issue with this. (It could of course be that they were paying more attention to the content of the report....)๐Ÿ‘ Wink ;)
Then "mitigate against" becomes so common that people see it as a perfectly normal and correct collocation.
Take me, for example. ๐Ÿ‘ Eek! :o
I don't believe I ever got 'militate' and 'mitigate' mixed up in and of themselves, but it never occurred to me to question 'mitigate against' until nowโ€ฆ I'm a little surprised; incorrect it may be, but it still sounds (so to speak) legitimate to me, perhaps by some sort of analogy with other constructions involving 'against' that are floating round in my mind, though none in particular occurs to me now.
Well, I wonder if there is a difference between these two sentences:
"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions and mitigate the impacts of climate change."
"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions and mitigate against the impacts of climate change."
To me the first one means tackling climate change at its source so that it has less impact, while the second means that the impacts are the impacts, and businesses need to devise coping mechanisms so they don't feel them as severely. It is thus a more defensive position, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
No?
I see no difference in the intended meaning. If you found them the sentences demonstrate how the use of mitigate has changed, if you wrote them to test a theory then I could point out that both are framed incorrectly.

"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions to mitigate the impacts of climate change."
"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions to mitigate against the impacts of climate change."
"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions and mitigate the impacts of climate change."
"Businesses must adapt to the new conditions and mitigate against the impacts of climate change."
Where did you find these sentences? Is the author/proofreader someone who understands the (original/old/proper) difference between mitigate and militate?
Back
Top Bottom