Chapter published in:
The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296] 2018
► pp. 273–296

Two dimensions of language intensity in evaluative discourse

Contextuality and semantic richness

| Tilburg University, Netherlands
| Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
| Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
| Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands

Language intensity has been investigated within several disciplines, such as linguistics, stylistics and social psychology, and from several approaches. As a result, a wide range of intensifying elements and effects have been identified. In this chapter, we demonstrate on the basis of a qualitative corpus-analytical study that two dimensions play a decisive role in the discrimination of intensified language: contextuality and semantic richness. Contextuality reflects the degree to which the intensifying meaning of an element depends on its context. Semantic richness describes the amount of meaningful information that an intensifying element contains on top of its intensification function. This chapter is a starting point for further research concerning the characteristics of language intensity. Our insights contribute to established approaches in corpus-analytical and stylistic research.

Keywords: language intensity, evaluative discourse, qualitative analysis, corpus study, stylistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Related research
    • 1.2Aim of this chapter
  • 2.Contextuality
    • 2.1Context-independent intensifiers
    • 2.2Context-dependent intensifiers
  • 3.Semantic richness
    • 3.1Semantically poor intensifiers
    • 3.2Semantically rich intensifiers
  • 4.Interaction of the dimensions
    • 4.1Contextuality of semantically poor intensifiers
    • 4.2Contextuality of semantically rich intensifiers
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Contribution to the field
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.11lie
References
Abraham, Werner
2001 “How Far Does Semantic Bleaching Go? About Grammaticalization That Does not Terminate in Functional Categories.” In Grammatical Relations in Change, ed. by Jan T. Faarlund, 15–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Peter A., and Tammy R. Blackburn
2004 “An Experimental Study of Language Intensity and Response Rate in Email Surveys.” Communication Reports 17: 73–84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bankhead, Tomie D., Amy Bench, Trisha Peterson, Risa Place, and John S. Seiter
2003 “Intensity and Color of Language in Attitude Change and Emotion.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 96 (2): 492–494.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2008 Emotion Talk across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berney-Reddish, Ilona A., and Charles S. Areni
2005 “Effects of Probability Markers on Advertising Claim Acceptance.” Journal of Marketing Communications 11 (1): 41–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9: 93–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
(1972) Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John W.
1963 “Language Intensity, Social Introversion, and Attitude Change.” Speech Monographs 30 (4): 345–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1964 “Some Correlates of Language Intensity.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 50 (4): 415–420.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buller, David B., Michael Burgoon, John R. Hall, Norman Levine, Ann M. Taylor, Barbara H. Beach, Charlene Melcher, Mary Klein Buller, Sid L. Bowen, Frank G. Hunsaker, and Alan Bergen
2000a “Using Language Intensity to Increase the Success of a Family Intervention to Protect Children from Ultraviolet Radiation: Predictions from Language Expectancy Theory.” Preventive Medicine 30 (2): 103–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buller, David B., Michael Burgoon, John R. Hall, Norman Levine, Ann M. Taylor, Barbara Beach, Mary Klein Buller, and Charlene Melcher
2000b “Long-Term Effects of Language Intensity in Preventive Messages on Planned Family Solar Protection.” Health Communication 12 (3): 261–275.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, Christian, and Anneke de Graaf
2013 “Language Intensity as a Sensationalistic New Feature: The Influence of Style on Sensationalism Perceptions and Effects.” Communications 38 (2): 167–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, Michael, and Lawrence J. Chase
1973 “The Effects of Differential Linguistic Patterns in Messages Attempting to Induce Resistance to Persuasion.” Speech Monographs 40 (1): 1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, Nancy A., and Randal J. Koper
1998 “The Efficacy in Powerful/Powerless Language on Attitudes and Source Credibility.” In Persuasion: Advances through Meta-Analysis, ed. by Mike Allen, and Raymond W. Preiss, 203–215. New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campos, Alfredo, Jose L. Marcos, and María Á. González
1999 “Emotionality of Words as Related to Vividness of Imagery and Concreteness.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 88: 1135–1140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chase, Lawrence J., and Clifford W. Kelly
1976 “Language Intensity and Resistance to Persuasion: A Research Note.” Human Communication Research 3 (1): 82–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan, and Douglas Biber
2001 Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Craig, Traci Y., and Kevin L. Blankenship
2011 “Language and Persuasion: Linguistic Extremity Influences Message Processing and Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30 (3): 290–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2001 “Inflationary Effects in Language and Elsewhere.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan L. Bybee, and Paul J. Hopper, 471–480. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Rijke, Maarten, Valentin Jijkoun, Fons Laan, Wouter Weerkamp, Paul Ackermans, and Gijs Geleijnse
2013 “Generating, Refining and Using Sentiment Lexicons.” In Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch, Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, ed. by Peter Spyns, and Jan Odijk, 359–377. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Douma, Peter
1994 “Wees zo concreet mogelijk: Schrijfadviseurs over concreet en abstract taalgebruik [Be as concrete as possible: Writing consultants about concrete and abstract language use].” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 16 (1): 16–31.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William H.
1980 “ ‘BLOOD-HOT’, ‘STONE-GOOD’: A Preliminary Report on Adjective-Specific Intensifiers in Dutch.” Leuvense Bijdragen 69: 445–472.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad
1997 “Language and Emotions: The Case of Jac. Van Ginneken’s Principes de Linguistique Psychologique (1907).” In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Bernard Caron. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel
1997 “Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 8 (3): 183–206. Obtained via http://​www​.tau​.ac​.il​/~giorar​/files​/Giora​_97​_GradedSalienceHypothesis​.pdf.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “On the Priority of Salient Meanings: Studies of Literal and Figurative Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7): 919–929.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González-Díaz, Victorina
2008 “Recent Developments in English Intensifiers: The Case of very much .” English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 221–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Mark A., and John E. Hunter
1998 “The Effect of Language Intensity of Receiver Evaluations of Message, Source and Topic.” In Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-Analysis, ed. by Mike Allen, and Raymond W. Preiss, 99–138. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Mark A., John E. Hunter, and Michael Burgoon
1990 “An Empirical Test of an Axiomatic Model of The Relationship between Language Intensity and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9 (4): 235–255.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2012 “Elative Compounds in Dutch: Types and Historical Development.” In Crosslinguistic Comparison of Intensified Adjectives and Adverbs, ed. by Guido Oebel, 97–142. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hornikx, Jos
2012 “The Effect of Hedges and Pledges in Advertisements for High and Low Reputation Brands.” In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 307–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Rika, and Sali Tagliamonte
2003 “Well Weird, Right Dodgy, Very Strange, Really Cool: Layering and Recycling in English Intensifiers.” Language in Society 32 (2): 257–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Marc Brysbaert, and Boris New
2010 “SUBTLEX-NL: A New Frequency Measure for Dutch Words Based on Film Subtitles.” Behavior Research Methods 42 (3): 643–650.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Henny
1998 Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula
2008 “Booster Prefixes in Old English – An Alternative View of the Roots of ME forsooth .” English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 245–265.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liebrecht, Christine
2015 Intens krachtig. Stilistische intensiveerders in evaluatieve teksten [Intensely powerful. Language intensifiers in evaluative texts]. PhD Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Liebrecht, Christine, Lettica Hustinx, and Margot van Mulken
Submitted. “The Relative Power of Negativity: The Influence of Language Intensity on Perceived Submitted to Journal of Language and Social Psychology.”
Liebrecht, Christine, Lettica Hustinx, Margot van Mulken, and Peter Jan Schellens
2016a “Een mager scenario, zoutloze grappen en driedubbel en dwars uitgemolken clichés. Taalintensiveerders in professionele en amateurrecensies. [Language intensifiers in reviews of professional and less experienced writers].” In De macht van de taal. Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen, ed. by Dorien van de Mierop, Lieven Buysse, Roel Coesemans, and Paul Gillaerts, 151–165. Leuven and The Hague: Acco.Google Scholar
2016b “Krachtige taal. Een literatuurstudie naar taalintensivering in vier onderzoeksvelden. [Powerful language. A literature review of language intensity in four disciplines].” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 38 (1): 57–79.Google Scholar
In preparation. “Language Intensity: Differences in Usage across Written Media and Genres.”
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Mos, Maria, and Carel van Wijk
2013 “Inventief evalueren in reclame: Algemene effecten en modererende factoren [Inventive evaluations in advertising: General effects and moderating factors].” In Studies in Taalbeheersing 4, ed. by. Ronny Boogaart, and Henrike Jansen, 279–289. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Na, Seung-Hoon, Yeha Lee, Sang-Hyob Nam, and Jong-Hyeok Lee
2009 “Improving Opinion Retrieval Based on Query-Specific Sentiment Lexicon.” In Advances in Information Retrieval. 31th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2009, Toulouse, France, April 6–9, 2009. Proceedings, ed. by Mohand Boughanem, Catherine Berrut, Josiane Mothe, and Chantal Soule-Dupuy, 734–738. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Neessen, Gilian, and Jos Hornikx
2012 “The Effect of Communication Modality on the Persuasiveness of Hedges and Pledges in Advertising Claims.” In The Language Factor in International Business: New Perspectives on Research, Teaching and Practice, ed. by Priscilla Heynderickx, Sylvian Dieltjens, Geert Jacobs, Paul Gillaerts, and Elizabeth de Groot, 199–214. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee Ross
1980 Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk
2004 “Wervend taalgebruik in persberichten – werkt het? Hoe journalisten omgaan met persberichten in de luchtvaartsector [Attractive language use in press releases – does it work? How journalists cope with press releases in the airline industry].” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 26 (3): 207–223.Google Scholar
Peneguy, L. Dunn
1999 “Curbing Language Intensity.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42 (1): 52–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Hans
1994 “Degree Adverbs in Early Modern English.” In Studies in Modern English, ed. by Dieter Kastovsky, 269–288. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Renkema
Jan. 1997 “Geïntensiveerd taalgebruik: een analyseschema [Intensified language: an analysis scheme] .” In Taalgebruik ontrafeld, ed. by Huub van den Bergh, Daniël Janssen, Nanette Bertens, and Mascha Damen, 495–504. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 “Grammaticalization, the Clausal Hierarchy and Semantic Bleaching.” In Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, and Graeme Trousdale, 45–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede
2011 “Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis.” Computational Linguistics 37 (2): 267–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2008 “So Different and Pretty Cool! Recycling Intensifiers in Toronto, Canada.” English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 361–394.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston
2000 “Evaluation: An Introduction.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Mulken, Margot, and Peter Jan Schellens
2006 “Overtuigend? Een stilistische analyse van persuasieve teksten [Persuasive? A stylistic analysis of persuasive texts].” In Studies in Taalbeheersing 2 , ed. by Hans Hoeken, Bernard Hendriks, and Peter Jan Schellens, 224–236. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
2012 “Over loodzware bassen en wapperende broekspijpen: Gebruik en perceptie van taalintensiverende stijlmiddelen [About leaden basses and flapping trouser legs: Usage and perception of intensifying stylistic devices] .” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 34 (1): 26–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vis, Kirsten
2011 Subjectivity in news discourse: A corpus linguistic analysis of informalization. PhD Dissertation, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wilson, Theresa, Janyce Wiebe, and Rebecca Hwa
2004 “Just How Mad Are You? Finding Strong and Weak Opinion Clauses.” Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence San Jose, California, 761–767. Obtained via http://​www​.aaai​.org​/Papers​/AAAI​/2004​/AAAI04​-120​.pdf.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Liebrecht, Christine, Lettica Hustinx & Margot van Mulken
2019. The Relative Power of Negativity: The Influence of Language Intensity on Perceived Strength. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38:2 ► pp. 170 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.