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
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.
- 1.1Related research
- 1.2Aim of this chapter
- 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
- 6.Contribution to the field
Published online: 20 September 2018
Anderson, Peter A., and Tammy R. Blackburn
Bankhead, Tomie D., Amy Bench, Trisha Peterson, Risa Place, and John S. Seiter
Berney-Reddish, Ilona A., and Charles S. Areni
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
Bowers, John W.
Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott
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
Buller, David B., Michael Burgoon, John R. Hall, Norman Levine, Ann M. Taylor, Barbara Beach, Mary Klein Buller, and Charlene Melcher
Burgers, Christian, and Anneke de Graaf
Burgoon, Michael, and Lawrence J. Chase
Burrell, Nancy A., and Randal J. Koper
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
Campos, Alfredo, Jose L. Marcos, and María Á. González
Chase, Lawrence J., and Clifford W. Kelly
Conrad, Susan, and Douglas Biber
Craig, Traci Y., and Kevin L. Blankenship
De Rijke, Maarten, Valentin Jijkoun, Fons Laan, Wouter Weerkamp, Paul Ackermans, and Gijs Geleijnse
Fletcher, William H.
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.
Hamilton, Mark A., and John E. Hunter
Hamilton, Mark A., John E. Hunter, and Michael Burgoon
Ito, Rika, and Sali Tagliamonte
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Marc Brysbaert, and Boris New
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.
In preparation. “Language Intensity: Differences in Usage across Written Media and Genres.”
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. White
Mos, Maria, and Carel van Wijk
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.
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.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee Ross
Pander Maat, Henk
Peneguy, L. Dunn
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston
Van Mulken, Margot, and Peter Jan Schellens
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.
Cited by 1 other publications
Liebrecht, Christine, Lettica Hustinx & Margot van Mulken
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.