Why your favorite intensifiers might be undermining your credibility and persuasive power
In short: Intensifiers like very, really, or super are linguistic fillers that add emotional weight rather than factual substance. While they aim to emphasize a point, they often signal insecurity or deception to listeners. Understanding how these words function—and when they backfire—is essential for anyone looking to communicate with genuine authority.
In linguistics, intensifiers are categorized as expletive attributives. Unlike degree adverbs such as slightly or moderately, which provide measurable quantification, intensifiers are semantically hollow. They do not change the propositional meaning of a clause; instead, they serve as emotional markers designed to influence how a listener perceives the speaker's underlying state. Because they lack the ability to modify verbs—a core trait of traditional adverbs—scholars like Huddleston have argued that they should not even be classified as a primary grammatical category.
The strategic use of these words is highly context-dependent. A 2010 research project from the Stanford Graduate School of Business observed that corporate executives attempting to mask poor performance often rely on an inflated volume of extreme positive language, including intensifiers. Similarly, a 2013 analysis in Forbes suggested that overusing terms like really can backfire, as it may be perceived as a desperate attempt to manufacture sincerity, ultimately triggering doubt in the audience. This aligns with the observation by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1878 that narrators who prioritize evoking interest over the subject matter itself tend to lean on superlatives and exaggeration, which often results in poorer storytelling.
Despite these drawbacks, intensifiers can play a tactical role in specific environments. In legal settings, while excessive use generally weakens an argument, research indicates that lawyers who mirror the high-intensity language found in a judge's own written opinions may see an increase in favorable outcomes. Furthermore, judges themselves are more likely to employ these emotional markers when they are in disagreement with their peers. Ultimately, as the advice often attributed to William Allen White suggests, the most effective way to improve writing is often to strip away these fillers entirely, allowing the core message to stand on its own merits.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Intensifier
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/culture-intensifier.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Language · More in Cultures · Latest · A–Z · All topics
