Intensifying adjectives: emphasisers, amplifiers, downtoners (and limiters)

cat

Intensifying adjectives have some unique characteristics, as we shall see, so deserve special attention. They are also extremely common, especially in spoken language, and their mastery can significantly enhance our learners' communicative powers.

A word of warning

Any search of the web for intensifying adjectives will produce some pretty odd results.

In many cases, they will be wrongly (or even not) classified, wrongly described or not intensifying adjectives at all.
One site has a long list of adjectives falsely classified as intensifiers which includes, for example, delicious, enjoyable, wicked etc. (which are all perfectly normal adjectives) mixed in with some true intensifiers such as utter and sheer.
Many will also assert that intensifying adjectives can only be used with abstract nouns. It is certainly true that they are often used this way, but that assertion would make he's a real hero wrong, and it isn't, of course.
Some sites seem to equate intensifying adjectives with ungradable or extreme adjectives and include, therefore, adjectives like fascinating, hilarious and so on. That is wrong and deeply unhelpful.
Many of the above and some others for good measure assume naïvely that intensifying must mean something like 'making stronger'. In non-technical uses of the word that's quite right but this is not a non-technical area. In our sense, the word intensifying applies to changing the intensity of something and that can mean strengthening it, weakening it or limiting it.
This is not a universally accepted definition of the term intensifying adjective because some stick to the idea that by definition an intensifier must make the modified element stronger or more intense. Here, we don't.

The following attempts to avoid these pitfalls. It covers those adjectives which are:

Emphasisers which enhance the quality of the noun, for example:
It was plain stupidity
Amplifiers which scale the quality of the noun upwards, for example:
She's a great fan of hers.
Downtoners which reduce the strength of the noun's quality, for example:
He told a feeble joke
Limiters which restrict the sense of the noun, for example:
The main reason I went to London was to see her

An allied area is the discussion of adverb intensifiers such as very, extremely, slightly, rather etc. to which there is another guide on this site, linked below.

Two adjective distinctions

Before we get to intensifying adjectives themselves, we need to make two distinctions concerning types of adjectives.

epithets and classifiers

If you have followed the guide to adjectives, linked below, on this site, you may be familiar with these terms. However, here's a reminder.

epithets: are what we understand generally when we use the term 'adjective'. They serve to modify the noun, rather than classify it. For example, we can say it's a fast car, it's an expensive car, it's the slowest car, it's a beautiful flower, it's a blue flower and so on. We can also use adjectives predicatively in, e.g., the car is expensive, the flower is blue etc.
classifiers: don't work like this. We can, for example, have a saloon car, a racing car, a rent car and so on. It is, however, not possible to have *the most saloon car, *the very racing car, *the rentest car, *the car is rent and so on. These modifiers (which are often nouns) classify rather than describe. Classifiers are only used attributively. We cannot have, for example, *the car is saloon.
Classifiers are often called noun adjuncts but on this site, they usually aren't.

Intensifying adjectives are never classifiers; they are always epithets

inherent and non-inherent adjectives

If you have followed the guide to adjectives on this site, you may also be familiar with these terms. However, here's another reminder.

inherent adjectives: refer directly to the noun. For example, in the phrase an old woman, the adjective is inherent in the noun woman. We can have, therefore, an old woman and the woman is old. In other words, the adjective can be used attributively (in the first case) or predicatively (in the second case).
This is important when we are considering intensifying adjectives because, as we shall see, some adjectives function as amplifiers to refer to an inherent quality and in these cases, may be used both attributively and predicatively.
non-inherent adjectives: refer to something connected to the noun but not a characteristic of it per se. For example, we can have the wrong candidate and the candidate is wrong but these have a different meanings.
The first means
    the candidate is the wrong person for the position
the second means
    the candidate is mistaken / has made an error.
Similarly, you can have an old friend but that can mean two things:
    the friend is old
which is an inherent characteristic of the person, and
    the friendship is long standing
which is a non-inherent characteristic referring to the friendship, not the person.
Conventionally, non-inherent adjectives cannot be used predicatively and retain the same meaning but there are exceptions to this, e.g.:
    a new member of the club
can also be expressed as
    the member is new
and that is a predicative use of a non-inherent adjective.

The distinctions outlined above are important in what follows so, if you like, you can try a short test to make sure you've got them clear.

Intensifying adjectives type 1: emphasisers

Emphasisers are quite easy to master because they only have a reinforcing or heightening effect on the noun. This can mean making a positive sense stronger as in, e.g.:
It was a great hit
or we can make a negative aspect weaker as in, e.g.:
It was a mere triviality
This second example is not a sense of downtoning because the effect is to emphasise a negative quality. In other words, it makes whatever is the subject more trivial not less so.

There are three characteristics to note:

They are almost always used attributively: we can have
the outright loss
but not
*the loss is outright
They have homonyms which can confuse our learners: we can have:
    a pure lie
in the sense of complete but not:
    *the lie was pure
However, we can have:
    the pure water
in the sense of unpolluted and
    the water was pure
in the same sense.
We can also have, e.g.:
    a certain loser
or
    a sure loser
which are both attributive uses as emphasisers.
However, when we use the adjectives predicatively, the sense changes. In:
    the man is certain / sure
the adjectives cannot be used attributively and retain the same sense at all.
many are usually ungradable. We cannot have
    *a merer quibble
    *a more utter idiot
    *a realer problem
but some are routinely gradable so we do allow:
    a surer bet
    a more definite objection
    a truer distinction
etc.
More on this follows.

Some examples:

emphasiser	example	predicative use?
certain / sure	a certain / sure bet	No. *the bet was certain / sure
clear	a clear success	Yes. the success was clear (an inherent quality)
definite	a definite problem	No. the problem was definite (but we can have the man was definite* meaning sure)
mere	a mere trifle	No. *the trifle was mere
† real	a real heroine	Yes, but with a change in meaning from emphasiser to non-gradable inherent adjective in the heroine was real (i.e., non-fictional).
simple / plain	the simple / plain truth	Yes, with a slight change in meaning (the truth was plain / simple, i.e., easy to understand). Because this use is inherent in the noun, predicative use is permitted.
true	a true distinction	No, the distinction was true (but we can have the story was true* with a change in meaning from real to accurate)
pure	pure idiocy	No, the idiocy was pure (but we can use pure* predicatively to mean unpolluted in other senses)
sheer	sheer madness	No, the madness was sheer (but sheer* can be used to describe steep cliffs etc.)
utter	utter foolishness	No, *the foolishness was utter
very	the very tool I need	No, *the tool was very

† As was noted above, the adjective real is polysemous in that it can act as an emphasiser in, e.g.:
That was a real help. Thanks.
and it acts to signal that something is factual as in:
This is a real antique, not a copy.
The adverb has a similar dual nature, incidentally.

The word incredible is not in the list above although in casual (and not so casual) speech, it has lately come to mean something like sheer, true or utter.
It really means unbelievable, of course, and is used as a simple adjective in, e.g., an incredible excuse. Partly, the use of emphasisers such as this is a matter of fashion and some words, such as terrible, spiffing and so on fall in and out of fashion over time. This one will eventually go that way, too.
In advertising speak, the word means something like arguably quite good but probably not.

Modifying and grading emphasisers

Modification is irregular.
Gradability is likewise irregular (and slightly arguable).

emphasiser	Modifiable?	Example	Gradable?
sure	YES	It was a very sure bet	YES	This was a surer bet
certain	YES	It was a obviously certain outcome	YES	That horse was a more certain winner
clear	YES	Her success was quite clear	YES	Her success was clearer than ever before
definite	NO	*That is a quite definite problem	YES?	?That's a more definite issue
mere	NO	*It is a very mere triviality	NO	*That's a more mere / merer triviality
real	NO	*She's an absolutely real help	NO	*She's a more real / realer help
simple	YES	The very simple truth is that we have no money	YES?	?The simpler truth is that he can't come
plain	YES	It was quite plain stupidity	NO	*It was plainer stupidity
true	NO	*It is a very true distinction to be asked	YES	This was an even truer honour
pure	YES	That's absolutely pure idiocy	NO	*This is purer idiocy
sheer	NO	*That was absolutely sheer idiocy	NO	*I have never seen sheerer idiocy
utter	NO	*It was very utter foolishness	NO	*This is more utter foolishness
very	NO	*That is the absolutely very tool I need	NO	*That is the more very tool we need
*incredible	YES	She an absolutely incredible worker	YES	Her work was even more incredible

* The colloquial use of this word as an emphasiser and its ephemeral nature are noted above.

Nearly all these adjectives have adverbs derived from them which perform the same kind of emphasising function (for more , see the guide to adverb intensifiers, linked below). Two, however, do not: there is no adverb form of sheer, and very (in this sense; in other senses, it is an adverb).

Intensifying adjectives type 2: amplifiers

Amplifiers are slightly more complicated. They serve to scale the noun upwards from a conventional standard. Hence the name. Here, issues of inherent and non-inherent use are important.

Amplifiers can be both inherent and non-inherent.

We can have a complete disaster and the disaster was complete (both attributive and predicative use). The adjective is inherent and refers directly to the noun.
We can have a great friend but not the friend was great. Here, the intensifier is non-inherent. It refers to the friendship, not the friend directly.

When amplifiers are inherent, they function exactly like emphasisers.
Here are some examples of inherent and non-inherent uses:

amplifier	inherent (predicative use allowed)	non-inherent (no predicative use)
absolute	his absolute power his power was absolute	an absolute hero *the hero was absolute
† close	the close decision the decision is close	close relative *the relative was close
great	her great idea her idea was great	a great friend *the friend is great
perfect	the perfect meal the meal was perfect	a perfect idiot *the idiot is perfect
complete	my complete embarrassment my embarrassment was complete	complete stupidity *the stupidity is complete
firm	his firm support his support was firm	firm supporter *the supporter is firm

† When close means near or nearby, it is an adverb. There is no derived adverb form which can be used as an intensifier. All the other adjectives in this list have derived adverb forms.

Modifying and grading amplifiers

Modifiability and gradability are also irregularly possible with amplifiers.

amplifier	Modifiable?	Example	Gradable?	Example
absolute	NO	*his very absolute power	NO	*a more absolute hero
close	YES	the very close decision	YES	a closer decision
great	NO	*her very great idea	YES	her greatest idea
perfect	YES	a completely perfect meal	NO	*a more perfect idiot
complete	NO	*my very complete embarrassment	NO	*my more complete embarrassment
firm	YES	his very firm support	YES	a firmer supporter

Muddying the water

Many analyses do not distinguish between emphasisers and amplifiers but that is a mistake because, as we see above, they have different characteristics.
It is also true, however, that some adjectives can function in both categories and that can muddy the waters. For example:
    It was a total fiasco
contains the word total acting as an emphasiser and we cannot have
    *The fiasco was total
because emphasisers are confined almost wholly to attributive use.
However:
    They declared total war
contains the same word acting as an amplifier and we can allow:
    The war was total
because amplifiers can be used predicatively and attributively.

Intensifying adjectives type 3: downtoners

Downtoners serve to lessen the characteristics of a noun.
This is a much simpler category because most of these can be used both predicatively and attributively (although attributive use is generally preferred with many of them).
All we need here are some examples of the forms in which the presence of a '?' indicates that the predicative use is not accepted by everyone:

downtoner	Attributive and predicative uses
feeble	his feeble excuse his excuse was feeble
tiny	it was a tiny issue the issue was tiny
slight	a slight earthquake ?the earthquake was slight
poor	a poor reason ?his reason was poor
minor	a minor public school ?the public school was minor
slender	a slender reason ?the reason was slender
small	a small difficulty the difficulty was small

It is probably safest, in the classroom, to prefer the attributive use, as you can see.

We need to be slightly careful when calling an item a downtoner because when the noun itself carries a negative meaning, some of these words act to amplify the sense rather than tone it down. For example in:
a trifling insignificance
a petty inconsequentiality
the adjectives increase the sense of the nouns and are, therefore, amplifiers.

Unlike emphasisers and amplifiers, few of these adjectives have derived adverb forms which can function in the same way.
One may be able to talk of:
    a feebly convincing excuse
    a poorly argued point
    a slightly unpleasant experience
but tiny, minor, slender and small do not have derived adverbs functioning as downtoners. For words which perform that function as adverbs, see the guide to intensifying adverbs linked below.

Modifying and grading downtoners

Thankfully, all downtoners can be both modified and made gradable so we allow, e.g.:
    It was a very poor excuse but hers was even poorer
    The earthquake was extremely slight
    She went to a very minor public school
    It was the tiniest problem
etc.

Type 4: limiters

You will note that the title of this section does not contain the term intensifying because, in fact, these adjectives are rather different. However, they are included here because they share many characteristics and are often taught in parallel with intensifiers proper.
All of these are confined to attributive use in their role of limiting the characteristics of the noun they modify.
The problem with this class of adjectives is threefold:

Some of them also act as emphasisers
Many of them have homonyms which do not serve to limit the noun
None is gradable

In the following, we have noted the problems in more detail.

Limiter	example	Issues
certain	a certain student	This word can be an emphasiser (see above) as in, e.g.: He was the certain winner This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean sure as in, e.g.: The teacher was certain and can be used predicatively. Here it means a particular student.
particular	the particular door	This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean fastidious as in, e.g.: The teacher was very particular about the homework task and can be used predicatively.
specific	the specific officer	This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean unambiguous as in, e.g.: The teacher was very specific and can be used predicatively.
chief	the chief reason	None. These are purely limiters. None can be used predicatively so we do not allow: The reason was chief The reason is principal *The reason is main
principal	the principal reason
main	the main reason
exact	the exact cause	These words also functions as regular adjectives to mean accurate as in, e.g.: The number was exact The figures were precise and can be used predicatively. Here, the adjectives are close synonyms to specific.
precise	the precise cause
only	the only time	This word is often an adverb as in, e.g. She only came to help This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean without siblings as in, e.g.: She's an only child but it cannot be used predicatively in any sense.
sole	the sole time	Unlike only, this is never an adverb and has no other function although it has noun homonyms.
very	the very table	This is an extremely common adverb amplifier as in e.g.: That's very beautiful It is also an emphasiser and covered in that section above, as in, e.g.: She spoke at the very beginning of the meeting but in both its adjective roles can only be used attributively. Here, it is often replaceable with actual.

Limiters, by their nature can neither be modified nor graded so we do not allow:
    *The was the very main reason
    *This is the most principal reason
    *That is the more very table
etc.

As adjectives, these words are usually limiters but the derived adverb forms, where they exist often perform a different function.

certainly and particularly
are emphasisers as in:
That is certainly wrong
It was particularly nasty weather
Other adverb forms are either style disjuncts expressing how the speaker wishes to be understood or adjuncts modifying verbs phrases as in, e.g.:
    I spoke specifically about the issue (adjunct)
    It was, specifically, a matter of government support (disjunct)
    He lectured principally on early agriculture (adjunct)
    Principally, he worked in oil (disjunct)
    This is mainly and issue of time (disjunct)
    She spoke mainly about herself (adjunct)
    Exactly / precisely, it's 567.987 (disjunct)
    He answered exactly (adjunct)
etc.
only and very are adverbs in their own right, the first usually an adjunct and the second the most common adverb intensifier.

	Collocational issues
perfect weather

All modification is, to some extent, constrained by semantic considerations so we do not encounter, for example:
*It was simple weather
because the sense of simple forbids the juxtaposition.
There are, as you are probably aware, few rules that apply to picking the correct collocation in any language but learners can be led to noticing appropriate uses by raising awareness of some of the following:

Emphasisers
- certain and sure refer frequently to possible results (sure outcome, certain winner etc.)
- definite, clear and real often refer to identifying issues (definite problem, real complication, clear mistake etc.)
- true and pure are often positive expressions (true love, pure kindness) but can be used ironically (true idiocy, pure foolishness)
- mere always collocates with small items (mere slip, mere quibble etc.)
- sheer and utter are often used with negative ideas (sheer madness, utter lunacy etc.) but are used positively, too (sheer brilliance, utter mastery etc.)
Amplifiers
- absolute collocates with notions such as power, authority, control etc. and can be used to mean sheer or utter (absolute madness etc.)
- close is generally used to describe decisions (close call, close verdict, close election etc.)
- great collocates quite widely (power, mistake, help etc.)
- perfect and complete generally collocate with positive ideas (success, triumph, skill, achievement etc.) but are also used ironically with negative notions (perfect stupidity, complete failure etc.)
- firm only collocates with nouns applicable to people (firm supporter, firm believer etc.)
Downtoners
- feeble and poor are always negative (feeble excuse, poor performance, feeble speech, poor work etc.)
- tiny, slight and small are variations on a theme and collocate with errors, mistakes, problems, issues and so on
- slender and minor are close in meaning and refer to abstract entities (slender advantage, minor advantage, slender hope, minor consolation)
Limiters
- exact, precise and very (as an adjective) are close in meaning and refer to accuracy (very table, exact position, precise location etc.)
- certain and specific are also close in meaning and often refer to times and time spans (certain delay, specific occasion etc.) and to people (certain employees, specific managers etc.)
- only and sole are quite extreme limiters for feelings and mental constructs (only reason, sole motivation etc.)
- chief, main and principal are virtually synonymous and used in the same way (chief reason, principal motivation, main advantage etc.)

Being clear in teaching

Whether we trouble learners with terms such as inherent and non-inherent, classifier and epithet, the concepts behind these terms are important or we will encourage errors like:

*that supporter is firm
*the problem was definite
*his stupidity was pure
*the relative was close

Classifier or Epithet?

Getting the distinction clear between classifiers (also known as a noun adjuncts) and epithets is often one of raising awareness. Many students, and teachers regrettably, have never thought about the area at all and assume that all noun pre-modifiers are adjectives of some sort.

A good beginning is to discuss with learners which of the following are acceptable and which are wrong and then go on to see why this is the case.

Example	Right or Wrong?	Why?
his is a fast horse but mine is faster
he has a race horse but mine is more race
I have a woollen jacket but hers is more woollen
it was a brick wall
the wall was brick

and so on. Most languages exhibit the distinction between epithets and classifiers so conceptually this is not hard to handle.

Inherent or Non-inherent?

Distinguishing between inherent and non-inherent uses of adjectives is more difficult because it is the meaning which changes rather than the form being always noticeably inaccurate.
One approach is to get learners to spot the difference between two phrases such as:

Are these all correct? What's the difference in meaning?
Example 1	Example 2	What's the difference in meaning?
he's an old school friend	my school friend is old
he is the wrong teacher	the teacher is wrong
that was a perfect lie	the lie was perfect
a certain man was here	the man was certain
my old teacher	my teacher is old
a definite achievement	the achievement was definite
that was complete rudeness	that rudeness was complete
that's total stupidity	that stupidity is total
he's the right person	that person is right
it was sheer nonsense	the nonsense was sheer

and so on. The issue here is that languages do not handle distinctions between inherent and non-inherent use in similar ways, and some do not distinguish at all, so a discussion on the differences in meaning can be very fruitful.

Related guides
adjectives	for the general guide to the word class and more on inherent vs. non-inherent and attributive vs. predicative uses
adverbials	for a more traditional (and quite complicated) approach to this area
intensifying adverbials	for a guide to adverb intensifiers: amplifiers, emphasisers, downtoners and approximators