Intensification strength in speech: language-specific preferences and differences between native and learner language


  • Isa Hendrikx Université de Liège
  • Kristel Van Goethem F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain
  • Natacha Buntinx Université catholique de Louvain



Intensification strength, additional language acquisition, French, Dutch, English


In this article we analyse the use of intensification in the spoken productions of French-speaking learners of Dutch and English. We compare the strength of intensifiers used by learners in their first language (L1) and in their additional language (AL), and contrast these results with data from control groups of L1 speakers. Our corpus results indicate that L1 English speakers tend to intensify more frequently but opt for weaker intensifiers, while L1 French speakers intensify less frequently but use stronger intensifiers. L1 Dutch speakers take the middle position in both aspects. The analysis of the learner corpora reveals overall more similarities between AL English and L1 English than between AL Dutch and L1 Dutch, confirming the trends observed in previous studies on the same learners (Hendrikx, 2019).


Download data is not yet available.


Beltrama, A., & Staum Casasanto, L. (2017). Totally tall sounds totally younger: Intensification at the socio-semantics interface. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(2), 154-182.

Broekhuis, H. (2020, May 14). 3.1.2. Modification by an intensifier. Taalportaal. Retrieved from (accessed 12 October 2022).

Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., & Vos, R. (2015). Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, vol. I & II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Bulon, A. (2020). Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-immersive settings: Does input quantity impact range and accuracy? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8(1),107-136.

Corpus Gesproken Nederlands - CGN (Version 2.0.3) (2014) [Data set]. Available at the Dutch Language Institute:

De Haan, P., & van der Haagen, M. (2012). Modification of adjectives in very advanced Dutch EFL writing: A development study. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1(1), 129-142.

De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Hiligsmann, Ph., Galand, B. & Van Mensel, L. (2020). Does CLIL shape language attitudes and motivation? Interactions with target languages and instruction levels. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(5), 534-553.

Foolen, A. (2015). Word valence and its effects. In U. M. Lüdtke (Eds.), Consciousness & Emotion Book Series 10 (pp. 241-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Lexical Phrases. In A. Cowie (Eds.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K. Meunier, F., & Hiligsmann, Ph. (2017). Language-specific tendencies towards morphological or syntactic constructions: A corpus study on adjective intensification in L1 Dutch, L1 French and L2 Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 3, 389-420.

Hendrikx, I. (2019). The acquisition of intensifying constructions in Dutch and English by French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL students: Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. Unpublished PhD thesis. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism: A Construction Grammar approach. In Hans C. Boas & Steffen Höder (Eds.) Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional acquisition (pp. 309-337). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S. (2003). Well Weird, Right Dodgy, Very Strange, Really Cool: Layering and Recycling in English Intensifiers. Language in Society, 32(2), 257-279.

Kirschbaum, I. (2002). Schrecklig Nett Und Voll Verrückt Muster Der Adjektiv-Intensivierung Im Deutschen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Düsseldorf Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany.

König, E. (2017). Chapter 1. The comparative basis of intensification. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 15-32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Levshina, N. (2015). How to do Linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Liebrecht, C. (2015). Intens krachtig: stilistische intensiveerders in evaluatieve teksten. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective Intensification: Learners Versus Native Speakers: a Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi BV.

Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic Language and Language Teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 111-129. DOI:10.1017/S0267190512000128.

Meunier, F., Hendrikx, I., Bulon, A., Van Goethem, K., & Naets H. (2020). MulTINCo: Multilingual Traditional Immersion and Native Corpus. Better-documented multi-literacy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1786494

Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1-68.

Napoli, M., & Rivetto, M. (2017). Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London & New York: Routledge.

Paradis, C. (1997). Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.

Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 47-64.

Pérez-Paredes, P., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (2012). Intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and Crossslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research (pp. 105-123). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Puntoni, S., De Langhe, B., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2009). Bilingualism and the emotional intensity of advertising language. Journal of consumer research, 35(6), 1012-1025.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985/1997). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman Group Limited.

Rainer, F. (2015). Intensification. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (pp. 1340-1351). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., & Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

SACODEYL European Youth Language.

Tagliamonte, S. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 361-394. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674308002669.

Tribushinina, E. (2011). Boundedness and relativity: A contrastive study of English and Russian. Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 106-128. DOI:

Van Mensel, L. & Hiligsmann, Ph. (Eds.). (2020). Assessing CLIL: a multidisciplinary approach, [Special issue]. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(5).

Van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Over loodzware bassen en wapperende broekspijpen-Gebruik en perceptie van taalintensiverende stijlmiddelen. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing, 34(1), 26-53.

Zeschel, A. (2012). Incipient Productivity. A Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.







How to Cite

Intensification strength in speech: language-specific preferences and differences between native and learner language. (2024). Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13.