Intensifying adjectives: emphasisers,

amplifiers, downtoners (and limiters)

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:

1. Emphasisers which enhance the quality of the noun, for example:

     It was plain stupidity
2. Amplifiers which scale the quality of the noun upwards, for example:
     She's a great  fan of hers.
3. Downtoners which reduce the strength of the noun's quality, for example:
     He told a feeble  joke
4. 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 / a certain / sure
No. *the bet was certain / sure
sure bet
clear a clear success Yes. the success was clear (an inherent quality)
a definite No. *the problem was definite  (but we can have the man was
definite
problem definite meaning sure)
mere a mere trifle No. *the trifle was mere
Yes, but with a change in meaning from emphasiser to non-
† real a real heroine
gradable inherent adjective in the heroine was real (i.e., non-fictional).
Yes, with a slight change in meaning (the truth was plain / simple, i.e., easy to
simple / the simple /
understand).  Because this use is inherent in the noun, predicative use is
plain plain truth
permitted.
a true No, *the distinction was true (but we can have the story was true with a
true
distinction change in meaning from real to accurate)
No, *the idiocy was pure (but we can use pure predicatively to
pure pure idiocy
mean unpolluted in other senses)
No, *the madness was sheer (but sheer can be used to describe steep cliffs
sheer sheer madness
etc.)
utter
utter No, *the foolishness was utter
foolishness
the very tool I
very No, *the tool was very
need

† 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).

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

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

Gradable
amplifier Modifiable? Example 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
complet *my very complete *my more complete
NO NO
e embarrassment 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

his feeble excuse
feeble
his excuse was feeble
it was a tiny issue
tiny
the issue was tiny
a slight earthquake
slight
?the earthquake was slight
a poor reason
poor
?his reason was poor
a minor public school
minor
?the public school was minor
a slender reason
slender
?the reason was slender
a small difficulty
small
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:

1. Some of them also act as emphasisers

2. Many of them have homonyms which do not serve to limit the noun
3. 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.
This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean fastidious as in, e.g.:
particula the particular
The teacher was very particular about the homework task
r door
and can be used predicatively.
This word also functions as a regular adjective to mean unambiguous as in,
the specific e.g.:
specific
officer 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
the principal allow:
principal *The reason was chief
reason
*The reason is principle
main the main reason *The reason is main
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
precise the precise cause and can be used predicatively.
Here, the adjectives are close synonyms to specific.
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,
only the only time
e.g.:
She's an only child
but it cannot be used predicatively in any sense.
Unlike only, this is never an adverb and has no other function although it has
sole the sole time
noun homonyms.
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.:
very the very table
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 principle 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
o certain and sure refer frequently to possible results (sure outcome, certain winner etc.)
o definite, clear and real often refer to identifying issues (definite problem, real complication,
clear mistake etc.)
o true and pure are often positive expressions (true love, pure kindness) but can be used
ironically (true idiocy, pure foolishness)
o mere always collocates with small items (mere slip, mere quibble  etc.)
o 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
o absolute collocates with notions such as power, authority, control etc. and can be used to
mean sheer or utter (absolute madness etc.)
o close is generally used to describe decisions (close call, close verdict, close election  etc.)
o great collocates quite widely (power, mistake, help etc.)
 o 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.)
o firm only collocates with nouns applicable to people (firm supporter, firm believer etc.)
 Downtoners
o feeble and poor  are always negative (feeble excuse, poor performance, feeble speech, poor
work etc.)
o tiny, slight  and small are variations on a theme and collocate with errors, mistakes,
problems, issues and so on
o slender and minor are close in meaning and refer to abstract entities (slender advantage,
minor advantage, slender hope, minor consolation)
 Limiters
o exact, precise and very (as an adjective) are close in meaning and refer to accuracy (very
table, exact position, precise location etc.)
o 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.)
o only and sole are quite extreme limiters for feelings and mental constructs (only reason, sole
motivation  etc.)
o 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.

Right or
Example Why?
Wrong?
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  
the achievement was
a definite achievement  
definite
that was complete
that rudeness was complete  
rudeness
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
for the general guide to the word class and more on inherent vs. non-inherent and
adjectives
attributive vs. predicative uses
adverbials for a more traditional (and quite complicated) approach to this area
intensifying for a guide to adverb intensifiers: amplifiers, emphasisers, downtoners and
adverbials approximators