Abstracts
Abstract
This paper addresses the role of various forms of intensification on the persuasiveness of rephrased statements in argumentative contexts. Study 1 compares rephrasing through adverbial or verbal intensification to repetition, a similar intensifying strategy, regarding the perceived deservingness (correlated to persuasiveness) of stated outcomes. Results show that adverbial intensifiers create the strongest effect, followed by intensified verbs and repetition. Study 2 examines the effectiveness of rephrasing with intensified verbs compared to rephrasing with intensified objects and repetition. Results indicate that intensifications of the verb yield stronger effects on deservingness/persuasiveness, than intensifications of the object and repetition. Overall, rephrasing through intensification seems to strengthen a justification’s persuasiveness.
Keywords:
- argumentation,
- experimental approach,
- intensification,
- persuasiveness,
- reformulation,
- rephrasing
Résumé
Cet article examine le rôle de diverses formes d'intensification sur la force de persuasion d'énoncés reformulés dans des contextes argumentatifs. L'étude 1 compare la reformulation par intensification adverbiale ou verbale à la répétition — une stratégie d'intensification similaire — en ce qui concerne la perception de la légitimité (corrélée à la force de persuasion) des résultats énoncés. Les résultats montrent que les intensificateurs adverbiaux produisent l'effet le plus marqué, suivis par les verbes intensifiés et la répétition. L'étude 2 analyse l'efficacité de la reformulation au moyen de verbes intensifiés par rapport à celle utilisant des compléments intensifiés et la répétition. Les résultats indiquent que l'intensification du verbe a un impact plus important sur la perception de la légitimité et la force de persuasion que l'intensification du complément et de la répétition. Dans l'ensemble, la reformulation par intensification semble renforcer le pouvoir de persuasion d'une justification.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ahrens, K., & Swinney, D. (1995). Participant roles and the pro-cessing of verbs during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psy-cholinguistic Research, 24(6), 533–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143166.
- Aikin, S. F., & Casey, J. P. (2022). Straw man arguments. Bloomsbury Academic.
- Anscombre, J., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Mardaga.
- Aristotle. (1960). Posterior Analytics. Topica. (H. Tredennick & E. S. Forster, Trans.) Harvard University Press. (Original work published 391 BCE) https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL391/1960/volume.xml.
- Bazzanella, C. (2011). Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in dis-course. Language Sciences, 33(2), 243–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002.
- Bolinger, D. (2013). Degree Words. Walter de Gruyter.
- Budzynska, K., & Reed, C. (2011). Speech acts of argumentation: Inference anchors and peripheral cues in dialogue. Computational Models of Natural Argument: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Work-shop (WS-11-10), 3–10.
- Burton-Roberts, N. (2016). Analysing Sentences. 4th ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646046.
- Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 97–109.
- Centre for Argument Technology. (2023). A Quick Start Guide to In-ference Anchoring Theory (IAT). University of Dundee.
- Cockcroft, R., Cockcroft, S., & Hamilton, C. (2013). Persuading people: An introduction to rhetoric. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Cozijn, R., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in under-standing because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421.
- Cuenca, M. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1069–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3.
- Díez Prados, M., & Cabrejas Eñuelas, A. B. (2012). La cohesión en la retórica política Americana: Los discursos “Gettysburg Address”, “I Have a Dream” y el de "La Investidura de Obama". Estudios Ingle-ses de La Universidad Complutense, 20(0), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_eiuc.2012.v20.39994.
- Dragut, E., & Fellbaum, C. (2014). The role of adverbs in sentiment analysis. Proceedings of frame semantics in NLP: A workshop in honor of Chuck Fillmore (1929-2014), 38–41. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-3010.
- Fiorentini, I., & Sansò, A. (2017). Chapter 8. Intensifiers between grammar and pragmatics: A lesson from a language contact situa-tion. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series (Vol. 189, pp. 173-192). John Benjamins Pub-lishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.09fio.
- Frédéric, M. (1985). La repetition: Etude linguistique et rhétorique. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
- Gopen, G. D. (2021). The rhetorical reasons why Martin Luther King’s" I Have a Dream" speech is one of the greatest 20th century American oratorical gems. Litigation, 48(12).
- Hautli-Janisz, A., Kikteva, Z., Siskou, W., Gorska, K., Becker, R., & Reed, C. (2022). QT30: A corpus of argument and conflict in broadcast debate. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Lan-guage Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2022), 3291–300.
- Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Prag-matics, 8(3), 345–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.
- Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modifica-tion, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–81.
- King Jr., M. L. (1963). “I Have a Dream” Speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the “March on Washington, ”. With Coretta Scott King. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
- Koszowy, M., Oswald, S., Budzynska, K., Konat, B., & Gygax, P. M. (2022). A pragmatic account of rephrase in argumentation: Lin-guistic and cognitive evidence. Informal Logic, 42(1), 49–82.
- Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2016). Argumentation theory. In The international encyclopedia of communication theory and phi-losophy (1st ed). Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198.
- Méndez-Naya, B. (2008). Special issue on English intensifiers. Eng-lish Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 213–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002591.
- Moeschler, J. (1989). Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence and relevance. Argumentation, 3(3), 321–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128944.
- Molinié, G. (1994). Problématique de la répétition. Langue Fran-çaise, no. 101, 102–11.
- Oswald, S., & Lewiński, M. (2014). Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In T. Herman & S. Oswald (Eds.), Rhet-oric & Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strate-gies. Peter Lang.
- Posit Team. (2024). R Studio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 2023.06.1+524) [Computer software] Posit Soft-ware. https://posit.co/
- R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.0) [Computer software] R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
- Rhee, S. (2016). On the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers. Linguistic Research, 33(3), 395–436. https://doi.org/10.17250/KHISLI.33.3.201612.003.
- Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive com-plexity in discourse. Proceedings of the First International Sympo-sium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (Biarritz, France), 105–14.
- Schumann, J. (2025). The pragmatics of straw man fallacies: An ex-perimental approach. Springer Nature Switzerland.
- Schumann, J., & Zufferey, S. (2020). Connectives and straw men. Experimental approach on French and English. Conference Pro-ceedings of the 12th OSSA Conference: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity, 1–16.
- Schumann, J., Zufferey, S., & Oswald, S. (2019). What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessing linguistic factors. Journal of Pragmatics 141, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.009.
- Schumann, J., Zufferey, S., & Oswald, S. (2021). The linguistic for-mulation of fallacies matters: The case of causal connectives. Ar-gumentation 35, 361–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09540-0.
- Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2008). Almost certainly and most definite-ly: Degree modifiers and epistemic stance. Journal of Pragmatics 40(9), 1521–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.015.
- Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., & Stewart, A. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11, 882–88.
- Visser, J., Koszowy, M., Konat, B., Budzynska, K, & Reed, C. (2018). Straw man as misuse of rephrase. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 2). College Publications.
- Younis, R. (2026). (Mis)Representing the opposition and rhetorical success: Experimental evidence on faithful and inaccurate refor-mulations. Argumentation, 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09692-5.
- Younis, R., De Oliveira Fernandes, D., Gygax, P. M., Koszowy, M., & Oswald, S. (2023). Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persua-sive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of re-phrase. Journal of Pragmatics, 210, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.010.
- Zufferey, S., & Cartoni, B. (2012). English and French causal connec-tives in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 232–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf.