JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

The impact of "the negative"

ThomasK

Senior Member
Belgium, Dutch
I once explored the often negative/ pejorative nature of (some) adverbial intensifiers: terribly good (ENG), wreed goed (lit. "cruelly good" in mu own Flemish (Belgian-Dutch) dialect). it seemed to work in quite some languages, maybe even in non-IE languages, or there were traces.

Now I think that holds for titles on youtube.com (for example) too: to make them work as clickbait they apparently have to be negative, even if the content of a video is strictly speaking fairly positive. Generating an atmosphere of shock, negativity, fear seems lucrative. I think it works for newspaper titles too, especially in popular magazines, but sometimes even in quality newspapers.

it seems as if those intensifiers and terms have more force or impact. Now I wondered (based on a question from a friend): is there any reason for assuming that somehow the "negative" (not per se the "pejorative") perception has a stronger impact? (OR: is the negative more forceful?)

is it extra-linguistic? Perception as such might be, but on second thought it might be linguistic to some (large) extent... If you formulate ("word") news in a negative/pejorative form, like what extremist parties do in my view, or when you "steer" percpetion a negative way, you generate a negative perception and a bigger impact. As a matter of fact Hitler used a lot of "biological-pathological metaphors" (like spreading a disease), which impact people through the subconscious, just like water metaphors with regard to migration and refugee movements...
-
This topic is interesting, but in my opinion the mechanics are generally simple. It is not negativity as such but rather continuity and discontinuity in relation to quality.

If you take the purely quantitative intensifier - "very", it does not fundamentally change the quality: what is "good" remains of the same quality when "very good". The difference between "sweet" and "very sweet" is only in the sugar content as unrelated to anything/anyone else. To break this continuity, you need other semantics: for example, if you say "too sweet", this already means that the sweetness goes beyond the limits – from the point of view of human perception but in this case related to physiology. When you say "incredibly", you set boundaries to be crossed, based on typical emotional reactions.

Now note that "too (sweet)" implies the objective side, where it is really negative: the thing can harm the stomach. On the other hand, subjective things like credibilty in terms of impressions, are not the issue here, and as well "shocking" is in any case related to perception, not physical pain. And finally, with vulgarities like "damn good" or "f...ing good", the overstepping of boundaries is achieved through the violation of taboos - religious, sexual or aesthetic - done by the speaker so it's not even that the hearer is to follow the same thing; they are only to get the feeling of a limit - this time a high one, a "(really damn f...ng) high limit" crossed.

With some things like the conventional "cruelly" there may be some more cunning cocktail involving a game with emotions and fears, but the principle is the same - showing the limits crossing. Say the Russian vulgar word пиздец - a noun but used adverbially to intensify an adjective - although coquettishly explained by dictionaries and native speakers as "fiasco", but effectively it refers to death, through the concept of vagina as, you know, the gate beteen being and non-being. This is the last limit, I believe...
Last edited:
This topic is interesting, but in my opinion the mechanics are generally simple. It is not negativity as such but rather continuity and discontinuity in relation to quality.
I could not imagine what you could mean, but... Let's see...
If you take the purely quantitative intensifier - "very", it does not fundamentally change the quality: what is "good" remains of the same quality when "very good". The difference between "sweet" and "very sweet" is only in the sugar content as unrelated to anything/anyone else.
So: you consider "very" a quantifier added to a quality. Is that the best term? Should it not be the intensity? The two are somehow related, but intensity is a psychological criterion, i think, corresponding to a perception that does not refer to an objective reality, like the sugar content. I think people will describe the impact of sugar in personal, subjective terms, and I think there is seldom an objective standard. I seldom hear people check or compare the sugar percentage in order to settle a point about the dose (...) of sugar. So it changes the appreciation of a particular aspect, in casu sugar, I think. There are also various kinds of sugar, I think...
Can't I also say that these intensifiers (as opposed to "too", "trop", etc.) refer a quality spectrum, based on some personal experience, from 1 to infinite (not 100, I think), or a personal maximum as for quality.
To break this continuity, you need other semantics: for example, if you say "too sweet", this already means that the sweetness goes beyond the limits – from the point of view of human perception but in this case related to physiology. When you say "incredibly", you set boundaries to be crossed, based on typical emotional reactions.
Interesting addition, this "too", but that would be a side thread. When describing the way of formulating appreciation of a quality, as i intend to, I am only interested in how people indicate their stronger appreciation. Not their objection to a quality or some need for limits on that quality. "Incredibly sweet" still describes the quality, not any excess, I think, nothing about limits except perhaps those of one's own personal taste when talking about sugar.
But "too" can indeed refer to something negative indeed, when thinking of harm. But "too" is mostly subjective, I think, not too often based on objective facts. The latter would make things easier, I think: you could hardly argue if all our objections were about facts...
Now note that "too (sweet)" implies the objective side, where it is really negative: the thing can harm the stomach. On the other hand, subjective things like credibilty in terms of impressions, are not the issue here, and as well "shocking" is in any case related to perception, not physical pain.
I think "too" is seldom objective, it is often just an expression of a personal problem, based on feelings, prejudices, etc. But sompetimes it is objective. 500 metres is objectively too long a walk for a 1 month old pup, i was told, and it proved true in the facts: after 100 metres it lay down and did not move. ;-)
And finally, with vulgarities like "damn good" or "f...ing good", the overstepping of boundaries is achieved through the violation of taboos - religious, sexual or aesthetic - done by the speaker so it's not even that the hearer is to follow the same thing; they are only to get the feeling of a limit - this time a high one, a "(really damn f...ng) high limit" crossed.
These "powerwords" are powerful because they are linguistically overstepping or violating taboos, agreed. But most of the intensifiers do not exceed limits. They only refer - strangely enough - to unpleasant things in order to reinforce the (expression of) things/... they arppreciate very much. That seems strange. And I do not see a mechanism (based on limits or something) accounting for that, except perhaps for the ones you refer to in the above paragraph (damn, ...).
With some things like the conventional "cruelly" there may be some more cunning cocktail involving a game with emotions and fears, but the principle is the same - showing the limits crossing. Say the Russian vulgar word пиздец - a noun but used adverbially to intensify an adjective - although coquettishly explained by dictionaries and native speakers as "fiasco", but effectively it refers to death, through the concept of vagina as, you know, the gate beteen being and non-being. This is the last limit, I believe...
That would be a limit indeed. But i do not see it work with the "less agressive" ones. We also say "deadtired" (doodmoe), but this is not a moral limit, I think, only perhaps a shocking one. I have not yet heard someone object to these "dead" intensifiers.
But OK, I might not have understood perfectly. in that case please point out where i was "dead wrong" or "terribly mistaken"... Aaaarrrrhhhh!
So: you consider "very" a quantifier added to a quality. Is that the best term? Should it not be the intensity?
Yes; you know, at first I wrote it in quotes, but then I removed them to avoid mess as there was my "very" also in quotes... In short, I didn’t mean a linguistic category, but simply wanted some focus on that it's the degree without involving external concepts, both subjective or objective.
Can't I also say that these intensifiers (as opposed to "too", "trop", etc.) refer a quality spectrum, based on some personal experience, from 1 to infinite (not 100, I think), or a personal maximum as for quality.
You can, of course, but the subjective would be your personal associations, and it's pragmatics. The semantics of very only says that it's higher of some value that happens to be the median, and it doesn't imply a limit above it crossed. "Too", by contrast, does.
"Incredibly sweet" still describes the quality, not any excess, I think, nothing about limits except perhaps those of one's own personal taste when talking about sugar.
They all describe quality but in different ways. We have a compleх of two words, andб we should distinguish between semantics - the inner essence of a word, including its prototype, and pragmatics - the latter is expressed in the fact that the average speaker may consider two words to be equivalent when you ask them about it, but nevertheless their choice of the word in a certain spech situation, ultimately stems from the words' semantics. "Incredibly" means "such that you wouldn't believe that's possible", and "too" means "more than appropriate/one can stand/etc". So my referring to "too" as objective, was about the semantic side: "too" refers to some human norm - norm as a range, not baseline; its precise value can vary subjectively but it exists objectively as a conceptual entity.
But most of the intensifiers do not exceed limits. They only refer - strangely enough - to unpleasant things in order to reinforce the (expression of) things/... they arppreciate very much.
You need to explore them in terms of psychology (I don’t like the term and what is behind it, psychology, but there is no other). This way or another, all these words are to create some extreme, and this only can be achived through the introducing of some limit crossed. Otherwise, how can you form the sense of that extreme?
Last edited:
In colloquial Hungarian there is a plenty of these "intensifiers" (even new terms are "invented" from time to time ...)

At the first glance, I should divide them into three categories (perhaps not valid for the English):

1. Adjectives/adverbs like "awful, terriible, cruel, incredible ...".
These words, even if exaggerated and not "objective", they can be understood as expressing of a "shocking / extreme quality"...

2. Other words like "beast, animal, cattle,..."
These words do not directly express a quality, but perhaps their force or big dimensions or incontrolled behavior,... serves to express the extraordinality ...

3. Vulgar terms like "fu..ing, .."
This is similar to the previous (2.) with the difference that it is a "kind of style". I.e. people who use them, do tend to use vulgarisms in other contexts as well. So I have the impression that the usage of vulgarisms is rather a separate psychological theme/question ...
Last edited:
Yes; you know, at first I wrote it in quotes, but then I removed them to avoid mess as there was my "very" also in quotes... In short, I didn’t mean a linguistic category, but simply wanted some focus on that it's the degree without involving external concepts, both subjective or objective.

You can, of course, but the subjective would be your personal associations, and it's pragmatics. The semantics of very only says that it's higher of some value that happens to be the median, and it doesn't imply a limit above it crossed. "Too", by contrast, does.
That distinction might be interesting here, but on the other hand I am just wondering about the semantic meaning. This use of "terribly", etc., is becoming semantic as the intensity meaning is the context no longer plays a role, I think, in defining the meaning. Morever, "extremely" is the first meaning listed at google.com (cannot check at the OED). Then I think it is no longer contextually defined. (I'd suggest we do not discuss the "too" here because I do not consider it helpful at this stage...)

I'll be back later to discuss the paragraph below. OK?
They all describe quality but in different ways. We have a compleх of two words, andб we should distinguish between semantics - the inner essence of a word, including its prototype, and pragmatics - the latter is expressed in the fact that the average speaker may consider two words to be equivalent when you ask them about it, but nevertheless their choice of the word in a certain spech situation, ultimately stems from the words' semantics. "Incredibly" means "such that you wouldn't believe that's possible", and "too" means "more than appropriate/one can stand/etc". So my referring to "too" as objective, was about the semantic side: "too" refers to some human norm - norm as a range, not baseline; its precise value can vary subjectively but it exists objectively as a conceptual entity.

You need to explore them in terms of psychology (I don’t like the term and what is behind it, psychology, but there is no other). This way or another, all these words are to create some extreme, and this only can be achived through the introducing of some limit crossed. Otherwise, how can you form the sense of that extreme?
View attachment 103880
That distinction might be interesting here, but on the other hand I am just wondering about the semantic meaning. This use of "terribly", etc., is becoming semantic as the intensity meaning is the context no longer plays a role, I think, in defining the meaning.
Yes, in general I only tried to outline the general principle: the sense an extreme degree of a quality is modeled through the sense of a limit crossed in something else. But as for specific usage, we need to consider the realities of a language and culture.
So, in Russian I hardly can say "terribly good" but I can "terribly beautiful" (albeit this sounds somewhat childish) or "terribly in love" - where it connotes with "no escape". Also I see no use for "cruelly", but we have e.g. "wildly" (as "crazily") - дико - and then it's more in use with "tired", "unjustice" and the like, rather than with e.g. beauty, and not so suitable with "good". And all the specifics are bound to culture: so, in Russia the Soviet atheism resulted in that things like "damn(ed)", "hell", "devil" became more like comical, bookish or even some kind of an old virgin's language - whereas in many Christian countries these are taboos, which in turn affects the rest of vocabulary in terms of where the sensitive points are.
Last edited:
This negation can be double once the negative word is no longer negative.
So terrible becomes positive, then you need pas terrible to make it negative again. Then it softens to become "not too good". Then finally even that is even promoted to neutral "nothing to write home about". Pas terrible ce café.

How about personne changing meaning from "person" to "no one". Then the negative particle ne is dropped so the default meaning of personne in no one. Personne vient à ma fête.

Same with plus meaning "more" changes to "no more" with the negative particle ne and then ne is dropped. Then J'en veux plus looks ambiguous, so better use davantage to mean "some more". T'en veux plus? Si, si, donne-m'en davantage.

Similarly, following the same process aucun went from being "a few" to being exclusively negative. Not a few, none.

A slightly different example in progress" "très" very (poditive) and "trop" too much (negative) are moving. Très is no longer seen to be strong enough so it's being replaced with trop which is becoming increasingly positive. C'est trop bon. Je suis trop content.
Last edited:
I'll add some more. Generally speaking, terrible means - I can't stand it. And in order to understand why negative meanings can go along with positive things, just think of this: negativity has an extreme degree - horror, pain, death, but what extreme degree does positivity have? The wise will agree that positivity is in peace of mind and balance, that is, the absence of extremes. In the extreme, there is no difference whether the sensation is positive or not. Orgasm is effectively a cramp - if your leg cramps you will bend and moan and the whole difference is in what your mind says about it - is it good or not, whereas all you get in fact is just a loss of energy. This world is a world of suffering :)
Now note that "too (sweet)" implies the objective side, where it is really negative: the thing can harm the stomach.
The more interesting part, in my opinion, is when it works the other way around: that is, a non-modified adjective ALREADY contextually implies an excess (a rather common phenomenon in Russian): literally '(I won't eat because) the food is hot' (= too hot), 'the shoes are small for me' (= too small), 'it's already much' (= too much) etc. But anyway, it's already off-topic, I suppose.
With some things like the conventional "cruelly" there may be some more cunning cocktail involving a game with emotions and fears, but the principle is the same - showing the limits crossing.
I'd mostly agree. It's all pretty much along the lines with "so much fun that it should be illegal".
This negation can be double once the negative word is no longer negative.
So terrible becomes positive, then you need pas terrible to make it negative again. Then it softens to become "not too good". Then finally even that is even promoted to neutral "nothing to write home about". Pas terrible ce café.

How about personne changing meaning from "person" to "no one". Then the negative particle ne is dropped so the default meaning of personne in no one. Personne vient à ma fête.

Same with plus meaning "more" changes to "no more" with the negative particle ne and then ne is dropped. Then J'en veux plus looks ambiguous, so better use davantage to mean "some more". T'en veux plus? Si, si, donne-m'en davantage.

Similarly, following the same process aucun went from being "a few" to being exclusively negative. Not a few, none.

A slightly different example in progress" "très" very (poditive) and "trop" too much (negative) are moving. Très is no longer seen to be strong enough so it's being replaced with trop which is becoming increasingly positive. C'est trop bon. Je suis trop content.
Interesting note.s I am inclined to think though that only the latter has to do with the opening question, that a word with a negative load can turn positive. In the other I thinik there is an idea of comfort stimulating the dropping of a small functional word due to the fact that there can be no confusion. But very interesting observations for sure.
Yes, in general I only tried to outline the general principle: the sense an extreme degree of a quality is modeled through the sense of a limit crossed in something else. But as for specific usage, we need to consider the realities of a language and culture.
your addition below is an interesting one: that you can use the "terribly" in Russian in other (less,) contexts than in English. Yet I wonder if use is part of the definition. Had never really thought of that. A word or expression may have a particular meaning but funnily you cannot simply use it in all contexts. (One example I once realized, not having to do with intensifiers: Dutch bommengooier and bommenwerper, lit. bomb thrower in both cases, do not mean the same. The first would be a terrorist whereas the second one is a B52 for example, i.e. a war plane. So funnily the two verbs (werpen, gooien) are synonymous but in a compound with bombs they are used differently, probably due to the fact that werpen is more formal or that the compound was a neologism needed to refer to a particular war "tool". )
In some cases those uses may be put down to cultural differences indeed, but the base question is not about how the intensity is expressed exactly but that it is expressed using a "negative" term.

Not so sure we have come to a "common" understanding of negative here though. Nizzebro referred to extremes as a key term in the explanation, so I gathered, but I am not sure everyone can follow.

So, in Russian I hardly can say "terribly good" but I can "terribly beautiful" (albeit this sounds somewhat childish) or "terribly in love" - where it connotes with "no escape". Also I see no use for "cruelly", but we have e.g. "wildly" (as "crazily") - дико - and then it's more in use with "tired", "unjustice" and the like, rather than with e.g. beauty, and not so suitable with "good". And all the specifics are bound to culture: so, in Russia the Soviet atheism resulted in that things like "damn(ed)", "hell", "devil" became more like comical, bookish or even some kind of an old virgin's language - whereas in many Christian countries these are taboos, which in turn affects the rest of vocabulary in terms of where the sensitive points are.
Nizzebro referred to extremes as a key term in the explanation, so I gathered, but I am not sure everyone can follow.
Honestly, I would delete my first posts as superficial, and leave #9 because it is a genuine insight. We humans simply do not have, and cannot have in principle, any high degrees for positivity (and angels do not have them, as well as small children who are constantly happy). Positive state of mind is, so to speak, the original norm from which we sinners only use to deviate. That's why negativity and strong words used for the extreme. Or we use something like "stunning" but in fact, from the perspective of the earthly mind which likes templated life and hates any instability, it is also something negative: like, one's brought out of the normality. Otherwise, we all would've been like children for whom everything is new and sort of stunning, but they do not have reflections - they just expirience emotions and states here and now. Besides, there are some "decent" positive words but they are either templated like "amazing" or too desriptive and so kind of insincere.
Last edited:
The more interesting part, in my opinion, is when it works the other way around: that is, a non-modified adjective ALREADY contextually implies an excess (a rather common phenomenon in Russian): literally '(I won't eat because) the food is hot' (= too hot), 'the shoes are small for me' (= too small), 'it's already much' (= too much) etc. But anyway, it's already off-topic, I suppose.
Well, it might turn out to be a side thread but I welcome it because there is something interesting in it, but probably only in Russian (a non-modified adjective ALREADY contextually implies an excess).
But does that hold for any adjective? I don't think so: I guess that mainly holds for evaluative adjectives. Like hot: when something is hot, people will probably consider it too hot, not hot enough or maybe just perfect. Are such adjectives adj. with a semantic spectrum?
I'd mostly agree. It's all pretty much along the lines with "so much fun that it should be illegal".
... or that it must be crazy, unhealthy... Maybe there is a link with passion: extremely powerful emotion, often in a positive sense, but always (...) verging on extremity, illegality, craziness, etc.

That reminds me of what Nizzebro wrote in #9:

"Generally speaking, terrible means: I can't stand it. And in order to understand why negative meanings can go along with positive things, just think of this: negativity has an extreme degree - horror, pain, death, but what extreme degree does positivity have?
That makes me wonder: is negativity not simply some kind of "excess" of positivity? In morality I sometimes seem to notice some kind of misguided positivity turning to negativity (...): help is no longer pure if guided (or governed) by some kind of personal ambition. Help that is like a performance, might forgo the victim orientation and be focussed on some kind of self-help - like in the Milgram experiment: there is some form of alienation leading to abuse, due to an external authority. Something like that. But of course misguided help does not always lead to real extremes.
The wise will agree that positivity is in peace of mind and balance, that is, the absence of extremes. In the extreme, there is no difference whether the sensation is positive or not. Orgasm is effectively a cramp - if your leg cramps you will bend and moan and the whole difference is in what your mind says about it - is it good or not, whereas all you get in fact is just a loss of energy. This world is a world of suffering :)"
Peace of mind or cramp: aren't those the two extremes? I mean: a figurative cramp in my view is loss of real freedom. People can for example be (somehow) obsessed by idealism or aspiration for certain values to that extent that they can cause harm while no longer capable of balancing perception of reality and a (semi-unconscious) drive for some ideal. Or so I thought on this Tuesday morning...
Last edited:
aren't those the two extremes?
Well, in the sense of two opposities, yes, but peace of mind itself means no extreme, so we may say true positivity implies nothing, or better said, simply cannot be defined in words. Even if it concerns a specific situation, it is about something that happened, or was done, in the only right way, which is also a kind of denial - of all the ugly that could have been done but fortunately was not.

By the way, in this connection, art comes to mind, say, the performance of singers. To sing exceptionally, is simply to do exactly what is needed for this song in this arrangement. They do not spoil anything, that's the clue. Of course, the performance can be specific in style: epic, intimate, comical, tragical, but that's the reason that when we then share impressions, either we have to find concise, precise descriptions of that particular exceptionality, and the choice of such words is in itself a kind of art, or we'll just say something like "wow" - and interjections are essentially associative patterns that roughly reflect emotions, and negatibe words are also of the kind.

And you can notice that masterpieces in composition always convey some kind of opposites as tragedy and happiness because this is the fate of man. Even let's say in that seeming serenity of "What a wonderful world", there is a layer of sadness underneath, otherwise it would have been just snotty molasses. We all feel that background sadness, but are we able to express it in words?...
Last edited:
Top Bottom

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /