Clearly, Using Intensifiers is Very Bad - Or is it?

19 Pages Posted: 31 May 2008 Last revised: 15 Sep 2009

See all articles by Lance N. Long

Lance N. Long

Stetson University College of Law

William F. Christensen

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: Fall 2008

Abstract

Although scholars have generally found that overusing intensifiers (words such as clearly, obviously, and very) negatively affects the persuasiveness or credibility of a legal argument, no one has studied actual appellate briefs to determine whether there is a relationship between intensifier use and the outcome of an appeal. This article describes two empirical studies of appellate briefs, which show that the frequent use of intensifiers in appellate briefs (particularly by an appellant) is usually associated with a statistically significant increase in adverse outcomes for an offending party. But - and this was an unexpected result - if an appellate opinion uses a high rate of intensifiers, an appellant's brief written for that appeal that also uses a high rate of intensifiers is associated with a statistically significant increase in favorable outcomes. Additionally, when a dissenting opinion is written, judges use significantly more intensifiers in both the majority and dissenting opinions. In other words, as things become less clear, judges tend to use clearly, and obviously more often.

These results could be interpreted several ways. It could be that overusing intensifiers actually renders a brief suspect and subject to increased skepticism by appellate court judges. Alternatively, it could be that the overuse of intensifiers is accompanied by violations of other writing conventions that further affect the credibility of the brief. Or, it could simply be that appellants or appellees with difficult arguments (arguments that they believe they are likely to lose) tend to lapse into an intensifier-rich mode of writing in an attempt to bolster the perceived weaknesses of an argument. All of these factors may combine to produce the result. Of course, since no causal relationship is shown, it could be a yet unidentified factor. At the very least, the studies suggest the need for further research and a fruitful source of data for performing such research.

Keywords: use of intensifiers in appellate briefs, appellate briefs, legal writing

JEL Classification: K10, K30, K39, K40

Suggested Citation

Long, Lance N. and Christensen, William F., Clearly, Using Intensifiers is Very Bad - Or is it? (Fall 2008). Idaho Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1138084

Lance N. Long (Contact Author)

Stetson University College of Law ( email )

1401 61st Street South
Gulfport, FL 33707
United States
(727) 562-7350 (Phone)

William F. Christensen

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
359
rank
78,726
Abstract Views
3,501
PlumX Metrics