Part 1 of 3.
As legal writers, we might be tempted to use intensifiers to bolster our points—to persuade. What’s an intensifier? According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, it’s a “linguistic element used to give emphasis or additional strength to another word or statement.” Intensifiers can be various parts of speech: adverbs (clearly), adjectives (blatant), participles (raving), and more.
Intensifiers get a lot of bad press, and clearly is king:
- [Clearly] is so overused in legal writing that one has to wonder if it has any meaning left. (Enquist & Oates, Just Writing)
- Doctrinaire adverbs such as clearly and obviously are perceived as signaling overcompensation for a weak argument. (Garner, The Winning Brief)
- When most readers read a sentence that begins with something like obviously, undoubtedly … and so on, they reflexively think the opposite. (Williams, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace)
One article on intensifiers in legal writing suggests that overusing intensifiers is bad—or very bad. In a study of U.S. Supreme Court briefs, the authors found that increased intensifier use was correlated with losing, especially for appellants. The authors allege no causal connection—they couldn’t prove it was the intensifiers that lost the cases—but the correlation is interesting. Lance N. Long & William F. Christensen, Clearly, Using Intensifiers Is Very Bad—Or Is It? 45 Idaho L. Rev. 171, 180 (2008).
So what should we do instead of overusing intensifiers? One suggestion here, two more next week, and a discussion of literally in part 3.
Often, a sentence gets stronger without the intensifier. Which of these is more forceful?
1. Clearly, an attorney is not an expert on what is a “Doberman,” and there is no showing in the affidavit that Squires is an expert on Dobermans. It clearly is a fact issue for the trier of fact.
1a. An attorney is not an expert on what is a “Doberman,” and there is no showing in the affidavit that Squires is an expert on Dobermans. It is a fact issue for the trier of fact.
Dropping intensifiers doesn’t always work, and we can’t completely banish them. Some legal standards require them: clearly erroneous, highly offensive. Legal writing entails some qualifying, but good legal writers develop a sense for when they’re appropriately qualifying and when they’re blatantly bolstering.
Two more suggestions next week.