Intensity is an emotional expression, but it is the only one related with the materialization of emotions and emotionality. In this situation, individuals progress through the nonverbal, nonverbal-verbal, and verbal phases of development. Language as a "practical real consciousness" cannot help but express other sorts of emotions in addition to notions and judgments (Karazhaev, 1992).

Language has evolved and continues to evolve under the impact of essential practicality, beginning with emotions and progressing to consciousness and thought. This practicality is shown through intensity and expressiveness. Amplification has evolved alongside language, resulting in numerous strategies and mechanisms for materialization. At the level of vocabulary, these are not only special, stylistically marked means, but also word-signs expressing various spectra - subjective assessments of the external world (very good - bad, very much - little...); at the level of syntax, these are the emotional-stylistic, allegorical, symbolic use of syntactic units, the actual division of subject-predicate structures of sentences.

Linguists are increasingly interested in the concept of intensity, strengthening, and intensifiers. The fact is that the category of intensity is relatively new, and it is also open. D. Bolinger, in particular, observed that "degree words are unstable, unsteady by their nature" (Bolinger, 1972). Such "degree words" tend to solidify their meanings of strengthening or weakening, however many of these lexemes are unambiguously classified as adverbs in dictionaries. Some words with noticeable intensity can change the amount of meaning of their key word in both directions, diminishing and strengthening.

"Intensification" refers to a vast variety of words and phrases, which is why studying this subject is so challenging. In theory, the term of "intensivity" refers to the functions of specific elements of speech in a sentence, rather than a class of words. This position can be supported by the fact that intense words keep their dictionary status as elements of speech while retaining their original meaning. Their distinguishing feature is the ability to improve the meaning of a key word, but this is not their only skill. Intensifiers, on the other hand, are distinguished solely by their potential to increase the meanings of other words while losing their own meaning and modifying their grammatical roles.

One of the most actively debated topics in contemporary language science is intensity, which can be explained by linguists' growing focus on the ways in which speakers' speech intentions manifest as well as the characteristics of the texts themselves, such as media texts, such as their growing expressiveness and stylistic complexity. In Russian linguistics, intensity is interpreted in a variety of ways, such as a way to increase the effect of a linguistic unit (Sheigal, 1981), as a word's brightness depending on the context (Shakhovsky, 2012), and as a gauge of expressiveness (Turansky, 1990). Conversely, expressiveness is regarded as a crucial component of a more general category of expressiveness, which is described as "a collection of such characteristics of speech that guarantee its complete perception by the addressee, that is, a perception that is as near as possible to the comprehension and experience of the transmitted information that is adequate to the author's intention" (Skovorodnikov & Kopnina, 2008). The paper focuses on the possible relationship between a text's intensity and the characteristics of the Russian communicative style, including emotional pressure, a short psychological distance, the interlocutor's withdrawal into the speaker's emotional realm, etc. It is proposed that the description of the degree of linguistic expressiveness of the utterance in Russian, as well as in other languages, should incorporate the study of a national communicative style in order to properly understand the relationship between the national mentality and the usage and popularity of specific lexical units. Additionally, this will help determine which languages are closest to or far from Russian in terms of speech intensity.

Communicative (linguistic) emotionality, unlike non-communicative (biological) emotionality, has a meaningful character, and meaningful emotions are burdened by a material sound form. A person controls the verbal expression of emotions, passing them through situational, social and other filters, depending on which the same emotions can find different lexical-semantic expression, and the emotional meaning itself is a component of the semantic content of a sound and speech unit (Shakhovsky, 1978).

In the process of the act of speech, the speaker uses only those means that are in the language and, therefore, understandable to the addressee. In accordance with his emotions and consciousness – the intention to influence the emotions and (or) consciousness of the addressee of the speech, he builds syntagmatic series from linguistic material and fills them with "the necessary amplifying intonation according to his own arrangements" (Karazhaev, 1992).

The complexity of intensity as an object of linguistic analysis and description requires, therefore, a multifaceted approach to it using various methods and classifications. Such an approach makes it possible to obtain data specific to each application of the method, filling in the information gaps in amplification. These data, depending on the specific classification, specific method, will either complement, or repeat, or clarify each other, which together will allow us to obtain a more or less adequate picture of the essence of this semantic component.

Intensity at the text level is the author's ability to create specific, individual ideas in the reader, to evoke in the imagination of the addressee forms and colors, movements and sounds, tastes and smells, emotions and assessments that already live in a person's thoughts, but are still hidden behind the sound or graphic shells of his words. The need for them (in means of amplification) is justified and necessary only in the case when new ideas, pictures, emotions have arisen in a person's consciousness, not sufficiently known to the reader, not correlated with the already prepared ones, and therefore, requiring some special means of description.

Despite the complexity of the terminological relationships between the related categories of emotionality, expressiveness, expressiveness, on the one hand, and intensity, on the other, I would like to agree with the opinion of E. Sheigal, according to which the category of intensity is a particular manifestation of the category of quantity, as well as with the point of view of  I. Turansky (1990), who asserts that “from the position of a text researcher, intensity is a measure of expressiveness, emotionality, evaluativeness, signaling graduality”. In this regard, it is important to note that formally intensity can be ensured by the same linguistic means as expressiveness, therefore, for example, elements of reduplication (Edna Edna) and pleonasms (den denskoy); individual affixes (doch-enk-a); deictic substitutions (He (instead of you) is still offended!; I tell her (instead of you) one thing, and she (instead of you) tells me something else); expressive vocabulary of various stylistic and part-of-speech affiliations; inverted word order (I don't have time); prosodic means of language - expressive intonation pattern of the phrase, intentionally distorted or additional stress; numerous auxiliary emphatic words (precisely, after all, even, etc.). All these and similar linguistic means (cf. Turansky, 1990) indicate the degree of expression of the phenomenon discussed in the utterance.

In addition to the above-commented intensifying particles after all, there is a repeating particle “ni”, which in the meaning of a union is used “in enumerative relations, thereby intensifying the negation”; the particle “us”, which “intensifies the meaning of pronouns and adverbs with which it is connected in meaning”; the particle nevertheless, which is used “when contrasting something with the preceding statement, corresponding in meaning to the words: vse zhe, vse-taki” (Efremova, 2004). The text contains emphasizing particles exclusively, namely, especially, the first of which is used “in restrictive selection from a set, corresponding in meaning to the words, the second - “when emphasizing something. words, when referring to it, corresponding in meaning to the word”; the third – “to highlight or enhance the importance of the subsequent part of the utterance, corresponding in meaning to the word.

The national style of communication, or communicative ethnostyle, is understood as “the dominant manner of communication, manifested in the majority of communicative situations” (Sternin, Sternina & Larina, 2003); it is “a culturally predetermined type of communicative behavior, manifested in the choice and preference of means of communication (verbal and non-verbal) used in the process of interpersonal interaction” (Larina, 2005). As numerous works (including comparative ones) show, the dominant manner of Russian communication is characterized by communicative pressure, a desire to reduce psychological proxemics between speakers, the idea of ​​the possibility of intrusion into the personal sphere of an individual, regulatory nature, a desire for verbal assessment of situations and persons and a high degree of categoricalness of the expressed assessments, communicative trust, and high emotionality of communication. Such parameters of the communicative style in Western communicative cultures are much weaker than in Russian. They do not actively disseminate the speaker's psychological state to the interlocutor. Perhaps that is why it is often so difficult to explain to a foreign-language audience not only the meaning of Russian expressive expressions, but also the very expediency of their use in a given situation. According to researchers of Russian communicative behavior, “in the process of communication, a Russian person feels like a part of a group, he is confident that his problems and desires are of interest to his interlocutors and will find a response in them. In this type of relationship, categoricity and imperativeness are not a threat or an obstacle to harmonious relationships and do not violate the principles of politeness characteristic of Russian communicative behavior” (Sternin, Sternina & Larina, 2003). In general, regarding the use of intensifiers in speech, it can be noted that they primarily ensure the involvement of the addressee in the emotional sphere of the addresser, who seeks to achieve from the interlocutor a perception similar to the subjective attitude of the speaker to what is being discussed.

On the other hand, the use of a large number of expressive units with “hidden” semantics in verbal communication may indicate that direct expression of one’s emotions and intentions is not enough for Russians. The interpretation of this problem is directly related to the penetration into the peculiarities of the mentality of Russian speakers, with the clarification of “which elements of meaning in Russian usage may not receive explicit expression, being self-evident for both the producer and the recipient, not requiring special designation” (Miloslavsky, 2002; 136). I would like to support another statement of the scientist: today we do not sufficiently understand which languages ​​the Russian language is close to and which diverges from in its most important semantic and communicative characteristics. At the same time, the study of what lies behind this or that semantic-communicative feature of the Russian language, including against the background of other languages, is no less important than the answers to questions about the typological or formal-genetic features of the Russian language. The composition of expressive vocabulary, its popularity or unpopularity in communication, the types of communicative situations in which it is used are determined by differences in the communicative attitudes of speakers of different languages, in their national-psychological characteristics3. Therefore, the study and description of intensifying words of a particular language should be carried out based on research data on national communicative behavior, and the center of this kind of research should apparently be the question of what features of the national communicative style determine the intensification of utterances in each of the languages ​​described.

Thus, language in its communicative function serves a person not only to express thoughts, but also to express his subjective attitude to what is being said, because emotions, will, assessments, desire are integral factors in a person's cognition of reality. Human thought, being accomplished on the basis of language, is formed in speech (and speech is expressively colored in different ways). Expressivity as a general language category affects all areas of language and the arsenal of its expressive means is boundless. This is due to an in-depth study of the structure of the text, the linguistic personality as a subject of speech activity, its pragmatic aspects - colloquial, oral-dialogical speech, the relationship between the speaker and the addressee, the means of enhancing the expressiveness of speech and enhancing its impact on the perceiver. Expressivity has a linguistic nature, since it acts through the mechanisms of language, but its effect is manifested only in speech, going beyond the word and phrase into the text. The objective of the study of the phenomenon of expressiveness was to analyze how the method used by the speaker generates the expressive effect of his speech.

The categories of connotation, cliché, and idiomaticity play a certain role in the organization of expressive speech, acting in it as a linguistic basis for such stylistic devices as repetition, build-up, polysyndeton, metaphor, and antithesis. Intensifiers perform the function of a kind of stress sensors, highlighting the pragmatic peak of the utterance.