Abstract
It is often said that political rhetoric is characterized by a high degree of exaggeration. What is known as hyperbole has most often been approached from a linguistic and literary angle; research methods and empirical studies on political hyperbole are scarce. The objective of this article is to test a new integrated methodological framework for rhetorical exaggeration in a contemporary political case. The case examines ideological and government-opposition differences in hyperbolic parliamentary rhetoric. This article details how to identify hyperbole, and how to estimate the level and orientation of hyperbolic rhetoric. We combine quantitative and qualitative content analysis on a large representative sample (N > 106,000 words) of (2006–2011) debates in the Flemish-Belgian Parliament to test the findings of our two studies with 2006–2013 (N >160,000 words) and 2010–2014 (N > 200 randomly selected paragraphs) Dutch parliamentary rhetoric. Results show that, both ideological (far right vs. center) and party role's differences (opposition vs. government) turn hyperbole into a radical and an explicitly negative rhetorical figure in political language.
1 Introduction
Hyperbole, derived from the Greek words hyper and ballein literally meaning “throwing beyond”1 is one of the oldest described rhetorical figures and also one of the most recurrent tropes in our daily discourse (). Hyperbole as a rhetorical style figure is aimed at an exaggerated form of phrasing (McCarthy and Carter, 2004). An operational definition sees hyperbole as an expression that is more extreme than justified given its ontological referent (, p. 166). We may use the terms hyperboles, exaggeration, and overstatements simultaneously and interchangeably, although according to a distinction between hyperbole (as rhetorical exaggeration) and simple overstatement can be made, as he defines the overstatement as unconscious or unintentional, while a hyperbole is (always) intentional. However, McCarthy and Carter (2004) argue that differentiation between intentional and unintentional use is of great difficulty, often impossible, and mostly unnecessary.
Notably, the topic of hyperbole as a rhetorical figure of speech is regularly addressed in literature, regarding the pragmatics or the aesthetics of language, e.g., in poetry, recitation, humor. However, the scientific field of psycho-linguistics—or any other related academic field such as political or communication sciences—has basically kept aloof from the study of hyperbole, whereas systematic quantitative analysis of hyperbole is even absent as yet, assuredly in the context of political rhetoric. Metaphor, humor, and irony are rhetorical figures that are comparable to hyperbole, but these “techniques” received far more “political” attention. A metaphor transfers a word or a word group (denominated as the vehicle, the source, or the focus) into a context (the tenor, the target, or the frame) that is not the word's or the word group's natural or common context. The conflict nature of metaphor is crucial for its political meaning and effects (). Political humor includes any humorous treatment of political issues, events, people, or institutions. If a text (cartoon, joke, film, or image) is humorous and makes any reference to a political construct, it constitutes political humor (…). Irony is a structure of humor commonly found in political satire that involves stating or implying the opposite of what is actually meant (Young, 2016, p. 487–488). The observations by , that humor and irony are directed at the power structure (which includes the political system, institutions, political leaders, and other decision makers) and can be employed for good and bad purposes (illustrated by a discussion of the role played by stereotypes and prejudice in creating ethno-national humor) is equally true for political metaphor and hyperbole. According to (Martin 2014, p. 81) hyperbole dramatically raises the stakes in political debate; often a metaphor is added, and such an overstatement can be deployed to cover the weakness of an argument. Seeing the often -negative power that is attributed to hyperbole it appears legitimate to inquire how political hyperbole resonates with antipolitics. This rejection of (traditional) politics is often connected to anti-elitism, political distrust, and populism (e.g., Schedler, 1997). Antipolitics is a reaction against, or rejection of the practices or attitudes associated with traditional politics [Merriam-Webster (n.d.)], and it consists of beliefs and activities opposed to politics or to traditional political activities [Cambridge Dictionary, (n.d.)]. For instance, Donald Trump- the epitome of hyperbolic and grotesque humor- said himself that he uses “truthful hyperbole” to sell his ideas and plans in his book The Art of the Deal ().
In this article we put life into the neglected academic study of hyperbole as a (political) rhetorical figure, by discussing a (“level and orientation”) method for examining hyperbolic language in contemporary political discourse, which we apply in the case of Flemish-Belgium (i.e., Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium).2 We compare the results of the Flemish-Belgian case with results of a similar case for the Netherlands (Kalkhoven, 2015; Kalkhoven and De Landtsheer, 2017).
After having introduced the phenomenon of rhetorical exaggeration in “the anatomy of hyperbole” (1. Introduction), we present “a methodological framework for measuring political hyperbole” and we describe the procedure and data selection for the case of rhetorical hyperbole analysis of Flemish-Belgian parliamentary debates (2. Method and Materials). We make a systematic analysis of the frequency of occurrence of hyperbole, combined with a quantitative and qualitative exploration of the substantive variation in hyperbole use. What differences in hyperbole use (more, more negative) exist between distinguished political parties, in their roles in government, opposition, or even anti-politics? (3. Results). How does the Flemish-Belgian case throws light on the (anti-) political nature of rhetorical exaggeration? (4. Discussion).
1.1 An anatomy of hyperbole
Hyperbole—as many other rhetorical devices that refer to figurative worlds—is based on a strict and complex semiotic-pragmatic system of mutual consensus between sender and receiver. From a psycho-linguistic perspective it is interesting how speakers use hyperbolic language to express affective meanings (the intention of the exaggeration) and how listeners receive such acts (McCarthy and Carter, 2004, p. 153). To successfully implement such a rhetorical device, the role of the receiver is as important as the sender's. The receiver needs to be aware of the fact that a comment is meant hyperbolic, otherwise the style figure loses its pragmatic effect ().
According to McCarthy and Carter (2004), it is common for people to use all sorts of exaggeration or overstatement that are literally impossible or counterfactual in their informal or every-day talk, but interestingly, without being perceived as false or as lying. In terms of Grice's cooperative principle of communication, hyperbole and other related style figures such as irony or sarcasm, are often deliberately flouting the maxims of cooperation, whereas senders rely on their inferred implicatures and the obedience of the receiver to understand the underlying or implicit meaning (see e.g., ). “(Such) hyperbolic expressions usually pass without challenge by listeners, who accept them as creative intensifications for evaluative or affective purposes such as humor and irony, and who often make their own supportive contributions to the figure of speech” (McCarthy and Carter, 2004, p. 150).
Studies on politicians” use of humor often already dealt with hyperbole but never gave it such a prominent role. Many articles on politicians” use of humor demonstrate how most humor use is negative or aggressive (Mendiburo-Seguel et al., 2022; Stewart, 2012). However, they do not systematically underscore hyperbole. Prakken (2025) found that roughly 60% of humorous utterances by Trump and Ocasio-Cortez were hyperbolic. Most scholars in the political humor studies discipline are relying on humor style methods, which have their own set of problems, and they overlook the importance of hyperbole.
stated that political language is characterized by a high degree of “hysterical” rhetoric, which implies that political actors and groupings, whether or not unconsciously, frequently use hyperbole in their daily political language. Hyperbole appears to be a suitable instrument for politicians to manage their language in different ways. Politicians seem eager to exaggerate statements to empower their argument. Arguably, considering the persuasive purpose of political discourse in the debate and toward the electorate, the intentional use of hyperboles can be a strategic, tool for persuasion.
“Rhetorical strategy” is a concept by (Martin 2014, p. 94–95, 108, 120) that entails formulating interpretations of a situation such that audiences are moved to respond in certain ways rather than others; the author qualifies techniques as those found in rhetoric “affective rhetorical strategies”. Not only metaphors and humor or irony but also hyperboles prepare with their affective incentives the route for political leaders. Freud already pointed out in his 1905 work on “Jokes and their relation to the unconscious” the mechanisms that one can observe in the case of jokes and humor (, p. 76). These mechanisms that include condensation, multiple use of the same material, and double meaning (literal and metaphorical) also apply to other affective strategies like metaphor and hyperbole. (, p. 13) complained about “condensation” as one of the disastrous effects of mass media on political speech; citizens are not able to hear all the nuances of an issue and so cannot evaluate arguments in sufficient depth. Politicians simplify their arguments employing short phrases and soundbites, hyperbole rather than argument, relying on the logic of association rather than evidence. Ritter (2010) argues that a hyperbole is a stylish way to make people see “the truth” with the use of a deceptive exaggeration imbued with pathos. The rhetorical effect is that it appeals to the emotions of the audience (Ritter, 2010), as well as that it is used by speakers to empower their own emotions and to express their deceptions and irritations (). In general, people have a natural tendency to exaggerate situations in search for attention and recognition (Ritter, 2010). The (intentional) rhetorical use of (an) exaggeration in language serves as a figurative and extreme evaluation of a situation and is therefore often a misleading or false representation of reality (; ,). The fact that hyperboles (re)shape reality in a certain way makes them powerful tools for persuasion (e.g., Swartz, in McCarthy and Carter, 2004). Hypothetically, the occurrence of hyperbole should be prominent in political language, but until now it is uncertain to what extent and how it is used. Because hyperbole is a figurative language type like metaphor, humor and irony, and it contains important linguistic and conceptual content about the issue under discussion, hyperbole is important in shaping public discourse (,). The almost absent study of hyperbole in the political case is therefore rather peculiar. According to a scarce experiment the use of hyperbole and metaphor in anti-immigration messages was found to provide for more polarization (). Nugraha (2023) found hyperbole in Indonesian political cartoons to evoke powerful emotions and to shape collective perceptions.
As figurative expressions of reality, hyperboles are often perceived as part of (or compared to) other rhetorical devices. It comes as no surprise that most literature on the understanding (and effects) of hyperbole finds its inspiration in other figures of speech, such as irony, sarcasm, understatement, rhetorical questions and especially metaphor (cf. ; Roberts and Kreuz, 1994; ; ; ; Ritter, 2010). Many of these and other rhetorical figures are placed in a similar category as for the pragmatic functions that they perform. Naturally, understatement (meiosis) and overstatement or hyperbole (auxesis) are often regarded as counterparts on the same rhetorical scale, whereas notes that both hyperbole and understatement are closely related to irony in traditional rhetoric “in that each misrepresents the truth” (p. 391). One linking characteristic between hyperbole (and understatement), irony and metaphor is what Kreuz and Roberts (1995) call “nonveridically”, a discrepancy between description and reality. Irony, understatement, metaphor and hyperbole derive their rhetorical effect mostly from the contrast (or contradiction) and (therefore) the surprise that they achieve (; ,; , ). Contrast is, according to , one of the main rhetorical devices in political speech that causes an almost immediate effect (in the form of applause) on an audience. Comprehension of these figures of speech thus appears to rely upon an “inflation of the discrepancy” between expected and ensuing events (cf. ). (,) prove, however, a variance in magnitude of effect, in which hyperbole and irony are found to have a larger effect of creating contrast than for instance a literal commentary or understatement, and therefore are more successful in achieving related pragmatic goals, such as specifically, humor, condemnation and pointing out the unexpected (, p. 1,575). Roberts and Kreuz (1994) analyzed the specific goals of different rhetorical figures (according to the users) and concluded that hyperbole is mainly used to clarify statements, but to a great extent also to emphasize a certain point and to add a humorous effect. Often hyperbolic statements are used in an ironical way to express something intentionally exorbitantly and/or humorously to make a point (). In fact, humor and negative emotions are strongly related in political discourse (Phiddian, 2019). The use of humor is not always a positive phenomenon, using hyperbole humorously can happen intentionally negative. It is established by recent literature that political humor can have tremendous negative harmful functions and consequences. Amongst others, humor is a driver of far-right mobilization and radicalization, especially in digital spaces (e.g., ; McSwiney and Sengul, 2023), Besides that, humor is known be used for white supremacist identity building (; Pérez, 2022; Switzer, 2025).
Whereas personal attacks can be used humorously, both hyperbole and irony can be perceived as humor. Humor is perhaps experienced as a positive affect by the speaker and/or audience, but that does not mean its consequences or intentions are. Humor can be very insulting (Benign violation theory, see McGraw and Warren, 2010). Leggitt and Gibbs (2000) showed that listeners” reception of different rhetorical devices varies, with more negative affect being created by overstatement and sarcasm than by irony, understatement and satire. “Hyperbole is sometimes perceived as speakers making a ‘big deal' of matters that do not deserve it” (McCarthy and Carter, 2004, p. 155).
Norrick (2004) emphasizes the difference between (simple) extreme case formulations (ECF) and hyperbole. Hyperbole can be non-extreme and is rhetorical in nature, whereas ECF is a sub-category of hyperbole. EFC's do often make clear that a non-literal statement is made and establish signals of emotional involvement through an exaggerated formulation (2004, p. 1730). Norrick further points out that non-extreme hyperbole is very closely related to metaphor. Many metaphors indeed contain a certain degree of overstatement (although hyperboles are not always metaphorical). One expression can therefore be both a metaphor and a hyperbole (and/or another figure of speech/rhetorical figure). The fact that exaggerations or overstatements mostly depend on their context and interact with other related figures of speech/rhetorical figures, such as idioms, metaphors, synecdoche, simile, and so on (e.g., Ritter, 2010; Roberts and Kreuz, 1994), makes identification sometimes challenging. Moreover, similar to metaphors and other figures of speech, a large number of hyperbole have become “conventionalized” or even “dead” so that in many cases we are unaware of the rhetorical exaggeration (McCarthy and Carter, 2004). Illustrating this, McCarthy and Carter name the expressions “for ages” (simply meaning “for a long time”) and “dying to” (e.g., “dying to meet someone”—as a way of expressing the fact that one has an eager desire for something) as examples of “dead” hyperboles, due to the frequency and conventionality of both expressions (2004, p. 151). Although it is almost tangible that language in general is packed with hyperbole, the difficulty lies in the detection of rhetorical exaggeration (McCarthy and Carter, 2004).
2 Method and materials
This section outlines the methodological framework for measuring hyperbole, before it develops an operationalization for empirical research in real-world political communication, and details the (materials for) the Flemish-Belgian case.
2.1 A Methodological framework for measuring political hyperbole
Hyperbole acquires its meaning and relevance mostly from its linguistic and social context. Therefore, we need to consider criteria that emphasize or indicate the (degree of) deviation in respect to the standards that define the literal in its linguistic (surrounding words/sentences) or social (real world) contexts. McCarthy and Carter (2004, p. 162–163) provide such a (very useful) list of criteria that would make identification of hyperbole possible. The authors sum up eight basic related conditions: disjunction (oddness) with the context, shift in footing, counter factuality, the depicturing of impossible worlds, a listener take-up, extreme case formulation, syntactic support, and relevant interpretability.
Additionally, there are various categories of hyperbole and multiple cues (such as recurring keywords of extreme case formulations) that can indicate exaggeration in text or speech. argues that we can divide types of hyperbole into determined semantic fields (shared components of similar semantic ideas or meanings, e.g., synonymy), which can be facilitated with cognate keywords. This quantitative framework makes it easier to detect and recognize particular (recurring) hyperboles. distinguishes four semantic subfields of so-called purity, namely (1) the idea of completeness and absoluteness (using “keywords” such as completely, absolute(ly), total(ly), entirely, full(y), whole, or pure), (2) the idea of universality or non-exceptionality (e.g., all, always, everywhere, throughout the world, everybody (else), everyone, everything, anything, etc.), (3) the idea of non-existence and nullity (e.g., no, no one (else), nobody, nothing (else), not any(thing), never, not at all), and (4) the idea of veracity (e.g., literally, beyond any doubt, definitely). Moreover, one can add a quantity semantic subfield which involves numbers and (other) standardized measure units, such as time measures (e.g., periods, times; a second, an hour, years, months and months, ages, etcetera), length or linear measures (e.g., 100 inches, kilometers, light year) and all other numerical expressions (e.g., a dozen, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, etc.), as well as words that imply a certain quantity (e.g., loads (of), a pile of, (compost) heap, lots, etc.). Finally, the author acknowledges the semantic subfield of magnitude, which is either the idea of greatness (e.g., big, huge, tremendous, enormously, immense, massive, giant, forever, infinity, utmost, and so on) or the idea of smallness (e.g., little, tiny, minuscule, instantly, and so on) (, p. 30–31).
The combination of the determined semantic field of hyperbolic keywords by , together with the list of criteria by McCarthy and Carter (2004) gives us a useful starting point in order to detect hyperboles and distinguish hyperbolic from non-hyperbolic language, because it is more profound than the identification of standard keywords (such as ECF) alone.
Before presenting our method for studying political hyperbole, we would like to refer to one other valuable method conceived for identifying hyperbole, HIP (Hyperbole Identification Procedure) by . This method was developed analogical to a metaphor identification method, MIP (Metaphor Identification Procedure), by the Pragglejaz Group. (2007). These methods are based in linguistics; text pieces are screened in a series of steps, with the help of sources that include dictionaries.
2.1.1 Operationalization
In this study we aim to develop a quantitative methodological instrument for examining rhetorical exaggeration; the instrument should be applicable for every sort of communication (debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) and usable with larger corpuses of text as is conventional in social-scientific research. Additionally, we argued that hyperbole is often strongly related to other rhetorical figures (these are mostly metaphorical in nature, and sometimes ironical), but that in most studies these figurative exaggerations are overlooked, and hyperbole is often seen as ECF only. Therefore, we opt to take into account explicitly meaning and context in our manual coding process, and inclusion of a second group of hyperbole: the (non-extreme) figurative enlargements.
2.1.1.1 Hyperbole level and orientation
The method combines a quantitative methodology and a qualitative examination of the variation in use of rhetorical exaggeration. The advantage of a quantitative part is that it enables us to detect (the frequency of) hyperbole with high validity, i.e. in real-life political communication in a systematic and objective way, which allows for objective comparative measures. The qualitative analysis focuses on the theoretical rhetorical purposes of hyperbole and attempts to bridge the gap of the insights in rhetorical effect and the use of particular forms of hyperbole.
For the quantitative analysis we are measuring two variables: the quantity of hyperbole use (hyperbole ratio, Level) and the either positive or negative evaluation of the hyperboles that have been used (hyperbole value, Orientation).
2.1.1.1.1 Level
The hyperbole frequency is measured by conducting the average or ratio of hyperbole use (HB-ratio) in a text sample. The ratio is measured by calculating the number of overstatements per 100 words. Criteria are offered that emphasize or indicate the (degree of) exceptional or extreme representations of reality, in to identify, recognize and count particular (recurring) hyperboles.
We developed a methodology with quantifiable content analysis criteria. To accomplish this, we follow three relatively simple steps (derived from the criteria by McCarthy and Carter, 2004). The first step is to look for extreme case formulations, intensifiers, keywords and (other) syntactical support, for which the list of keywords by is particularly useful, but we also look for figurative (often metaphorical) intensifications. Step two is to test the ECF or figurative enlargements to the disjunction with the context and other criteria that still can be derived from the list of McCarthy and Carter's (2004) framework (counter factuality, impossibility). The last step is a check-up of the relevant interpretability of the trope, which means that the utterance should make sense.
We formulate three basic criteria to which a phrase can be classified as being hyperbolic:
1) A phrase or sentence contains (at least one) hyperbole as a rhetorical figure of speech in which reality is expressed in exaggerated or overstated form. This is often assignable due to the presence of ECF, and other syntactical support, but it can also be a figurative (metaphorical) exaggeration.
2) It has (as by definition) to be an extremity or enlargement (in stylistics also known as auxesis). The phrase is in a sense odd in its context (a disjunction), and/or there is an expression of unlikeliness or impossibility (counter factuality), or the utterance is even simply untrue (thus false) (McCarthy and Carter, 2004).
3) There is an indication of “realistic sense”, which means that the utterance is not meant as nonsense (e.g., rubbish, absurdism, or purposely lying).
Although it allows for the classification of hyperbole without directly regarding the listener's reaction, for all criteria it is essential to see the phrase in its context. In most cases the difference between hyperbolic and non-hyperbolic keywords is, considering the criteria, reasonably assignable. For example, when a politician speaks of economic cutbacks in terms of millions of euros, this can be taken rather literally. There is no evidence of disjunction with its context, no sense of impossible or counterfactual statements, no syntactic support. On the other hand, if the politician would say that he (or she) could think of millions of reasons why making economic cutbacks is a bad idea, the phrase should rather be perceived figuratively. It is very unlikely that someone is capable of thinking of millions of reasons at one moment, it is an extreme case formulation (in the semantic subfield of quantity), counterfactual (impossible), and is dissimilar to the normal (political) context (even if possible, pragmatically speaking no one would literally name millions of reasons in a political debate or speech) although the phrase does make perfect sense. In this latter case, consequently, there is clear evidence of hyperbole.
2.1.1.1.2 Orientation
Apart from the quantitative identification of hyperbole, it would be interesting to categorize them based on intrinsic criteria. Van Dijk (1993) pointed out that hyperbole seems to suit the categorization criteria of polarization in which either the positive or the negative is emphasized. Yet earlier it was argued that hyperbole is associated with negative affect on the receiver (Leggitt and Gibbs, 2000). Moreover, according to , a hyperbole is often a (very) negative evaluation of a (moderately) negative situation. However, if the literal situation is evaluated (moderately) positive, then the exaggeration is inevitably positively expressed as well. Rhetorically speaking, it makes a significant difference how a certain situation is evaluated. Usually, negative evaluations express undesirable, unexpected and dangerous circumstances that subsequently can arouse “negative emotions”, such as anxiety, fear, anger or envy (Marcus, 2003). Positively expressed utterances, which are more desirable and expected, are therefore likely to arouse more “positive feelings”, such as happiness, relief, reassurance or satisfaction. What if a hyperbole was meant ironically? Can we miss humorous intention and uptake of hyperbole? The focus on meaning, context and intention of the utterance will possibly clarify the sarcastic nature of the utterance. This is the case in the following example where an opposition parliamentarian criticizes governmental policy: “(…) It is the chronicle of the proclaimed postponement. (…). You've succeeded in that in a masterly way” (Peumans, Flemish nationalistic N-VA, 01/04/09).
emphasizes that, besides the objective quantity or magnitude in excess of hyperboles, also the evaluation of the speaker's emotions and attitudes, whether positive or negative, toward the object or situation, is important to examine. She provides us with a classification of hyperboles, based on certain major semantic subfields, into positive and negative evaluation. The positive hyperbolic evaluation conveys the speaker's approval, admiration or praise, and therefore expresses always certain semantic fields of kindness or gentleness, e.g., something good can be described as “excellent” or “brilliant”, something important as “vital”. Positive hyperbolic subfields refer to evaluations of praise and approval, such as ideas of life and heaven (e.g., reviving, vital, paradise), ideas of perfection and magnificence (e.g., ideal, excellent, great, wonderful), or ideas of splendor and beauty (e.g., lovely, gorgeous, precious, brilliant) (, p. 29). Negative hyperbolism expresses disapproval, criticism and condemnation, e.g., something bad or unwanted can be labeled as “the worst”, “a (total) mess”, or “horrible”. Cano Mora distinguishes eight different semantic subfields in the domain of negative hyperbolic evaluation, i.e. the idea of chaos and disorder (e.g., mess (up), illegible), the idea of shrillness and pungency (e.g., scream, squeal), the idea of badness and evil (e.g., worst, wicked, relentless, obnoxious), the idea of frightfulness (e.g., horrible, terrible, awful), the idea of violence and destruction (e.g., disaster, disgrace, devastated, ruin, erupted, blasting away, thrown on the scrap heap), the idea of sorrow or pain (e.g., pathetic, sickening, starving, freezing, not breathing, drained, headache), the idea of deadliness and hell (e.g., killing, dead, limbo, hell), or the idea of physical or psychic abandonment and loss of control (e.g., desperately, frantically, something on one's nerves or in one's head, crazily, went haywire, mental health problems, in fits, crack one up, (living on) drugs, asleep, no resistance) (2010, p. 29–30).
The purpose of use of hyperbole can thus be moving in two different directions. Whereas several scholars emphasize that hyperboles are often used for clarification (positive use) or for making a point through an ironic or humorous exaggeration (positive or negative use), they can also be perceived (and received) negatively, which can be the effect of using the figure of speech in an offensive or insulting way, for example as a(n) (personal) attack (negative use).
Hyperbole orientation allows to assess the value (either positive or negative) of the hyperbolic evaluation. The either positive or negative evaluation of the hyperboles, the value of hyperbole (HB-value), is measured by calculating the ratio (or share) of negative and positive hyperboles in a text sample, divided by the total number of hyperboles in the text sample. When +1 is added to this outcome, scores are generated on a scale between 0 and 2, in which “0” is being completely positive, “1” is neutral (neither positive or negative) and “2” is being entirely negative. In sum:
2.1.2 Qualitative analysis
The first aim is to detect hyperbolic expressions in political rhetoric by using the methodological framework as described above. Subsequently the study has, besides a quantitative component, a qualitative one as well, once we focus more profoundly on the way that different politicians and parties use specific (categories of) hyperboles. The qualitative part aims at distinguishing different types of hyperbole, within the categories of this rhetorical figure as differentiated by , and hyperboles within categories of other rhetorical variables, as we argued, such as irony and humor and insults and (personal) attacks, as well as the positive and negative categorization, and the rhetorical effects of contrast and surprise. Additionally, we explore recurring patterns and characteristics differentiated between different political parties.
2.2 Materials: the Flemish-Belgian case
Flemish-Belgium is an interesting case for contemporary political and linguistic research. The political realm is characterized by a highly fragmented and diverse political landscape, divided into several political parties. This causes substantial ideological and (other) characteristic differences between parties and their electorate. Additionally, Flemish-Belgium has faced (both recently and traditionally) the presence of radical parties, mostly at the right of the political spectrum.
This section discusses the empirical case of the use of hyperbole in parliamentary debates in Flemish-Belgium, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium between 2006 and 2011. The first paragraphs detail the procedure and data-selection, the parties and their ideology, after which hypotheses are presented, and reliability, and a qualitative analysis with recurring signs of hyperbole identification.
2.2.1 Procedure and data-selection
For this content analysis data is used that is reduced to communication outings directly originating from politicians in Flemish-Belgium, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Therefore, parliamentary debates between 2006 and 2011 have been selected and analyzed. The website of the Flemish-Belgian Government (www.vlaamsparlement.be) contains a database in which reports and related items concerning all parliamentary debates and meetings from 1995 up to present day are stored and possible to be consulted. The website also provides a searching system that allows to select only reports of general parliamentary debates (between 2006 and 2011). From all data that was available, a representative general sample has been randomly chosen. This resulted in a total number of 135 text samples, containing more than 106,000 words of analyzable data (average of 787 words per text sample), approximately equally fragmented between (the most important) different political parties in the Flemish-Belgian (regional) Parliament. A singular text sample consists of a consecutive contribution of a member of parliament during a political debate in the Flemish Parliament. Belgium consists, besides a general Belgian Federal government (and parliament), of several Communities and/or Regions (such as the Flemish, the Walloon and the Brussels-Capital), which have their own regional governments (and parliaments). These governments are assumed to contain most (regional) political power.
Results of the Flemish-Belgian case will be compared with those of the Dutch case, that consists of two studies of Dutch parliamentary rhetoric. The first study (Kalkhoven, 2015) covers the period 2006–2013 (N > 160,000 words). This study found that the far-right politician Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) use a deviant populist style that is far more hyperbolic and negative/anti-political compared to all other parties in the Parliament of the Netherlands. It also found that opposition parties use significantly higher degrees of hyperbolic language than government parties. The second study (Kalkhoven and De Landtsheer, 2017) deals with the period 2010–2014 (N > 200 randomly selected paragraphs). This study confirmed the results of the first Dutch study for a different sample and besides established a connection between the use of hyperbole and integrative complexity in the rhetoric of party leaders. Simple rhetoric tends to contain a greater number of hyperboles compared to more complex language.
2.2.2 Parties and ideology
Political parties that were included in this Flemish-Belgian study are (from left to right): the environmentalists (Groen), the social democrats (sp.a), the Christian democrats (CD&V), the liberal democrats (Open VLD), the Flemish nationalists (N-VA), the radical right populists (LDD), and the far right (Vlaams Belang). Belgian-Flemish parties can for the considered period, similar to the Dutch political parties in the Dutch case, be ideologically placed on a left-right political spectrum (for a two-dimensional ideological classification of Flemish and Dutch political parties, see ).
2.3 Hypotheses
The Flemish case will test the findings of the authors from the Dutch case regarding the more hyperbolic and more negative character of (far)right populist style in parliament compared to other parties/ideologies. It will also test the finding that opposition parties use higher degrees of hyperbolic language than government parties. Finally, it will test the finding of a (positive) correlation between frequency and negative orientation in the use of hyperbole.
2.4 Reliability
The decree that hyperbole often depends on its surrounding, context and other rhetorical figures leads to the conclusion that hyperbole (as many other rhetorical figures) can hardly be incorporated into a mass-scale, computer-generic content analysis: hyperbole cannot be captured into prearranged keywords alone. Therefore, in our attempt to detect the frequency and value of hyperbole, the quantitative coding has been tested and re-tested repeatedly by the authors, similar to the Dutch case. The initial database of text samples has been analyzed according to a coding scheme by the authors, after a series of pre-tests in order to test the validity and usefulness of the instrument regarding the quantitative identification and value scoring of hyperboles. The coding scheme contained an introduction and the definition of hyperbole as described above, a checklist for the three major criteria, divided into sub criteria, and a list of keywords (according to ) as a backup, and the occasion to classify the value of a discovered hyperbole as positive or negative. The inter-rater reliability indicated an increasing agreement (using Cohen's Kappa, to a maximum just below K = 0.60, after the series of pre- and post-tests, which can be seen as a moderate agreement according to Landis and Koch, 1977), but this agreement may still be not entirely satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability in the Dutch case with the same coders (authors) was for study 1 (K = 0.60) and for study 2 (K > 0.50). Therefore, the last stage of data collection was the re-coding analysis of the entire corpus, serving as a second opinion of wrongfully coded or missed hyperboles. The interpretation of hyperbolic categorization and content (the qualitative part) has been executed by the authors, using in-depth rhetorical content analysis. It is by no means intended to make all-embracing or generalizable conclusions on the content analysis part, but it does provide a useful overview of differences in hyperbole use. Finally, if one was not certain whether something is meant hyperbolically or not, we followed the rule by McCarthy and Carter that “borderline cases occur which have to be excluded” (2004, p. 163). All examples used in this study are translated from Dutch, and the coded hyperboles are underlined.
3 Results: the use of hyperbole in the Flemish-Belgian Parliament
There are several interesting results to conceive, about recurring signs of hyperbole identification, differences in rhetorical exaggeration concerned with (party)ideology, the (opposition) role that parties or politicians have in the parliament, radical and populist parties, and not in the least the inherent (anti-political) nature of hyperbole that is reflected in the relation between hyperbole level and orientation.
3.1 Recurring signs of hyperbole identification
In most of the cases it is understandable that certain expressions are hyperbolic (or not), although it could cause some confusion why some cases are and some cases are not hyperbolic. In example (1), for instance, it should be made clear that {c}”every[body]” is a hyperbole, whereas {a} “every [administration]” is not. Both examples contain “extreme case formulation (or intensification) by the use of the word “every”, if we follow the methodological framework. However, the first (everybody) implies a disjunction with the context and counter factuality (since not every single citizen in the world will be aware of the supposed severe situation), while the latter is not only likely to be meant literally, but also consistent with the supposed reality [considering the fact that if the statement is true—”confronted with crucial challenges”—then it will apply for all the different administrations, even though the word “crucial” (non-extreme term: important) itself is hyperbolic].
(1) “Not only Flanders, but {a} every administration in this country and even in other countries, will be confronted with three {b} crucial challenges (…). It is clear for {c} everybody that this is a severe situation (…)” (Peeters, Christian democrat CD&V, 28/09/09).
A similar interesting case is example (2). The word “literally” is, according to e.g., McCarthy and Carter (2004), one of those intensifiers that are regularly used hyperbolic in a general context, although it implies a contradiction in terms. It is conventionalized that the use of “literally” is often counterfactual, precisely as a way to stress the acceptance of the figurative of the expression “fell over backwards”. Of course, the politician in this example could indeed literally have fallen over backwards but considering the metaphorical nature and the disjunction in context (the “oddness” or “irregularity” of the action in those circumstances), that is very unlikely.
(2) “I literally fell over backwards” (De Knop, liberal democratic Open VLD, 27/10/10).
Another (very obvious) sign of identification can be found in cases in which speakers themselves already emphasize the fact that they use hyperbolic language. This kind of “precaution” that is taken, although somewhat paradoxically to the expression of those “absolute convictions”, is revealed for example by government parties such as CD&V (Christian democrats), who tend to tone down or euphemize their own exaggeration at some point [see for instance example (6)].
In the Flemish-Belgian Parliament, particular hyperboles are used much more often than others. In reference to the different semantic subfields, as is stated by , almost all exaggeration is situated in the field of purity (i.e. completeness/absoluteness, universality/non-exceptionality, non-existence/nullity, and veracity) and to a lesser degree in the field of magnitude (and only in greatness, not in smallness). Surprisingly, the subfields of quantity and numerical exaggeration hardly ever occur.
Terms of exaggeration within the subfield of purity, like several expressions of absoluteness, imply the lack of alternatives, state absolute truths and leave no room for discussion or counter-argumentation, because the statement directly tells the listener that, for instance, something has always/never been so, everyone/no one believes that, and there are no exceptions. This pattern occurs in many political discourses, as is illustrated by the following example (3):
(3) “Good governing is {a} out of the question. I think {b} no one needs to be convinced of that. (De Meulemeester, liberal democrat Open VLD, 27/10/10).
3.2 Party ideologies
Table 1 gives an overview of HB Size & Orientation, the average hyperbole use, in frequency (HB-ratio) and in value (HB-value), differentiated among the political parties in the Flemish-Belgian Parliament. The frequency, as measured by the number of overstatements per 100 words of text in the political debates, shows a general average of HB-ratio = 0.64 hyperboles per 100 words. As we compare de Flemish-Belgian results with the results of the Dutch case, we see considerably higher rates there: for study 1, HB- ratio = 1.44 and for study 2, HB- ratio = 2.23.
Table 1
| Ideological spectrum | Political party | HB ratio | HB value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Left | Groen (environmentalists) | .57 | 1.43 |
| sp.a (social democrats) | .40 | 1.15 | |
| Center | CD&V (Christian democrats) | .27 | 1.03 |
| Open VLD (liberal democrats) | .56 | 1.28 | |
| Right | N-VA (Flemish nationalists) | .54 | 1.03 |
| LDD (populists) | .99 | 1.40 | |
| Extreme right | Vlaams Belang (extreme right) | 1.16 | 1.43 |
| Total average | .64 | 1.25 |
Level (hyperbole ratio, HB ratio) and orientation (hyperbole value, HB value) of political parties in Flemish-Belgian parliamentary debates (2006–2011).
N = 135 text samples (or 106,237 words). Bold values indicate significant results.
The HB-value is the either positive (value < 1) or negative (value > 1) evaluation of a situation that is expressed hyperbolically. For the Flemish-Belgian case the general evaluation of HB-value = 1.25, which means that hyperboles are, as expected, more often used to express something negatively than positively. For the Dutch study 1. there can be noticed a similar value, HB-value =1.26.
As can be learned from Table 1 and Figure 1, the far-right populist party Vlaams Belang distinguishes itself from other parties in Hyperbole Level & Orientation, by its higher use of hyperbole, HB Ratio 1.16, and the negativity of these hyperboles, HB Value 1.43. The party is followed by the radical right populist party LDD with respectively HB Ratio 0.99 and HB Value 1.40.
Figure 1
Here the findings from the Dutch case are confirmed where Geert Wilders” extreme right populist party PVV scores a considerably higher HB-ratio, 2.43 (study 1.) and 3.75 (study 2) than other parties.
A particular (negative) discourse is being settled in only two sentences, as there is no room for discussion [{a}”out of the question”] (as in: out of order), and since the bad or undesirable situation is established, it is also the absolute truth, because it is presumed that everybody thinks so [{b}”no one needs to be convinced”]. Although this example of “absolute convictions” is characteristic for the (mildly) hyperbolic discourse of Open VLD, it is certainly not reserved exclusively to the liberal conservative party. This kind of exaggeration, which is often characterized by—and therefore closely related to—simple extreme case formulations (e.g., “all”, “everybody”, “always”), is most occurring within all discourses in the Belgium-Flanders political hyperbolic language. Commonly used overstatements are situated in these categories, as the following examples from the three major establishment parties show:
(4) “We've {a} always been saying that… (…). I think that {b} all members are impressed” (Ceysens, liberal democrat Open VLD, 23/06/10)
(5) “Some completely lose track today.” (Robeyns, social democrat sp.a, 27/10/11)
(6) “The federal government can forget it, to express this strongly, to (…)” (PM Peeters, Christian democratic CD&V, 23/06/10).
This latter example (6) is rather characteristic for and part of the moderate tone in the political discourse and style of the Christian democratic center-party CD&V, which achieves the lowest hyperbole ratio of all parties when the frequency per 100 words is measured (see Table 1 and Figure 1): an average of 0.27 hyperbolic words per 100 words. They also achieve, along with the Flemish nationalistic N-VA, the lowest hyperbole value (HB-value = 1.03), which means that they are least negative in their overstatements (though still slightly more negative than positive). Importantly, as we will see, the Christian democratic party CD&V is, during the selected time period, continuously part of the Flemish-Belgian government.
3.3 Government-opposition
The other party that is exclusively part of the Flemish government is the social democratic party sp.a. They achieve the second lowest hyperbole ratio score (.40 hyperboles per 100 words). Also, the sp.a uses hyperbole notably frequent with precaution. It comes to the attention that there is a significant difference in hyperbole value (P < 0.05) between members of the parliament and members of the government (respectively HB-values of 1.28 vs. 0.73) among sp.a politicians. Illustrative, there is a high number of positively formulated overstatements by sp.a Ministers. However, naturally, particular situations are unbecoming for a positive tone, and the circumstances ask for a more severe attitude. The way of expressing negative feelings degenerate recurrently into a form of metaphorical exaggeration that can be described as a pessimistic and gloomy view on the political practice, for example:
(7) “Last Tuesday […] was a {a} black day in the history of the European Union” (…) “If this goes on, every initiative will be {b} doomed” (De Loor, social democratic sp.a, 18/06/08).
Three of the parties achieved a comparable hyperbole frequency score: the Flemish nationalistic N-VA (.54), the liberal democratic Open VLD (.56) and the environmentalist Groen (.57). Although there are similarities, we also find clear differences in hyperbole use between these parties and we can identify their own specific characteristics. Whereas the environmentalist party Groen is a classic left-ecological opposition party, the Flemish nationalist party N-VA and the liberal democratic party Open VLD, both on the right side of the political spectrum, are the only parties that have both been part of the government and of the opposition in the selected period. Differentiation of the hyperbole ratio whilst part of the government vs. opposition shows that there are significant differences between the two different political roles at both the liberal democratic Open VLD (HB-ratiogovernment = 0.30 vs. HB-ratioopposition = 0.91; P < 0.05) and particularly the Flemish nationalist N-VA (HB-ratiogov. = 0.27 vs. HB-ratioopp. = 1.92; P < 0.001).
The Dutch case learns that the far right PVV used an extremely hyperbolic rhetoric after the first electoral success in 2006. However, we can see a firm drop in the hyperbole frequency HB Ratio in the years 2010 and 2011: the years in which PVV gave authorized parliamentary support to the minority coalition of CDA and VVD (study 1). Whereas HB-Ratio for parties in Government was 1.05, in Opposition it was 2.74 (study 2).
Especially the Flemish nationalist N-VA has an interesting development throughout the years between 2006 and 2011. The N-VA is known for its radical and deviant style in Belgian politics (Pauwels, 2010; Maly and Zienkowski, 2011), nonetheless in the Flemish-Belgian parliament they have been part of the government for years in succession. There is only a small period, between September 2008 and July 2009, in which the Flemish nationalistic N-VA was part of the opposition. As we mentioned, remarkable differences are found between the politicians” roles in either opposition or government (see also Figure 2). A striking example is the N-VA politician Geert Bourgeois, who as a Minister prior to the oppositional period, uses almost no hyperbole, whereas during the oppositional period (as MP) the hyperbole ratio reaches high levels, by using a spate of “classic” exaggeration, especially in terms of absoluteness, universalities and non-exceptions, e.g., “but we all knew that”, “this leaves all questions unanswered”, “As everyone expected (…)”, “Not one French-speaking party ever took the dialogue seriously”, “but I think we all know better” (Bourgeois, N-VA, in Flemish-Belgian Parliament at date 08/10/08 and at date 18/02/09).
Figure 2
Each of these three parties (Flemish nationalistic N-VA, liberal democratic Open VLD and environmentalist Groen) uses rhetorical exaggerations in a characteristic way. Whereas the liberal democratic Open VLD tends to use a lot of figurative hyperbolic expressions, e.g., example (8), only the Flemish nationalistic N-VA uses hyperbole more in an ironic and humorous way [see (9)], while the environmentalist Groen above all expresses its anger and disappointment [see (10)].
(8) “(…) yet {a} another blow [of the sledgehammer]. (…) That negative enumeration is [like] {b} bashing in an open door (…), with that {c} catastrophic financial crisis as a result. Now the real economy is being {d} dragged along in great intensity. (…). The costs of the health care {e} explode” (Bril, liberal democratic Open VLD, 18/02/09)
(9) “(…) this {a} exciting dossier (…) which I will read with lots of pleasure. (…). I've described that as {b} “indecisive decision-making”. (…). It is the chronicle of the proclaimed postponement. (…). You've succeeded in that in a {c} masterly way” (Peumans, Flemish nationalistic N-VA, 01/04/09)
(10) “I'm [completely] dazed” (Meulemans, Groen, 05/10/11).
3.4 Populist and (far) right exaggeration
Flemish-Belgium is known for the (formerly) success of its right-extreme Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang (“Flemish Interest”), but in that wake it also witnessed the short upsurge of a classic right-wing populist party: Libertair, Direct, Democratisch (formerly known as Lijst Dedecker, or in short: LDD). Interestingly, LDD expresses its “populism” (in its understanding of “from and to the people”) not only in the political ideology but also in a strong “populist” hyperbolic rhetoric. Their hyperbole use is aimed at the generalization of the mass (“the people”), such as “we all know that” (e.g., Verstrepen, 23/04/08) or “that's obvious to everybody” (e.g., Bouckaert, 04/05/11), more than any other party, and opposed to the political elites, expressed in an ironic and especially cynical way:
(11) “(…) you just don't know, it changes every five minutes” (about an opponent's political standpoint) (Verstrepen, populist LDD, 08/10/08),
(12) “Again nothing was accomplished. We are seven years later, and the result is still zero.” (Werbrouck, populist LDD, 18/11/09).
The extreme right party Vlaams Belang (henceforth VB) generally stands out in hyperbolic rhetoric compared to the other parties. Not only does it clearly achieve (on average) the highest frequency of hyperbole use (average of 1.16 hyperboles per 100 words), it also is the most negative (together with the environmentalist Groen party). VB-politicians tend to use many metaphorical expressions (e.g., ), as other parties do regularly, but their metaphorical overstatements are often expressed in very heavy terms. This results in higher contrast and surprise, with reference to extremely inconvenient or negative circumstances. Moreover, the use of exaggeration is often expressed in an accumulation of multiple (consecutive) hyperboles, as for example illustrated in quote (13). VB is the only party where we find politicians who use hyperbolic rhetoric to insult or personally attack other politicians, although attacking the opponents” policy equally happens (as examples (13), (14) and (15) show).
(13) “(…) it is the {a} death agony of the {b} terminal ill patient Belgium” (Dewinter, right extreme VB, 10/09/07)
(14) “This Flemish government becomes more and more the hostage of (…)”, “(…) how long do you planning on being the hostage of (…)” (Dewinter, right extreme VB, 07/05/08)
(15) “(…) slowly strangling” (about the government's policy) (e.g., Wymeersch, right extreme VB, 03/05/06).
Additionally, it is remarkable that VB is very repetitive in their rhetoric and with this, as the only party, relies on numerical and quantitative expressions, such as “a new umpteenth time”, “years and years”, “years passing by”, “over and over again”, “endless”, “for once”, “months and years go by” (e.g., Dewinter, VB, in Flemish Parliament, on dates 16/02/11; 22/09/08; 21/12/11).
3.5 Level and orientation
Interestingly, there is a substantial correlation between the frequency and the value of hyperbole use. A standard bivariate Pearson Correlation test indicates a significant (moderate) positive correlation score of r = 0.40 (p < 0.01). Figure 1 reveals the parallel pathways that the hyperbole ratio and value follow when both are placed on a political spectrum of the different parties in Flemish-Belgian politics. This result which is in line with the moderate positive correlation in the Dutch study 1., r = 0.387, p < 0.01, indicates a direct relationship between the frequency and the evaluation of hyperbole, i.e. an increase in the number of hyperboles means a more negative evaluation.
4 Discussion
In this study we tried to establish the recognition of the rhetorical figure of hyperbole in political language in addition to the existing (and lack of) academic literature and whether we could create a methodological instrument to detect and analyze hyperbolic language in current political rhetoric. Although in the domain of linguistics and literature study hyperbole is a well-known and recognized rhetorical figure, and at the same time presumed to be an important part of political discourse, this has been the first academic attempt to both quantitatively and qualitatively designate exaggeration as a rhetorical device in political language. The second objective was to describe what kinds of differences in hyperbole use exist between political parties (that all have their particular political ideology) in their various roles, which contributes to a better understanding of rhetorical differences in contemporary ideologies.
Despite the potential difficulties in the detection of hyperbole use as described in the methodological part of this study, we believe that the combination of a multi-layered systematic analysis succeeded in the identification and classification of this rhetorical device, which results in several conclusions to be drawn. Hyperbolic language has been detected in different forms and frequencies among different political parties. We now know that for the Belgium-Flanders case, the average politician uses almost two utterances of hyperbole per 300 words in his or her talk during the political debate. Comparison with the Dutch case tells that in the Dutch Parliament hyperbole is pronounced four and a half times in 300 words, whereas with an average value of 1.26 the used hyperboles are more negative than positive (study 1.). The reason for the bigger size of hyperbole in the Dutch Parliament compared to the Flemish-Belgian Parliament may be sought in the particular (regional) role of this Flemish-Belgian Parliament which differs from the (national) roles of the Federal Belgian Parliament and the Dutch Parliament.
It is revealed that hyperbole suits a negative rhetorical style in politics, considering the higher share of negative evaluation of affairs by using hyperbole over positive use. Moreover, the results showed a positive correlation between the frequency and the value of use, which means that the more hyperbole one uses, the more negative they become. It could provide us with evidence that hyperboles are rhetorical devices that are suitable more for negativism, criticism and cynicism than for positivism, (innocent) humor and laudation.
Hyperbole is used to create a contrast or a surprising effect, but also to express irony and (especially) negative feelings. As the results show, however, insulting or (personally) attacking other politicians through the use of hyperbole hardly occurs in this political case, with certain exceptions among right-wing parties; this precaution certainly applies to parties who have regulated responsibilities in policy-making politics, which are often the centered and (long) established parties, normally part of the government, such as the christian democratic CD&V, the social democratic sp.a and partially the Flemish nationalistic N-VA. This supports the idea that politicians behave according to the role that they are purported to have and what is most advantageous in their situation. The use of rhetoric in political language is particularly depending on context factors. It is, for instance, quite possible that hyperbole is used differently in other types or forms of communication, such as in interviews and speeches, where there is less need for cooperation and more room for rhetorical attacks.
Ideological differences can be detected through rhetorical use of language (e.g., ). The results in this study lead us to draw preliminary conclusions that, for instance, certain (center) parties tend to use fewer hyperbolic expression and when they do, they use a mitigated or euphemistic form, whereas especially oppositional parties show significant higher degrees of hyperbole use, more negatively posed, which often expresses disappointment, indignation, irony or even cynicism. A hypothesis that higher degrees of hyperbole use ventilate the rhetoric of extreme or populist parties appears to be increasingly plausible. The “radical” parties at the right of the political spectrum (the populist LDD and the extreme right VB) achieve the highest levels of hyperbole use, and express a more “populist” form of exaggeration, by regularly referring to the general or common sense of the mass (e.g., “we all know that…”) and a strong oppositional standpoint against the political elite (e.g., “again nothing was accomplished”), more than other parties in the political spectrum. Especially the extreme-right party Vlaams Belang shows, as portrayed earlier, a very deviant and peculiar hyperbole use compared to the other political parties in the Flemish-Belgian case. What could be most characteristic is the fact that they, as sole party, use clearly overstated numerical and quantity expressions. As a way to stress their opinion and claim emphasis to a subject, it appears to be an effective way of provoking and appealing to apparent negative deeds and decisions by the political authorities. This exceeds heavily upon the exaggeration, mostly situated in the field of purity, as commonly employed by most (other) political parties. The specific use of hyperbole by populist and extreme right parties is a recommended track for further research, especially in connection to other tropes that may signal anti-political feelings.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
LK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1.^Source: http://www.etymonline.com.
2.^An earlier version of the study by the authors entitled “The use of hyperbole in political language” is part of a dissertation (Kalkhoven and De Landtsheer, 2016).
References
1
AskaniusT. (2021). On frogs, monkeys, and execution memes: exploring the humor-hate nexus at the intersection of Neo-Nazi and alt-right movements in Sweden. Telev. New Media 22. doi: 10.1177/1527476420982234
2
AtkinsonJ. M. (1984). “Public Speaking and Audience Response: some Techniques for inviting Applause,” in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. J. M. Atkinson and J. C. Heritage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 370–409.
3
BeerF. A.De LandtsheerC. (2004). “Metaphors, Politics, and World Politics,” in Metaphorical World Politics, eds. F. A. Beer and C. De Landtsheer (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press), 5–52.
4
BerntsenD.KennedyJ. M. (1996). Unresolved contradictions specifying attitudes – in Metaphor, Irony, understatement and tautology. Poetics24, 13–29. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(95)00013-A
5
BilligM. (2005). Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
6
BoeynaemsA.BurgersC.ConijnE. A. (2021). When figurative frames decrease political persuasion. the case of right-wing anti-immigration rhetoric. Discourse Process.58, 193–212. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1851121
7
Brdar-SzabóR.BrdarM. (2010). Mummy, I love you like a thousand Ladybirds: reflections on the Emergence of Hyperbolic Effects and the Truth of Hyperboles. Trop. Truths Epistemol. Metaphor Other Tropes 383. doi: 10.1515/9783110230215.383
8
BurgersC.BrugmanB. C.Renardel de LavaletteK. Y.SteenG. J. (2016a). HIP: a method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor Symbol31, 163–178. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1187041
9
BurgersC.KonijnE. A.SteenG. J. (2016b). Figurative framing: shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Commun. Theory26, 410–430. doi: 10.1111/comt.12096
10
Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Thesaurus. Available online at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-politics?q=antipolitics (accessed May 11, 2026).
11
Cano MoraL. (2009). All or nothing: a semantic analysis of hyperbole. Rev. Lingüíst. Leng. Apl.4, 25–35. doi: 10.4995/rlyla.2009.731
12
Cano MoraL. (2010). All or nothing: a semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas4, 25–35.
13
ColstonH. L. (1997). I've never seen anything like it: overstatement, understatement and irony. Metaphor Symbol12, 43–58. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1201_4
14
ColstonH. L.KellerS. (1998). You'll never believe this: irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. J. Psycholinguist. Res.27, 419–513. doi: 10.1023/A:1023229304509
15
ColstonH. L.O'BrienJ. (2000a). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: anything understatement can do, irony can do better. J. Pragmat.32, 1557–1583. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1
16
ColstonH. L.O'BrienJ. (2000b). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: the pragmatic accomplishment of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Process.30, 179–199. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3002_05
17
DaviesB. L. (2007). Grice's cooperative principle: meaning and rationality. J. Pragmat.39, 2308–2331. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.002
18
De LandtsheerC. (2009). “Collecting Political Meaning from the Count of Metaphor,” in Metaphor and Discourse, eds. A. Musolff and J. Zinken (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 59–78.
19
De LandtsheerC. (2015a). Political color of metaphor, with focus on black: the rise and fall of the flemish extreme right vlaams blok and vlaams belang. Polit. Cult. Socializ.6, 85–106. doi: 10.3224/pcs.v6i1-2.07
20
De LandtsheerC. (2015b). Media rhetoric plays the market: the logic and power of metaphors behind the financial crises since 2006. Metaphor Soc. World5, 205–222. doi: 10.1075/msw.5.2.02del
21
De LandtsheerC.KalkhovenL. (2012). The smell of crisis: style and rhetoric of political parties in and outside crisis situations in three Belgium Cases. Polit. Cult. Socializ.3, 133–156.
22
FeldmanO. (2000). “Non-oratorical Discourse and Political Humor in Japan: Editorial Cartoons, Satire, and Attitudes toward Authority,” in Beyond Public Speech and Symbols. Explorations in the Rhetoric of Politicians and the Media, eds. C. De Landtsheer and O. Feldman (Westport, CT: Praeger), 165–191.
23
FeldmanO. (2024). Political Humour Worldwide. The Cultural Context of Political Comedy, Satire, and Parody.Singapore: Springer.
24
FormisanoR. P. (2008). For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 1850s. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
25
FreudS. (1978). Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Middlesex: Pelican Books.
26
GibbsR. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27
GrobeC. (2022). The deep, dark play of the U.S. capitol riots. Perform. Res.27, 51–62. doi: 10.1080/13528165.2022.2155396
28
HaimanJ. (1998). Talk is Cheap: Sarcasm, Alienation and the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29
JamiesonK. H. (1988). Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30
KalkhovenL. (2013). Populist ideological stances in Western Europe: contemporary Populism in the Low Countries in the Light of the European Context. Polit. Cult. Socializ.4, 230–250. doi: 10.3224/pcs.v4i2.19806
31
KalkhovenL. (2015). A piece of trash of the worst cabinet ever: the rhetorical use of exaggeration by the Dutch Populist “Party for Freedom (PVV)”. Polit. Cult. Socializ.6, 51–70. doi: 10.3224/pcs.v6i1-2.05
32
KalkhovenL.De LandtsheerC. (2016). The Use of Hyperbole in Political Language, in How to make Politics... Bigger, Better and Simpler: the Analysis of Metaphor, Hyperbole and Simplification in the (Populist) Rhetoric of Politicians in the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium) in the 21st Century (dissertation/master's thesis). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
33
KalkhovenL.De LandtsheerC. (2017). “Politics, it has never been so simple: Complex versus Simplistic Rhetoric and the Use of Hyperbole in Political Decision-Making in the Netherlands,” in Complex Political Decision-Making. Leadership, Legitimacy and Communication, eds. P. Bursens, C. De Landtsheer, L. Braeckmans, and B. Segaert (London: Routledge), 183–202.
34
KreuzR.RobertsR. (1995). Two cues for verbal irony: hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor Symb. Act.10, 21–31. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3
35
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics33, 363-74. doi: 10.2307/2529786
36
LeggittJ.GibbsR. (2000). Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Process.29, 1–24. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_1
37
MalyI.ZienkowskiJ. (2011). Het Rijpen van de Geest. De Woorden van De Wever en de Strijd om uw Ziel. Antwerp: Kif Kif vzw. Dutch.
38
MarcusG. E. (2003). “The psychology of emotion and politics,” in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, and R. Jervis (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 182–221.
39
MartinJ. (2014). Politics and Rhetoric. A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
40
McCarthyM.CarterR. (2004). There's millions of them: hyperbole in everyday conversation. J. Pragmat.36, 149–184. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4
41
McGrawP.WarrenC. (2010). Benign violations: making immoral behavior funny. Psychol. Sci.21, 1141-1149. doi: 10.1177/0956797610376073
42
McSwineyJ.SengulK. (2023). Humor, ridicule, and the far right: mainstreaming exclusion through online animation. Telev. New Media25, 315–333. doi: 10.1177/15274764231213816
43
Mendiburo-SeguelA.AlendaS.FordT. E.OlahA. R.NaviaP. D.Argüello-GutiérrezC. (2022). #funnypoliticians: how do political figures use humour on Twitter. Front. Sociol.7:788742. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.788742
44
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Available online at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-politics (accessed May 11, 2026).
45
NorrickN. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. J. Pragmat.36, 1727–1739. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
46
NugrahaD. S. (2023). The sword of the word: the use of hyperbole in the political cartoons of Indonesians. Interference J. Lang. Lit. Linguist.4, 199–216. doi: 10.26858/interference.v4i2.51257
47
PauwelsT. (2010). Explaining the success of neo-liberal populist parties: the case of Lijst Dedecker in Belgium. Polit. Stud.58, 1009–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00815.x
48
PérezR. (2022). The Souls of White Jokes: How Racist Humor Fuels White Supremacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
49
PhiddianR. (2019). Satire and the Public Emotions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
50
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: a Method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor Symbol22, 1–39. doi: 10.1080/10926480709336752
51
PrakkenB. (2025). Humorous political rhetoric in the US: analysing Trump's and Ocasio Cortez's use of humour. Eur. J. Humour Res.13, 36–56. doi: 10.7592/EJHR.2025.13.4.1087
52
RitterJ. R. (2010). Recovering hyperbole: re-imagining the limits of rhetoric for an age of excess. Commun. Diss.22:317.
53
RobertsR. M.KreuzR. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language?Psychol. Sci.5, 159–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00653.x
54
SchedlerA. (1997). The End of Politics? Explorations into Modern Antipolitics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
55
StewartP. (2012). Laughter on the 2008 campaign trail: how presidential candidates used humour during primary debates. Humor25, 233–262. doi: 10.1515/humor-2012-0013
56
SwitzerR. (2025). Righteousness, Love, and Humor: the Role of Emotion in Swedish Far Right Activist Stigma Management. Soc. Probl.73, 569–583. doi: 10.1093/socpro/spaf013
57
Van DijkT. A. (1993). Discourse and Elite Racism. London: Sage.
58
YoungD. G. (2016). “Humor and Satire, Political,” in The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, Vol. I, A-Int., ed. G. Mazzoleni (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell), 487–494.
Summary
Keywords
anti-politics, exaggeration, Flemish-Belgium, hyperbole, opposition, parliament, political rhetoric, the Netherlands
Citation
Kalkhoven L and De Landtsheer C (2026) Uncovering anti-politics by counting hyperbole: level, orientation, and ideology of rhetorical exaggeration. Front. Polit. Sci. 8:1844007. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1844007
Received
31 March 2026
Revised
16 May 2026
Accepted
22 May 2026
Published
16 June 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Joseph Aistrup, Auburn University, United States
Reviewed by
Prihantoro Prihantoro, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Beer Prakken, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Kalkhoven and De Landtsheer.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Christ'l De Landtsheer, christl.delandtsheer@uantwerpen.be; christldelandtsheer@yahoo.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.