I’m firmly opposed to the ever more frequent use of “literally” as a generic intensifier for a statement because I believe that in many cases, it uses that word in a sense that is almost the opposite of its literal (pun intended) meaning. But I’m also a believer in descriptivism, which holds that dictionaries and grammar authorities can only describe the prevailing usage in a language but not prescribe it; to me, this implies that if a usage of a word or a grammatical construct that has previously been considered wrong becomes more and more frequent, it will, at some stage, reach a tipping point where it cannot be considered wrong anymore but has become correct usage, simply because it has been established as the right way (or at least one of several acceptable ways) of speaking the language. This raises the question whether the use of “literally” mentioned above has reached this tipping point. What would people here say about this?
Apologies, this should have been posted in IMHO. Could a mod move it please?
Merriam-Webster online lists the figurative meaning as the second definition. So at least that dictionary has. American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com) lists it as a usage note. Cambridge online lists the second dfinition as “used to emphasize what you are saying: He missed that kick literally by miles.”
I wouldn’t say it “changed” the dictionary meaning. It’s just another way the word is used.
Yeah, I guess it’s tipped, the new definition is “figuratively”. And we need a new word that means what “literally” used to mean.
It’s a definition treadmill.
About a century ago people started to use “literally” to mean “actually” (in sentences like “I was literally in the car behind that accident”) - and it’s long past the time that that new usage became accepted (in fact, a lot of people see to think that that’s the original usage,and rail against newer usages).
But it does not mean “figuratively” – it’s a figurative use of the word, yes, but substituting “figuratively” in for “literally” changes the intent and deflates the intensifying action of the word, which is the whole point of people using it (though now it’s become so cliche that it’s lost must of its power.) We don’t argue about “really” as an intensifier, even when it’s used in a sense not to mean “in actuality.” Same type of thing. I have almost never been confused as to whether “literally” is being used as a mere intensifier or in its literal sense in a sentence.
Google around, this is a rather sober write-up on the word that has something for both prescriptivists and descriptivists:
Yeah I agree that the dictionaries are just reporting on how words are used, not defining anything.
But this one bugs me as now the word literally is literally 
meaningless. There is already a word for figuratively, you know its called “figuratively”, that is literally the antonym of literally. If literally doesn’t mean literally it doesn’t mean anything, and it can literally be removed from any sentence containing it without changing its meaning.
It could always be used in its original sense, which is not “actually.”
I noticed it a long time ago. I think, for quite a few years now, I’ve been (jokingly) saying ‘literally literally means figuratively’.
Yeah, that usage annoys the shit out of me…not literally, thankfully.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making here. “Literally” and “actually” seem pretty close in meaning to me. “I was actually behind the car that exploded” means the same to me as “I was literally behind the car that exploded”, using the typical prescriptivist view of “literally”.
For meaningless words, try biweekly. Is that twice/week or every two weeks? Who knows? Same with bimonthly. If I were God, the first thing I would do is make people use semiweekly or semimonthly for twice per and bi- for every two. Then, maybe solve world peace or something.
Ah, you’re using the new meaning of “literally.” That’s fine. But in the 19th century that would been a very unusual way to use the word. It means “regarding words or letters” (or sometimes “word for word”). In the 19th century, “literally” was almost always used in phrases like “translated literally” - which meant translated word-for-word, rather than idiomatically (translating “nagelneu” from German into “nail new” instead of the more idiomatically useful “brand new”). You can see how people started to use the word “literally” in a figurative way (to mean “actually”) but that’s not how the word was originally used.
Moved from FQ to IMHO.
Ah, I see. OK, thanks. Yes, I guess I’m using it in the old new way, not the new new way, where it’s just an intensifier.
Weird Al covers that and lots of other things that drive prescriptivists crazy in Word Crimes.
My favorite use of literally in the new new way was in a meeting. Someone was complaining that work was slow. He could have said “we’re literally sitting up there with our thumbs up our asses”, but instead said “we’re sitting up there with our thumbs literally up our asses”, which made it seem like he really meant that. Anyway, I didn’t shake his hand after the meeting…
“Lily, the caretaker’s daughter, was literally run off her feet. Hardly had she brought one gentleman into the little pantry … than the wheezy hall-door bell clanged again and she had to scamper along the bare hallway to let in another guest.” - James Joyce, The Dubliners, 1914
“And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.” - Mark Twain, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, 1876
“She took me to herself, and proceeded literally to suffocate me with her unrestrained spirits.” Charlotte Bronte, Vilette, 1853
“His looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone, but there was something of the old fire in the large sunken eye notwithstanding, …” Charles Dickens, Nicholas Nicklesby, 1839
What a pack of unlettered morons.
YouTuber LegalEagle discussing a recent court case that said “literally” can mean “figuratively”. (LegalEagle was not amused.)
Yeah, it’s quite possible that the “actually” and “figuratively” meanings of “literal” both started being used at about the same time (both being derived from the “regarding words or letters” meaning). I don’t have the historical linguistics skills to figure out the timeline.
While I understand your point, I would argue that the “actually” meaning is very close to the original meaning and is a natural evolution of it. As already noted, “dictionary.com” lists both of those closely related meanings:
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
“dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread”(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
“a literal translation from the Spanish”
My own view on the matter is probably familiar, as I’ve managed to insinuate myself into just about every discussion of “literally”, and it’s simply the following.
Of course dictionaries have to be descriptive – that’s their function. And so they duly record the perverse use of “literally” to mean its exact opposite, either as informal usage or as accepted standard English. My view is that such usage – essentially as a meaningless and potentially confusing intensifier – is a stylistic choice and is usually – but not always – a bad one.
It’s been frequently pointed out that respected writers have long used “literally” in the figurative sense, but my counter to this is that when they’ve done so, they’ve generally done it in a way that skillfully intensifies a metaphor that is closely aligned with a literal reality. For example, “literally glowing with happiness” denotes an appearance that can also be described as “radiant”, or as an infectious excitement – one can imagine (literally) flushed cheeks; contrast that with some illiterate moron saying “I was so surprised that my head literally asploded”.
I see that @Miller has unintentionally provided more examples that conveniently prove just this point.
-
“Literally run off her feet” – not literally literally, but skillfully conveying the closely related notion of excessively running around to the point of exhaustion.
-
“Literally rolling in wealth” – perhaps not “rolling”, but conveying the closely related notion of being surrounded by it.
-
“proceeded literally to suffocate me” – conveying the closely related notion of being constrained or burdened by someone’s excessive spirits, to the point of wanting to free oneself from it.
-
“limbs and body literally worn to the bone” – conveying the closely related notion of being haggard and malnourished, possibly with the outline of bones (literally) visible.
No, not “a pack of unlettered morons”. A pack of skilled writers who know what they’re doing.
Using “literally” in a non-literal manner is, according to you, “perverse,” and a sign that someone’s an “illiterate moron.” And the fact that some of the most celebrated writers in the English language used the word in precisely that fashion is, somehow… proof of your assertion?
How exactly does that work?