It definitely comes across as a tautology to me also, as well as a bizarre sui generis claim. “Literally” among all words, you seem to say, should have one definition reserved only for good authors, and bad authors should be discouraged from using that definition even when they use it according to the dictionary’s every jot and tittle. Are there any other definitions of any other words you similarly circumscribe?
Sure, lots of them!
The noted lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower (editor of several dictionaries and a former editor-at-large of the OED) in defending the figurative use of “literally”, said some years ago that “The one sensible criticism of the way ‘literally’ is often used is that it can lead to confusing or silly-sounding results. In this case, the answer is simple. Don’t write silly-soundingly.”
Hey, look, another “tautology”!
But in a practical sense, this is easier said than done. That’s why bad writers should be more constrained by rules than good writers who know how to use the language. “Keep it simple, and avoid getting entangled in bad metaphors” is a good principle for unskilled writers. There’s a reason that submissions to the Bulwer Lytton bad writing contest are rife with bad metaphors. There are few things funnier than an abysmal writer trying to get creative, and these fictitious bits of writing are trying to emulate that fabulous genre.
I look forward to links to–let’s say, three–posts in which you’ve similarly circumscribed specific definitions of words for bad writers. Not new posts that you make in response to this request, but old posts. Because from where I stand, it appears that you, like a lot of other folks, harp on one definition of “literally” like you harp on no other word’s definition.
I saw something on CNN where they were discussing Ginni Thomas’s “release the kraken” comment to Mark Meadows, and Wolf Blitzer pondered whether she meant that literally or figuratively. I think he meant to ask whether she was really calling for Meadows to overturn the election or only urging him to take some unspecified action, and not whether she was literally calling for him to release a mythological sea monster. I’m not completely sure though.
Apparently my post wasn’t clear. Perhaps if I had been clearer (or included a smilie) you wouldn’t have jumped on that facetious opening statement and taken it literally.
There are, of course, lots and lots of rules and stylistic choices that unskilled writers would be well advised to follow (not so much the usage of individual words) but I absolutely am singling out the misuse of “literally” as a particular literary evil.
The reason is simply this, as I tried to explain. The only justifiable use of “literally” in anything other than its plain meaning of “not figurative” is when it’s used as an intensifier. In any example I can think of, when it’s used in this sense it intensifies a word or phrase that is effectively a metaphor. And this is where, as writers, we need to be careful. The ill-advised use of inappropriate metaphors – sometimes comically inappropriate – is one of the most common hallmarks of bad writing. And the problem with bad writers using “literally” in this way is that it makes bad metaphors worse, for exactly the same reason that in the hands of good writers, it strengthens the imagery of good metaphors.
Again, the reason it works as an intensifier for an appropriate metaphor is that it stresses that the metaphorical condition is so extreme that it is virtually a physical or literal reality. When the metaphor makes no sense to begin with (“my head literally asploded”) it just highlights the stupidity. It certainly doesn’t contribute to strengthening the imagery. It just sits there like a literary wart, inexplicably standing for the opposite of its plain meaning.
As Sheidlower said in my previous quote, this is just the kind of usage that “can lead to confusing or silly-sounding results”. And as he further says, the best way to avoid that is “Don’t write silly-soundingly”, which for unskilled writers means to avoid constructs (like the use of “literally” in metaphors) that may take them down that path. My previous observation was essentially that good writers can do effective things with language that bad writers shouldn’t attempt, and that is in no way a “tautology”.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes, it does.
No, it doesn’t.
And you still haven’t given a single example of anyone actually writing this.
I confess I’m struggling to distinguish between the ridiculous things you’re saying sincerely and the ridiculous things you’re saying facetiously. To be clear: this is the only definition of the only word that you treat this way? You don’t have a record of responding with similar contempt to people who use “really,” “actually,” or “truly” in the same way as “literally,” despite those words’ greater denotative claim to indicating veracity?
Wait, is this all actually about the phrase, “my head exploded,” to denote extreme surprise or shock? Is “literally” (much like Communism) just a red herring?
Hopefully not. That would literally be mind-blowing.
Are you seriously trying to claim that no one has ever used “literally” in any written communication in any sense other than “not figuratively”? The numerous articles and dictionaries I’ve read on the subject may (or may not) distinguish between permissible usage in formal versus informal contexts, but I’ve yet to see anyone express a distinction between spoken and written usage per se.
As I said in an earlier post, “the distinction is not between spoken and written language, but between formal and colloquial usage in either context”.
This article has more on the subject:
But they don’t. I probably would have just the same contempt if we were plagued by such usage. But such usage is very rare. Try substituting any of those words in the sentence “I literally died when I heard the news”. It doesn’t really work, because those words have not acquired the connotation of “almost” or “virtually”, whereas “literally” – as the proponents of its use as an intensifier never tire of reminding us – has been used this way for hundreds of years.
But I’ll reiterate: such usage is not arbitrary and requires careful discretion. If the concepts of “almost” or “virtually” make no sense when applied to the metaphor, then it’s bad writing and constitutes misuse.
Too late to add another ETA, so I’ll do it here to emphasize this point.
Back upthread in the link to Language Log, Mark Liberman makes the following observation:
In reading Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth, I noticed that Prof. Dawkins is rather fond of the word “literally”, using it 38 times in the roughly 130,000 words of the cited work, for a rate of about 292 per million words. This is more than eight times greater than the overall rate of about 35 per million words in the COCA corpus, and 15 times greater than the rate of 15 per million words in the British National Corpus.
But one then observes that some of those instances are actually using the word in its plain sense of “not figurative”, and most of the others are using it in the sense of “very, very close to the literal reality”. So Dawkins may have an inordinate fondness for the word, but he is indeed using it with careful discretion.
If you want to replace literally with another word, try fucking.
I fucking died when I heard the news.
He’s fucking out of his mind.
My head fucking exploded.
The Democrat’s plan is fucking insane.
All of those can be heard any day in casual speech. They mean only one thing: I have strong feelings about this. That’s what intensifiers do, they intensify. Your substitutes - almost or virtually - cannot possibly be exchanged with literally or fucking in these sentences, no matter what dictionaries say. They’re getting this wrong, as are you.
You know who’s not getting this wrong? Writers. Writers don’t use literally in this particular way. You’re not able to cite examples because they are essentially nonexistent. The solecism you’re railing against is not prevalent in written English, because it belongs to that wholly different thing, spoken English.
It’s fucking infuriating, to coin a phrase, that you gave yet another cite that doesn’t bother to give written examples, but repeats spoken, casual usages, and castigates them without understanding. At least it has the grace to include this quote:
Ben Zimmer, executive producer of the Visual Thesaurus and Vocabulary.com, believes “literally’’ has already slipped dangerously close to stage four, which means that it has become ubiquitous and only a few diehards reject the new meaning.
First of all, @Exapno_Mapcase, as I’ve said before, I have the greatest respect for your literary background and knowledge. I will note, however, for the record, that when you take the position that leading dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic are wrong, then you set yourself quite a Herculean task in defending that position, even if a couple of other posters here apparently agree with you. You’re fighting both American and British usage.
Two other points. The dictionaries don’t claim that those words can be directly exchanged with “literally” in those sentences. They’re just listing a bunch of near-synonyms to try to convey the sense of meaning, not claiming that they are direct substitutes – most so-called synonyms are not actually direct substitutes, but fairly close approximations with different shades of meaning and different contexts in which they may be considered standard usage.
Second point. I don’t consider “fucking” to be any kind of example of “colloquial usage”. I consider it to be an example of extremely crass usage that is essentially meaningless, except as in indicator of emotion, but not actually a literary “intensifier”. It’s about as meaningful as “fuck you, you fucking fuck”. That doesn’t really yield much content when subjected to linguistic analysis.
Wrong. I presume by “examples” you mean examples of “literally” being used in literature in what I would consider an inappropriate way, because examples of usage as an effective intensifier have already been given and discussed. Apparently you don’t like my CNN examples even though they’re written.
But examples of bad usage certainly exist, often associated with famous authors (so you can only imagine how many instances exist attributable to lesser authors). A few examples:
-
He literally had to move heaven and earth to arrive at this systematic understanding
– Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance -
I felt faint, frightened literally to death.
– Guy de Maupassant, ‘Fear’, in The Mountain Inn and other stories, tr. H.N.P. Sloman -
At this time of day, the Gravediggers [pub] is literally the capital of Hell, the city of Satan and his acolytes, the city built by fallen angels.
– Enrique Vila-Matas, Dublinesque, tr. Rosalind Harvey and Anne McLean
You’re kidding, right? “I actually died when” is an unremarkable bit of exaggeration indicating excitement. And none of these usages are rare:
- I can’t believe he actually lost his shit when…
- That proposal really knocked my socks off.
- We are well and truly fucked by climate change.
The words are all used as intensifiers for figurative language all the goddamned time. Have you really not noticed that?
Is that dialogue from the story (i.e. the author reporting what a person had said)?
No, I’m not kidding. I don’t know what you’re reading these days, but I have no recollection of “I actually died when …” as any kind of common metaphor.
The problem with examples like “I can’t believe he actually lost his shit when…” and “knocked my socks off” is that these examples are category errors and hence extremely misleading.
The criticism of “literally” as an intensifier generally applies to its use with some arbitrary (and usually novel and specific) metaphor, and perhaps even at risk of being taken, you know, literally.
In your examples, “lost his shit” and “knocked my socks off” are very well-known colloquial metaphors, and “really” and “actually” are used to emphasize the surprising degree to which these metaphorical behaviours occurred.
Note also the different sense in which we would interpret “I can’t believe he literally lost his shit when …”. In that case – and only in that case – we would be inclined to think that perhaps this means that this very common metaphor is not, in fact, being meant metaphorically at all, and this individual needed to change his pants immediately afterward. Those words, and the metaphors they’re connected with, are not equivalent.
QFT
I have absolutely no problem with someone saying “my head literally exploded,” but it’s a little vexing that you can’t say “that guy was going literally 80 miles an hour” and not be sure your exact meaning is clear to others.
eta: a better second example is “I literally fell out of my chair.”
Yes and no.
Yes, it’s dialogue.
But it’s translated dialogue. Some versions use “literally”, some do not. The original French is “j’eus une telle angoisse du coeur, de l’âme et du corps, que je me sentis défaillir, prêt à mourir de peur”.
So the point here, really, is that some translators felt that inserting “literally” in this rather strange metaphorical sense was appropriate. So I think it’s a valid part of my counterexample against the claim that such odd usage never happens in written literature. It does.
Thank you.
Except that the usage of “fucking” in this context is literally fucking identical to the usage of fucking “literally”, so perhaps paying attention IS a good idea.