# I have a coworker who uses 'literally' incorrectly **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834 "2016-05-27T17:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/181 "2016-06-02T21:05:10Z")
I have a co-worker who uses “incorrectly” literally ! Ha! ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/182 "2016-06-02T22:43:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The dialect of my particular time and place is an illogical confusing mess, and a large part of how it got that way is that _ **people make mistakes** _ and the mistakes become entrenched. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The language today is indisputably rife with misunderstandings of what words actually mean, terrible grammatical constructions, bad syntax, and no end of other issues. Please don’t try to deny that the average IQ is 100, many people lack many basic rudiments of knowledge… > [@wolfpup](#): > > That was a response to your absurd straw man wherein I supposedly thought language was far superior sometime in the past. One of your central claims throughout this discussion is that language today has deteriorated or is deteriorating because of people’s mistakes and stupidity. It is a logical inference, not a straw man, that you believe that the language was in a more perfect state at some time in the past; and to ask, under your model, what propelled language from an ancestral primitive state to that state of greater perfection? If you cannot account for how that happened under your model, it seems reasonable to question the model, and to question your unevidenced assumption that language is deteriorating. And if you believe that your model for language is consistent with modern scientific linguistics, can you provide a citation for any linguist who believes that oral language skills are deteriorating? Next, You quoted my description of how language rules are **learned** unconsciously by young children. I said nothing at all about nature vs nurture. But your response was: > [@wolfpup](#): > > The **innate** [?] nature of language is not in dispute… **Yet** [?] spoken language is obviously learned, **despite** [?] the fact that we have innate skills in it and pick up key concepts with amazing speed. [my bolds and ?'s] This is muddled. You seem to be confused about what **unconscious learning** means. It is a learning mechanism, not another word for innate. This links to an article that describes how primary language skills are acquired by unconscious learning in young children, and how our loss of the capacity for unconscious language learning around age 7 makes it difficult to acquire fluency in a second language: > **[Unconscious language learning](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unconscious-language-learning)** > > Unconscious learning could be the secret to speeding up learning a second language. > [@](#): > > [Unconscious language learning is] the ability to learn the complex and subtle regularities that underlie a language without even realising…For children, such ‘implicit’ language learning seems to happen spontaneously in the first few years of life. Perhaps I can restate my simplified description of language acquisiton to try to make things clearer. (0) We have **innate** capacity to learn language. Exactly what this consists of is a major and highly disputed area of research, but that’s not at issue here. We all agree that it exists — a dog won’t learn human language, even if it’s immersed in a human environment from birth. (1) Through **unconscious learning** as young children we acquire most of the fundamental rules of oral language of our local dialect. The mechanism is: “Hear many examples of speech from those around us; **unconsciously infer** semantics and generalized rules of syntax.” (2) Through **conscious learning** (early schooling) we learn to read and write. The mechanism is: “Teacher explicitly articulates conventional symbols and rules; we make conscious effort to memorize and rehearse.” (3) In later schooling and as adults, largely through conscious learning, we then expand our vocabulary, learn creative writing skills, develop an aesthetic sense for literature. The primary issue at stake in this debate is this: Process (1) above is where we acquire 99% of our fundamental skills to build **correct** as opposed to **incorrect** sentences in our dialect. Prescriptivism **cannot** (as an empirical matter) play any significant part in this, because the mechanism of learning is unconscious. The only way that young children will acquire different fundamental language skills is if they are surrounded by people who speak differently. Your prescriptivist ideas such as use _literally_ “correctly” can only possibly be taught as part of (3) above. The part that you don’t grasp is the insignificance of all these silly little rules that you are worried about, by comparison with the incredibly sophisticated mental machinery that we acquire unconsciously in stage (1). And once again let’s set aside the misconception that descriptivist linguistics means “anything goes”. What we learn in stage (1) above is how to make **correct** sentences. Young children make mistakes at first. There are empirical rules for how to make valid sentences in any dialect, and it takes kids a while to figure out the correct generalized formulation for each rule as they acquire more and more examples of usage from those around them. If you don’t understand what “correct” and “incorrect” mean to a linguist, I refer you once again to Geoff Pullum, [Everything Is Correct vs Nothing Is Relevant](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html) Prescriptivists like you think that in stage (3) it’s important for children to learn extra externally-derived arbitrary rules about trivial things like “don’t use _literally_ as an intensifier” an “don’t split infinitives”; and **to continue to assign the concepts of correct and incorrect to these additional rules**. This, despite that fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that **actual speakers** of the language adhere consistently to such rules. If they did, children would already have acquired those rules in stage (1). A good rule of thumb is, _if a rule needs to be consciously drilled, it’s not really a rule in that language, it’s a stylistic opinion_. As a matter of didactic ideology, personally I think the words “stupid” and “ignorant” have no place whatsoever for anything in stage (3), and even the milder word “wrong” should be used sparingly. Most issues in stage (3) are subjective stylistic matters and should be treated as such. And we should certainly be teaching children the social aspects of language - the reality that in objective linguistic terms, no dialect is any _better_ than any other - that, for example, native speakers of AAVE are not _ignorant_, and that the rules for building valid sentences in AAVE are quite as complex and sophisticated as any other dialect, just different. As for formalism vs functionalism? Well, I’m glad that you’ve picked up _The Language Instinct_, but I think there are some much more basic principles that you need to get clear, and I don’t think it’s relevant to what we’re discussing here. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/183 "2016-06-02T23:51:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Actually, when confronted with such criticism, **Wolfpup** refers you to a dictionary and demonstrates that those words have meanings of which you were apparently unaware. I am perfectly aware of what you think you’ve done. Your assumption that I don’t know what those words mean is unsurprising, and incorrect. Your defense of your use of these words has been…unpersuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Skinnybones\_Lampshade](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skinnybones_lampshade/32/2872_2.png) [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skinnybones_Lampshade)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/184 "2016-06-03T02:39:20Z")
I’d rather have it be unambiguous. If a friend texts me: “I’m literally trapped! Please, please come fast and save me!!”: With most of my friends I would run out the door, asking as I went which tools and/or law enforcement to take with me. I apparently also have to take into account that my friend may be an ignoramus who wants me to head over there to save her from a bore. Thanks a bunch, people who don’t care whether words mean what they mean or not, because it’s all an evolving, progressive, meaningless pudding of mushy sounds. “Literally”. Now, I may have said the opposite of what I mean here, and you have completely misunderstood my intentions. If you have, it’s your fault for not being progressive. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/185 "2016-06-03T03:09:52Z")
> [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](#): > > If a friend texts me: “I’m literally trapped! Please, please come fast and save me!!”: With most of my friends I would run out the door, asking as I went which tools and/or law enforcement to take with me. Hmm, yes this is a tough one. People in danger often introduce convoluted and deliberately ambiguous phrasing when asking for help, rather than just saying - “I’m trapped, please come and save me!” The last time somebody came up with such a preposterous example to make their case I said: > [@Riemann](#): > > I’m having a Poe’s Law moment. Is this serious? You’re claiming objective justification of your personal distaste for this usage of _literally_ because it’s a Health & Safety matter? But I was told that I was being unfair. So, is it really a Health and Safety matter or not? And, following your guidelines, should we also eliminate the expression _wounded pride_ from the English language for fear that vets might get called out to the zoo on false alarms? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/186 "2016-06-03T10:46:03Z")
> [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](#): > > I’d rather have it be unambiguous. > > If a friend texts me: “I’m literally trapped! Please, please come fast and save me!!”: With most of my friends I would run out the door, asking as I went which tools and/or law enforcement to take with me. I’m going to tell you something miraculous and wonderful: In the history of texting, nobody has ever sent that text. In the history of email, nobody has ever sent that email. In the history of telephony, nobody has ever sent that telephone call. In the history of telegrams, nobody has ever sent that telegram. In the history of letters, nobody has ever sent that letter. In the history of smoke signals, nobody has ever sent that smoke signal. In the history of talking drums, nobody has ever sent that talking drum message. What an excellent world we live in, that the word “literally” causes so little confusion! What a terrible dystopia you imagine in which is does! ---
**Author:** ![Skinnybones\_Lampshade](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skinnybones_lampshade/32/2872_2.png) [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skinnybones_Lampshade)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/187 "2016-06-03T13:00:01Z")
I’m sorry that I said anything. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/188 "2016-06-03T13:18:41Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > I’m with you there. > > It’s not just dumbification, though. It’s that allowing literally to have two opposing meanings makes it meaningless. (And I mean that literally! 😃 ) May I introduce you to the word “cleave”? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/189 "2016-06-03T14:06:32Z")
How about approaching this from the opposite end. Does using literally as an intensifier serve any purpose? Can anyone produce an example where the use of literally as an intensifier changed the meaning of the message? Accepting the metaphorical intent, what’s the difference between saying “his head exploded” and “his head literally exploded”? ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/190 "2016-06-03T14:09:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about approaching this from the opposite end. > > Does using literally as an intensifier serve any purpose? Can anyone produce an example where the use of literally as an intensifier changed the meaning of the message? Accepting the metaphorical intent, what’s the difference between saying “his head exploded” and “his head literally exploded”? The same as any other intensifier? That the metaphorical head explosion wasn’t just any regular ol’ explosion, but a very intense one? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/191 "2016-06-03T14:21:46Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > May I introduce you to the word “cleave”? Or clip or contemporary or garnish or handicap or skin… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/192 "2016-06-03T14:29:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about approaching this from the opposite end. > > Does using literally as an intensifier serve any purpose? Can anyone produce an example where the use of literally as an intensifier changed the meaning of the message? Accepting the metaphorical intent, what’s the difference between saying “his head exploded” and “his head literally exploded”? > [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser](#): > > The same as any other intensifier? That the metaphorical head explosion wasn’t just any regular ol’ explosion, but a very intense one? I think the original “thinking”, as it were, behind this use is: “Hey, I want to use this metaphor, but it’s been used so much that it is sometimes inappropriate even as a metaphor, _but I’m gonna use the word literally_ to mean that the metaphor is actually totally appropriate! A lot of times people say ‘she glowed’ but she was only sort of happy but not metaphorically glowing-happy, but she was so happy that ‘she glowed’ was completely appropriate.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/193 "2016-06-03T15:14:05Z")
> [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser](#): > > The same as any other intensifier? That the metaphorical head explosion wasn’t just any regular ol’ explosion, but a very intense one? Exactly. **Little Nemo** , you’ve several times in this thread posted something along these lines, suggesting that intensifiers are meaningless. Do you understand the purpose of an intensifier in communication? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/194 "2016-06-03T15:27:18Z")
> [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](#): > > I’m sorry that I said anything. Y’know, in a thread full of people raising ludicrous imaginary scenarios in which “literally” is confusing, and people repeatedly objecting that these are imaginary scenarios that do not reflect real-world use of the word, it’s probably a good idea not to raise yet another ludicrous imaginary example without addressing the problems inherent to such examples. Your apology for adding nothing new to the conversation, however, is definitely appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/195 "2016-06-03T16:15:57Z")
> [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](#): > > I apparently also have to take into account that my friend may be an ignoramus. > [@Skinnybones\_Lampshade](#): > > I’m sorry that I said anything. You followed the prescriptivist archetype: you haven’t thought through how language really works with any degree of humility and respect for evidence; you pull an arbitrary rule out of your backside, provide incredibly shaky “evidence” for why this rule “makes sense”; then condemn everyone who doesn’t follow your rule as _ignorant_. That attitude merits a robust response. English is an incredibly flexible and expressive language. There are many wonderful ways to express yourself. It’s not difficult to invent hypothetical scenarios with convoluted ambiguity for \*thousands \*of expressions in English. The fact that this use of literally could, theoretically, generate ambiguity is not relevant to anything. Celebrate the richness of language, don’t piss on people who may choose to use figurative language that you, personally, may find inelegant. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/196 "2016-06-03T19:11:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Exactly. **Little Nemo** , you’ve several times in this thread posted something along these lines, suggesting that intensifiers are meaningless. Do you understand the purpose of an intensifier in communication? I understand the purpose of an intensifier. But I suspect most of the people who use them do not. Their intensifiers are meaningless because they’ve used them too indiscriminately. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/197 "2016-06-03T19:33:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I understand the purpose of an intensifier. But I suspect most of the people who use them do not. Their intensifiers are meaningless because they’ve used them too indiscriminately. These common ignorant people who are so profligate with their intensifiers betray a fundamental character flaw. I have little doubt that they are also sexually promiscuous. With STDs on the rise, we cannot stand idly by. Won’t somebody please think of the children? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/198 "2016-06-03T19:38:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I understand the purpose of an intensifier. But I suspect most of the people who use them do not. Their intensifiers are meaningless because they’ve used them too indiscriminately. I know what you suspect. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to buttress your suspicions? People very rarely use words with no intended meaning or purpose to them. Like, almost never. It is unlikely in the extreme that intensifiers are some sort of uncontrolled verbal tic. ---
**Author:** ![Bootis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@Bootis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bootis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/199 "2016-06-03T19:59:31Z")
When people use the word “truly” in place of “literally”, no one complains that they don’t understand the definition of truly or are using it wrong, but it serves the same emphasis function: “My head is truly going to explode.” ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/200 "2016-06-03T20:27:14Z")
To quote a wise doper: > [@I swiftly herewith consign to the pit, the ignorant clowns who misconstrue "its"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-swiftly-herewith-consign-to-the-pit-the-ignorant-clowns-who-misconstrue-its/627871/205): > > For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier really makes my blood boil, too. It’s truly a plague on the English language. I know I’m really laid-back on usage peeves in general, but this one actually drives me insane. In fact, it’s quite soul-crushing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834.md?page=11)