No, I don’t think WOOKINPANUB – with whom I agree on this subject – is going to hate that, because most of us are well aware that this abominable use of “literally” has entered the language and is now recorded in dictionaries, whose job is to non-judgmentally record all our language practices, both good and bad. It’s just that some of us think this is a lamentable corruption of language that undermines its precision, and that came about mostly out of the repetition of a thoughtless mistake.
The linguist John McWhorter, in his book Why English Won’t - and Can’t - Sit Still (Like, Literally), makes many excellent and informative observations, but he also launches into ill-advised and entirely nonsensical rationalizations of supposed “contronyms” like “literally”. This is really odd because an earlier version of McWhorter, circa 2003, was lamenting just this kind of deterioration of language:
Since language is the vehicle of culture, this creeping carnage foreshadows a fatal stagnation of the intellectual culture of the United States.
Why? Because of the deterioration of precision, discipline and formality of the written word, which is fast being conquered by oral expression. “Spoken language” he writes, “is best suited to harboring easily processible chunks of information, broad lines, and emotion. To the extent that our public discourse leans ever more toward this pole, the implications for the prospect of an informed citizenry are dire … Americans after the 1960s have lived in a country with less pride in its language that any other society in recorded history.”
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-10-12/entertainment/0310100222_1_english-language-mcwhorter-culture
With regard to the abuse of “literally”, McWhorter makes a bunch of specious arguments about alleged contronyms like “fast” and “practically” that just have no logic or credibility whatsoever. For instance he cites “practically” which he has somehow, inexplicably, convinced himself has come to mean the opposite of its original meaning. It most assuredly has not. It has always meant “in a practical sense” and hence, by extension, has also come to mean “close to” or “almost”. His “practically” example is, if anything, even more wrong than the “fast” argument. “I practically died of thirst” is probably hyperbole (one hopes). “I literally died of thirst” is just stupid.
Perhaps most damning of all, he claims that there is no way, nohow, that the figurative use of “literally” could ever lead to ambiguity, and then, in an over-eager attempt to show how long it’s been used to mean its exact opposite, he cites this line, from David Hume writing a history of England in 1806: “He had the singular fate of dying literally of hunger”.
Well, guess what, folks? I have absolutely no idea from this whether the referenced individual actually died of starvation, or just had constant unfulfilled cravings for mutton chops. There is no way to disambiguate that statement. With this spectacularly ill-chosen example, McWhorter has thoroughly defeated his own argument. But there’s more to come! He plows on: he also gleefully informs us that Hume uses this statement despite the fact that “there are no letters via which to starve” – that is, that there is no room here for what he has called a “by the letter”, or genuinely literal, interpretation. He claims that it cannot, so to speak, be literally literal (note how incredibly non-confusing this all is!) No? Of course it can! I’m pretty sure that in the poverty and largely non-existent social services of 19th century England, it’s quite plausible that some people did literally die of hunger.
As it turns out, this was the case here. Hume was referring to the dramatist and poet Thomas Otway, and was using “literally” in the correct sense. This is the full context from Hume’s history: “Otway, though a professed royalist, could not even procure bread by his writings; and he had the singular fate of dying literally from hunger. These incidents throw a great stain on the memory of Charles, who had discernment, loved genius, was liberal of money, but attained not the praise of true generosity”.
No offense to John McWhorter – I’m sure he’s a fine linguist, and it’s definitely an enjoyable book by a competent writer and observer of language. I just happen to disagree with a few parts of it, and most emphatically with the nonsense justifications of “literally”.