What does the word 'literally' mean in metaphors and similes?

[Walter_Windchill]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Bullshit. That’s not what I’ve said. I said YOUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE was incoherent in a way that only someone with a language disorder or ESL would speak. That was an exagerration, I admit: someone who’s a very poor communicator might say YOUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
[/quote]

I do agree that the use of “literally” would be used by “a very poor communicator,” if they didn’t need to clarify a statement that might otherwise be taken as figurative. Indeed, if we’re agreed on the point that the non-literal use of “literal” is very poor communication, I don’t know what we’re arguing about.

You’re baiting and switching. The article you quoted is A DIFFERENT EXAMPLE. It provides context cues.

Although the string of words are used in different bodies of text, both my imaginary speaker and the real-world blogger used the expression, “literally ran out of gas,” when referring to cyclists becoming exhausted. Yet, you insist that the words are completely alien and unlike native English in one sentence, and quite natural and unambiguous in the other… a claim I find extraordinary.

This is begging the question. Why not say that it’s ambiguous because “penniless” can be used to mean “poor” or “without any money at all”? You’re focusing on an innocent word trapped in a poorly constructed sentence.

“Literally penniless” is not ambiguous at all if people know and understand the meaning of “literally.”

No, “literally” has not lost its utility. As I said, your ability to construct hypothetical poorly-formed sentences containing the word just points to an ability to communicate poorly, not to a problem with the language.

All of the sentences I have provided are well-formed and grammatical and would cut muster with White and Fowler. You only reject them because they disprove your indefensible position that no possible native English utterance could possibly be ambiguous because the word “literally” has become ambiguous.

You’d benefit from reading what I say instead of from assuming you already understand it. For the last several posts, you’ve demonstrated that you do not understand the argument I am making; if you continue to say that you’ve read it and understood it but don’t change your interpretation of it, I’ll know that it’s not possible to continue to discuss this with you.

Oh, I quite understand your argument, I assure you. Your claim that I don’t understand relies on your assumption that your argument is so sound that no reasonable person would reject it. I encourage you to reconsider this assumption.

[Walter_Windchill]

Headline from a fictional newspaper: Famed Psychiatrist Lecter Literally Fed Up With Clients

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
I don’t know what we’re arguing about.
[/quote]
Clearly.

Although the string of words are used in different bodies of text, both my imaginary speaker and the real-world blogger used the expression, “literally ran out of gas,” when referring to cyclists becoming exhausted. Yet, you insist that the words are completely alien and unlike native English in one sentence, and quite natural and unambiguous in the other… a claim I find extraordinary.

I find that claim extraordinary too. Check out the word I underlined.

All of the sentences I have provided are well-formed and grammatical and would cut muster with White and Fowler. You only reject them because they disprove your indefensible position that no possible native English utterance could possibly be ambiguous because the word “literally” has become ambiguous.

First, I’m not discussing their grammar. SEcond, I’m not rejecting them for the reason you claim I’m rejecting them, since that’s not a position I hold.

Oh, I quite understand your argument, I assure you. Your claim that I don’t understand relies on your assumption that your argument is so sound that no reasonable person would reject it. I encourage you to reconsider this assumption.

The first sentence is laughable. The second sentence is nonsense. Your suggestion is incoherent, since it’s not an assumption I hold.

Given this, however–given your steadfast attack on an argument I’m not making, and a refusal to re-examine this behavior even when it’s pointed out–I’m done arguing with you until you change your behavior.

Daniel

[Stratocaster]

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
No, sorry. It’s an intensifier in its alternate meaning, just like the word very. In a majority of the cases where very is used, you can also drop it with no loss of meaning. Does that mean very should never be used? No, because it’s an optional marker to indicate how much emphasis you want to place on a particular phrase. Same as with literally.
[/QUOTE]
One slight difference. There’s not an alternate meaning of “very” that means–as an example–“not intensely at all.” A word that develops an alternate meaning that is the original’s antonym lacks a certain precision, wouldn’t you allow?

“They received literally no help from the administration.” What should I surmise from this sentence? Did they receive no help at all? Or some, but not enough?

Walter Windchill is right. The alternate definition of “literally” is silly in that it renders the original meaning ambiguous to the point of uselessness. And answer honestly here–does anyone doubt that this alternate meaning developed as a result of people using a word incorrectly? Did the first people who said something like, “I literally jumped out of my skin,” know full well what “literally” meant, deciding instead to take the language in an exciting new direction?

[Walter_Windchill]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
“They received literally no help from the administration.” What should I surmise from this sentence? Did they receive no help at all? Or some, but not enough?
[/QUOTE]

Who but a brain-damaged crack-addicted foreigner would ever put together such a baffling, unlikely string of words?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
“They received literally no help from the administration.” What should I surmise from this sentence? Did they receive no help at all? Or some, but not enough?
[/quote]

No help at all, of course. Do you really have any doubt? If they did receive help, then the speaker was either lying or misinformed. That’s not a context in which “literally” is used metaphorically, because there’s no metaphor involved.

Walter Windchill is right. The alternate definition of “literally” is silly in that it renders the original meaning ambiguous to the point of uselessness.

And yet Walter himself has given examples in which literally is used according to its original meaning, and any competent reader can tell what it means.

And answer honestly here–does anyone doubt that this alternate meaning developed as a result of people using a word incorrectly?

Yes, of course I doubt it, since the idea of using a word “incorrectly” when the audience understand the listener’s meaning is bizarre; it’s like saying someone was walking “incorrectly” when their pace managed to get them to their destination without incident. (I look forward to the first person that strays into talking about walking on highways as if that’s remotely relevant).

If someone used “literally” in a sense that the audience did not understand, then their use was incorrect, inasmuch as it did not convey their intended meaning. That’s self-correcting behavior: a person who can speak a language fluently is unlikely to persist in a usage that does not do what they want it to do, and even if an individual persists, it’s not going to become a popular usage. Usages become popular because they work, and not for any other reason.

I think what you’re not getting is that most people who use the language are subtle, crafty language users: that is, they’re human. Humans are remarkably good at hearing context cues, holding different meanings in their heads, throwing away nonsensical or unlikely meanings, and doing it all in a split second. The use works because most language users aren’t tied to only one meaning of a word and incapable of understanding wordplay, metaphor, hyperbole, and other language conventions. Indeed, such behavior is so rare that we have a variety of named disorders to account for it: autism spectrum disorders, for example, feature just the sort of incompetence at linguistic analysis that you’re attributing to everyone.

Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
If someone used “literally” in a sense that the audience did not understand, then their use was incorrect, inasmuch as it did not convey their intended meaning.
[/QUOTE]

So if I use a sentence with the word, “ascertain,” and someone doesn’t understand my meaning because he doesn’t know what “ascertain,” means, have I used the word incorrectly, inasmuch as I did not convey my intended meaning?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
So if I use a sentence with the word, “ascertain,” and someone doesn’t understand my meaning because he doesn’t know what “ascertain,” means, have I used the word incorrectly, inasmuch as I did not convey my intended meaning?
[/QUOTE]
Was that “someone” your intended audience? If so, then of course you have. How would it make sense to say otherwise?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Crap–let me rephrase that. You’ve not necessarily used that word incorrectly, and if I had my druthers we wouldn’t be discussing this in terms of correct or incorrect usage, because that’s as silly as talking about whether someone was walking correctly or incorrectly. What I should have said is that you spoke ineffectively. I’ll let you translate that into your “correct/incorrect” dichotomy however you’d like, since I don’t find that to be a useful gauge.

Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Was that “someone” your intended audience? If so, then of course you have. How would it make sense to say otherwise?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

That’s a completely ridiculous claim. It’s quite amazing the precarious boughs you’ve climbed out on, just to avoid admitting you’re somewhat wrong and a very minor point.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
That’s a completely ridiculous claim. It’s quite amazing the precarious boughs you’ve climbed out on, just to avoid admitting you’re somewhat wrong and a very minor point.
[/QUOTE]

Again, in what sense have you communicated effectively?

Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

The question was not whether or not the statement was communicated effectively, the question was whether or not a single word was used correctly. You have taken the ridiculous position that the word itself becomes magically “incorrect,” when listeners don’t know its meaning. I can understand your desire to clamber back to a more tenable position, but it really would be much easier to just admit that the word “literally” may be ambiguous in perfectly ordinary English sentences.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
The question was not whether or not the statement was communicated effectively, the question was whether or not a single word was used correctly. You have taken the ridiculous position that the word itself becomes magically “incorrect,” when listeners don’t know its meaning.
[/QUOTE]

You apparently didn’t read my clarification that I posted immediately after that. Par for the course.
Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

I had already began composing my response when you posted your clarification. Now, I think we’re very much in agreement that linguistics 101 says there’s no such thing as bad grammar, but also concede that sometimes people use words when they don’t quite know what they mean, since there’s a little Miss Malaprop in all of us. I somehow live believing in linguistic ideology and in standard English without my head exploding.

I myself have been corrected on the use and pronunciation of words by linguistics within minutes of being told that linguists were descriptive, not prescriptive. They suspend their ideologies, apparently, when they’re in the classroom and not the field.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
I had already began composing my response when you posted your clarification.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

Do you agree, then, that in your example, whatever you might mean by using a word “correctly”, you communicated ineffectively? Do you agree that the use of a word correctly is much less important than effective communication?

Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

I agree with both points, which is why I regret it when words that used to be at my disposal for effective communication are rendered meaningless or ambiguous. I’ve grown to accept that “literally” and “ironic” are good for nothing anymore.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
I agree with both points, which is why I regret it when words that used to be at my disposal for effective communication are rendered meaningless or ambiguous. I’ve grown to accept that “literally” and “ironic” are good for nothing anymore.
[/QUOTE]
And there you can see a case in which the fault for ineffective speaking lies with you, not with others. Others are using these words perfectly effectively, communicating their intended meaning with them. For some reason that I really can’t divine, you seem set on claiming that the words are now meaningless, and so you’ve stopped using them.

Well, that’s your monkey.

Daniel

[Walter_Windchill]

Do you want to pet my monkey?

[Bosstone]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
One slight difference. There’s not an alternate meaning of “very” that means–as an example–“not intensely at all.” A word that develops an alternate meaning that is the original’s antonym lacks a certain precision, wouldn’t you allow?
[/QUOTE]
I realize that this has little to do with the main discussion, but there is a sarcastic use, as in “How very generous of you to withhold my Christmas bonus” meaning it wasn’t very generous at all.

I don’t agree that both definitions of literally are exact antonyms, but since my argument has become repetitive, I’ll leave it at that.

[Walter_Windchill]

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
I realize that this has little to do with the main discussion, but there is a sarcastic use, as in “How very generous of you to withhold my Christmas bonus” meaning it wasn’t very generous at all.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t it ironic?