Stan Carey recently made one of those posts he does every once in a while that makes the rest of us grammar bloggers look like sputtering nimrods. I’m assuming that a substantial number of our readers overlap, but in case you haven’t seen his post, or haven’t gotten around to reading it yet (as I hadn’t for a while), let me strongly suggest that you go check it out.
The post is about non-literal literally, one of the most commonly cited signs of the linguistic apocalypse predicted by the grammar devotionals. But, as Stan shows, it’s far more complicated and interesting than that. Non-literal literally isn’t new (Ben Zimmer found it in the 1760s), and it isn’t restricted to the uneducated (Stan offers examples from Charles Dickens, James Joyce, Charlotte Bronte, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, among others).
I’m going to quote out a few especially interesting parts of Stan’s post, but again, you really ought to read the whole thing. First, on the motivation for using non-literal literally:
Part of the problem, I think, is that people keenly want to stress the uniqueness, legitimacy, and intensity of their experiences. Guilty of little but enthusiasm and rhetorical casualness – not evil, or stupidity, necessarily – they resort to bombast and hyperbole.
On the fact that this path is hardly unique to literally:
The American Heritage Dictionary notes that the contradictory use of literally “does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itself . . . but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive”. As such, it is following a familiar path taken by words like absolutely, totally, really, and even very, which originally meant something like true, real, or genuine.
Here’s his take-home message:
Like it or not, literally is used to mean more than just “literally”, and it has been for a very long time. Some people – I’m one of them – prefer to use it only in its narrower, more literal senses. A subset – I’m not one of these – insist on it.
I’m with Stan. Honestly — and this may shock some of you who’ve been operating under the misapprehension that just because I don’t like prescriptivism that I am unable to distinguish better usage from worse — I don’t care for non-literal literally. I can’t find any examples of me using it in writing, and if I use it in speech, I believe I do so sparingly. My primary objection is that it strikes me as a poor word for the task; if you regularly can’t find a better way to intensify a statement than cheap hyperbole, you’re not a very effective writer. To get on a soapbox a moment, I find the overuse of hyperbole to be one of the most annoying stylistic shortcomings of contemporary writing, especially in Internet communication. This is a personal peeve about writing, so I don’t expect everyone to fall in line behind me on it, but it explains my personal dislike of non-literal literally.
The objection that non-literal literally conflicts with the primary meaning of the word is of secondary concern to me. This conflict is generally minor. It’s rare that one is honestly unsure whether or not the user literally did something, especially in speech, where intonation can clearly indicate the use of exaggeration. Furthermore, as commenter “Flesh-eating Dragon” puts it, “there are degrees of literality; it is not binary.” That makes it hard to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable usages of literally; should we, for instance, ban literally when it doesn’t adhere to its literal meaning of “to the letter”?
Non-literal literally isn’t “wrong” — it’s not even non-standard. But it’s overused and overdone. I would advise (but not require) people to avoid non-literal usages of literally, because it’s just not an especially good usage. Too often literally is sound and fury that signifies nothing.
Motivated Grammar 
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 9, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Padraig
Another thoughtful post, although I don’t quite go along with the the remark, it “isn’t wrong”.
A number of dictionaries (and reference books), particularly onlne ones, often quote any number of past usages, back to the 18th century in some cases. However, in those days virtually everyone was literally illiterate and hardly anyone had a dictionary anyway. Furthermore, virtually no one had any schooling (obviously), so usage was just from what anyone heard.
It was a long period before really formalised grammar and spelling was delineated and adopted by a the bulk of the population – first in private schools, then later in government schools. The teaching was prescriptive, of course, but it did set standards which were not harmful, as far as I can see. The world leaders of the English-speaking world went through that system, after all!
However, when I read (frequently) that some words were spelt differently back in the “Dark Ages”, I can’t see the point of that comment at all. That was when most people literally didn’t know any better. Why is there a need to revert to obsolete spelling and usage?
Anyway, how about examining the use of “decimate”, which means the reduction by a tenth, not to a tenth – literally. Is there some similarity with your example of “literally”?
Anyone can spell and pronounce (and give a particular meaning to) any word any way they wish, but is that a desirable thing? There is virtually unlimited flexibility in the language to write in any number of styles, from the basic to the most complex, so correctness in formal writing shouldn’t cause any problem. In literary use, writers can express themselves any way they wish, according to the characters and the circumstances – there are no restrictions.
The problems do start, though, when the average person does not have reasonable competence in accepted spelling and grammar, and may be misled by online sources quoting a myriad of “variations”. Try and get those accepted at Oxbridge and top US institutions. There are standards of meaning in any discipline (engineering, IT, law, etc) so why is it a problem for the English language to have standards for formal usage (which are taught), with casual, vernacular usage allowed to go its own way?
February 10, 2011 at 4:37 am
goofy
Padraig, I don’t think anyone is arguing that English shouldn’t have standards for formal usage. But I don’t see why the standards should be any different from how educated writers actually use the language. And educated writers use “literally” as a figurative intensifier.
When you say “usage was just from what anyone heard” – well this is how language works. Whether we’re educated or uneducated, our usage is based on the usage that we hear (and read, if we can read).
February 10, 2011 at 6:27 am
Chrissy
My takeaway from this post is the idea that hyperbole is”one of the most annoying stylistic shortcomings of contemporary writing.” Huh. Maybe I agree.
Anyhow, the “literally” phenomenon reminds me of the “no offense but” phenomenon… when a middle-schooler says to me, “No offense, Ms. Nesbitt, but…” I get ready for the biggest offense of my life. The difference being that if I’m peeved at them afterwards, a middle-schooler will actually try to claim the literal meaning of “no offense”. ;-)
February 10, 2011 at 6:59 am
The Ridger
Chrissy, what you tell them is “No offense but” doesn’t mean “this is not offensive”; it means “I don’t intend to offend you”. Then you tell them that they failed in their attempt.
February 10, 2011 at 7:40 am
Padraig
@goofy
“…our usage is based on the usage that we hear (and read, if we can read)”.
I’m confused by that. You would use language yourself the way you hear or read it, whether it is correct usage or not? A lot of usage is poor or incorrect usage – for example, by people who perhaps don’t know better. How many times do you hear incorrect sayings like someone described as a “legal beagle”, instead of a “legal eagle”?
The more that poor usage occurs, by poor education, poor journalism/media usage, etc, then it’s more likely that more people will use the language badly – by your own argument, I think. Is that a good outcome?
I think it’s one thing to have things evolve (as long as it’s for the better), but surely the biggest majority should know what the standard, accepted usage is before they start varying things?
“Educated users” may use “literally as a figurative intensifier” (as you say) in their written work – as in the case of novels, articles, etc – or in vernacular use. However, what is the purpose of that in general use? If someone wanted to say that they were “gutted” in casual use, that’s fine. But why would you need to say “literally gutted”, any more than saying “totally devastated” or “totally destroyed”, which become tautologies?
February 10, 2011 at 9:23 am
Jude Sheerin
Some more modern examples of literally misuse…
“This ball literally explodes off Rooney’s foot.”
Jamie Redknapp , Sky Sports
You were up against the Norwegians, who are, literally, born on skis.”
Kate Silverton, BBC
“Rio here is literally – literally – up his backside
Andy Townsend , ITV
“You can literally get a world on your plate.”
Jamie Oliver, Channel 4
“A single parent would only be able to claim benefits for two years and after that they would literally be pushed over a cliff.”
Guest on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme
February 10, 2011 at 9:42 am
goofy
Padraig, children base their language on the language they are exposed to, as I’m sure you would agree. Adults do it too, but not to such a great extent. We can make conscious decisions about what usages to adopt – altho I think a lot of the time we don’t think about it. In this way something that was once considered wrong can become right. I don’t know whether that makes it good or bad, but it does make it right – by “right” I mean “part of standard English”.
February 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Chelsea
There was a show where they said someone’s life was “literally on the line”. My mom said it was wrong, but I said the literally applies to the word life, because someone might say their life is on the line when they just mean they might get grounded or something.
February 10, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Prof Cohen
I note with (minor) dismay that in writing about grammar you too have chosen (consciously?) to disregard/abandon the use of the possessive before gerunds (see above: “I can’t find any examples of me using it in writing …”)
This “error” still “clangs” in my ears when I hear it. Guess I was raised in a too-correct grammatical environment. (But try “diagramming” the use with the objective-case pronoun and I suspect that you’ll see why it doesn’t work correctly.)
February 10, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Tom S. Fox
“I’m confused by that. You would use language yourself the way you hear or read it, whether it is correct usage or not?”
Padraig, who or what, in your opinion, decides what correct usage is?
February 11, 2011 at 1:31 am
Padraig
@Tom S. Fox
There was a succession of books on grammar written up to two hundred years or so ago onward – mostly, they were published in England, but US versions were published, as well as US-written publications.
The content of those books was taught at primary through secondary levels, both in government schools and private schools.
The teachings therein were distilled down into publications well into the 20th century, with English Language taught in grammar schools in the UK until the introduction of comprehensive schools in the late 60s and 70s.
From that point on, the amount and detail of language teaching diminished in volume and quality. Standards in spelling and grammar have been held to have declined – by teachers themselves and uni lecturers, and business employers – compared with those language guideline publications ever since.
Prior to the formalisation of the language, few people in the population were literate. Formalisation enabled everyone to work to clear standards – irrespective of who determined them in the first place.
Unfortunately, a number of educationalists – up to professor level – have in recent times stated that it doesn’t matter that young people don’t spell well or write using correct grammar, because “people can understand what they are trying to say.”
That’s an incredible statement considering that those people are expert themselves in those matters, would expect their children to have similar ability, yet are quite happy that most other young people are becoming increasingly illiterate! The various online newspapers are receiving an increasing number of complaints from readers because of poor writing and a lack of editing. Many of the people reading those (should they have not received a good standard of English teaching), however, may well not spot the multitude of errors and are likely to make the same mistakes themselves.
I don’t see a problem in teaching the framework of grammar, combined with standard spelling, based on a selection of older grammar texts accepted by the leading language specialists. People can communicate in any form they want – casual and vernacular – and write novels, articles and blogs however they wish. There would be no restriction on that. However, education as to the “Standard English” would maintain good quality communications and publications, rather than a return to that of hundreds of years ago – I can’t believe that that would be regarded as a desirable outcome.
February 11, 2011 at 4:23 am
Cecily
Padraig, do you also object to “really” being used about things that are not actually real?
February 11, 2011 at 5:19 am
elevengoalposts
@Cecily
Is this a real or a rhetorical question?
I don’t wish to sound either defensive or aggressive, but it appears that you don’t wish to engage in a discussion or express an opinion about anything I’ve written in particular. Why ask me this question? Why not address it to gabe as another example of the use / misuse of ïntensifiers?
February 11, 2011 at 5:31 am
Padraig
Apologies to Cecily – I was experimenting with IDs elsewhere and “elevengoalposts” got posted instead of Padraig>
February 11, 2011 at 5:31 am
Cecily
elevengoalposts: It’s a real question.
I made it brief so it stood out from all the lengthy comments, and I addressed it to Padraig because he seems to have the strongest views against using “literally” as an intensifier; I didn’t address it to you because I can’t see any of your comments on this topic. However, on blogs such as this, it’s common for others to respond.
I am not avoiding entering the debate, but Stan, Gabe and Padraig have covered almost all the points that I can think of.
My position is that I am not a fan of using “literally” as an intensifier, but I can’t equate that with my acceptance of using “really” in the same way, so I don’t preach against it.
February 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
goofy
Padraig wrote: “There was a succession of books on grammar written up to two hundred years or so ago onward – mostly, they were published in England, but US versions were published, as well as US-written publications.”
Yes, and some of them were good, some were bad, some were written by people who knew what they were talking about and some weren’t. Some were based on evidence and some were based on personal preference. The teachings that were distilled from them are contradictory, misleading, and often just inaccurate.
I don’t have a problem with grammar being taught in schools either, but it would be nice if was grammar as it was actually used by good writers, not just what some people think should be used.
February 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
Padraig
@Cecily
I don’t use “really” very often in written form, but I don’t have strong objections to it.
I do find certain words annoying, though. One bête noire is the overuse of “absolutely”, which seems to be the first word selected by anyone interviewed/questioned on TV these days.
I don’t think too many people agree totally (“absolutely”) on anything, so I tend to think it’s a lazy way of responding, without needing to think before engaging the vocal chords.
February 11, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Padraig
@Goofy -re grammar books
That’s an excellent comment! I agree entirely.
My main concern is that in the UK the amount and quality of language teaching has been diminishing now for decades.
Prescriptivists are indeed a pest, but they presence (in small bites) might just be a little better than not having any grammar at at!
February 16, 2011 at 6:51 am
renaissanceguy
The problem with defending the hyperbolic use of literally is that most people who use it in that way do not usually realize that they are doing so. They simply do not know any better. It makes me wonder what they think when someone uses the word “literally” literally. It must strike them as odd if somebody says, “I literally had five minutes to get to work.” They must think that the person really had a much longer amount of time.
Therein lies the deeper problem. However descriptivist we want to be, this is an issue of fuzzy thinking, not just fuzzy speaking. I can put up with all sorts of “errors,” but I hate to see people think at a lower level than they need to.
February 16, 2011 at 10:08 am
The Ridger
I don’t think anybody would think “I literally had 5 minutes” means “a much longer amount of time”. What it means is “a really short amount of time.”
February 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Goofy
I don’t presume that someone is thinking at a lower level just because they use a word I don’t like. And just because we use a word with one sense doesn’t mean we’re unaware of the other senses of the word.
February 16, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Padraig
@renaissanceguy
I agree with your comment that “most people who use it in that way do not usually realize that they are doing so” I think that applies to a lot to grammar and spelling. Why? In my opinion, it’s mainly because so little grammar has been taught in schools in recent decades. On top of that, there has been a reduction in the amount and quality of reading in the younger ones, which has been replaced by other attractions – but that’s not to be unexpected.
Unless those declines are arrested, each new generation will almost certainly have diminished skills in the written form of communication compared with the previous generation(s).
February 18, 2011 at 10:10 am
Weekly Links: Job Interviews, Being Literal, Scholarly Reportage | Explorations of Style
[…] post from Motivated Grammar addresses the difference between prescriptivism and preference. In this case, the author dislikes ‘literally’ when it is used as a general […]
February 20, 2011 at 1:09 am
tldr gabe
i think you should change your “comments” heading to read “validation” instead. just a thought.
February 20, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Joseph Pendleton
Whenever I hear someone say “I’m not racist, but…”, I know they are going to say something racist and stupid. Whenever I hear someone say “It was literally…”, I know they are going to say something figurative and stupid.
February 23, 2011 at 1:52 am
Literally: Triumph of pet peeve over matter | Metaphor Hacker - Hacking Metaphors, Frames and Other Ideas
[…] to see Motivated Grammar (a blog dedicated to the fighting of prescriptivism) jump into the fray: Non-literal “literally” isn’t wrong. That said… « Motivated Grammar Non-literal literally isn’t “wrong” — it’s not even non-standard. But it’s overused and […]
February 24, 2011 at 6:07 pm
rog_storp
Okay, so it’s not wrong, but in the U.S. we have an acronym for Americans who figuratively use literally.
March 5, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Joseph Pendleton
I just realized that “literally” has become its own antonym, which is a rare accomplishment in the English language. I think “cleave” is another instance of such a word, but I am not aware of any others.
March 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Kei$haFan4Evr
omg what’s up with all these tightwad prescriptivist or whatever people? they literally take things too seriously. like don’t they know you’re trying to be a grammar rebel and ride away on your motorcycle with long hair without wearing a helmet into the sunset on which prescriptivism sets? be free gabe. be free.