This isn't the usual rant on the abuse of the word literally.
Rather, just a note on the language issue it poses.
Language is shaped by perceived needs for words. A new word that says something people want to say gets adopted. It's why abbreviations are quickly adopted.
There are two words, literally and figuratively, to describe two types of word use.
'You could literally fry an egg it was so hot' to try to say it wasn't just hot and you were using hyperbole, but it really would fry an egg.
'It figuratively made them sick' to describe a negative reaction that didn't actually cause physical illness.
That would be fine if the words were used as intended. But one note, literally seems to get used exponentially more than figuratively. Have you ever seen 'figuratively' really used?
Why is that?
The 'legitimate' part of the answer is that people feel the need more often to point out their statement is literally true than that it is figuratively true, for whatever reason.
But I think the larger reason is that many people like to add 'emphasis' to what they're saying. Profanity serves that purpose - we've all heard people who sprinkle the f word a couple times per sentence as if that makes it stronger. Yelling can do that. Harsh language can do that. But literally seems to fill the perceived need to try to add that strength, as if it does. 'It literally made their heads explode' is typical of that hyperbolic misuse. It's not enough to use the hyperbole of heads exploding, it needs more salt. Literally exploding.
Usually the language is pretty accommodating to meeting these needs. When a word like 'snark' came along to describe what people felt was happening a lot more, it just became a word. But this use of literally is a case where the supposed need isn't really seen as legitimate if you look at it - it's empty filler - and it completely undermines the original meaning of the word when used for this new meaning. 'Literally make their heads explode' is contradictory to the use about that science fiction movie that literally exploded heads.
So it's not so easy to accept this new, contradictory, undermining use of the word, and it's not to easy to get people to give it up who want to add oomph.
So it's an ongoing tension of misusers and correctors.
I don't know of a good solution. Perhaps if we made up a new word that means the same thing as they want to misuse literally to say - empty oomph - but would they use it?
I suspect it's unlikely.
I guess there are some minor variations - overuse of the word 'really', or valley girl 'totally'.
'Absolutely'. 'Seriously'. All annoying, none have caught on a lot.
The point of this post? Just to perhaps help with understanding the cause of this little language issue. It's commonly assumed the people misusing the word either just don't know what it means (sometimes true, but maybe more often don't care). Could a more aggressive reaction to its misuse have prevented it growing early on? Looking at other poor 'new words', I doubt it.
Other words have arguably idiotic 'new definitions' for some strange 'need' - using words like 'sick' and 'the bomb' for no apparent good reason for those uses.
I'd continue with the current situation, of correctors correcting its misuse.
It's unlikely to prevent the misuse from continuing, but why let a word just get destroyed, either.
Expecting a weak attempt to work the word literally into a response to this post in 3..2..
Rather, just a note on the language issue it poses.
Language is shaped by perceived needs for words. A new word that says something people want to say gets adopted. It's why abbreviations are quickly adopted.
There are two words, literally and figuratively, to describe two types of word use.
'You could literally fry an egg it was so hot' to try to say it wasn't just hot and you were using hyperbole, but it really would fry an egg.
'It figuratively made them sick' to describe a negative reaction that didn't actually cause physical illness.
That would be fine if the words were used as intended. But one note, literally seems to get used exponentially more than figuratively. Have you ever seen 'figuratively' really used?
Why is that?
The 'legitimate' part of the answer is that people feel the need more often to point out their statement is literally true than that it is figuratively true, for whatever reason.
But I think the larger reason is that many people like to add 'emphasis' to what they're saying. Profanity serves that purpose - we've all heard people who sprinkle the f word a couple times per sentence as if that makes it stronger. Yelling can do that. Harsh language can do that. But literally seems to fill the perceived need to try to add that strength, as if it does. 'It literally made their heads explode' is typical of that hyperbolic misuse. It's not enough to use the hyperbole of heads exploding, it needs more salt. Literally exploding.
Usually the language is pretty accommodating to meeting these needs. When a word like 'snark' came along to describe what people felt was happening a lot more, it just became a word. But this use of literally is a case where the supposed need isn't really seen as legitimate if you look at it - it's empty filler - and it completely undermines the original meaning of the word when used for this new meaning. 'Literally make their heads explode' is contradictory to the use about that science fiction movie that literally exploded heads.
So it's not so easy to accept this new, contradictory, undermining use of the word, and it's not to easy to get people to give it up who want to add oomph.
So it's an ongoing tension of misusers and correctors.
I don't know of a good solution. Perhaps if we made up a new word that means the same thing as they want to misuse literally to say - empty oomph - but would they use it?
I suspect it's unlikely.
I guess there are some minor variations - overuse of the word 'really', or valley girl 'totally'.
'Absolutely'. 'Seriously'. All annoying, none have caught on a lot.
The point of this post? Just to perhaps help with understanding the cause of this little language issue. It's commonly assumed the people misusing the word either just don't know what it means (sometimes true, but maybe more often don't care). Could a more aggressive reaction to its misuse have prevented it growing early on? Looking at other poor 'new words', I doubt it.
Other words have arguably idiotic 'new definitions' for some strange 'need' - using words like 'sick' and 'the bomb' for no apparent good reason for those uses.
I'd continue with the current situation, of correctors correcting its misuse.
It's unlikely to prevent the misuse from continuing, but why let a word just get destroyed, either.
Expecting a weak attempt to work the word literally into a response to this post in 3..2..
Last edited: