November 21, 2010 Literally Makes Me Cry
I don’t pay attention to anything that anyone says, ever.
This is a personal problem, and it has had a measurable negative impact on my life.
Don’t get me wrong. I hear what people say, I listen to what people say, but I’m not paying attention. Instead, what I’m predisposed to doing is breaking down each word and sentence I hear, excitedly searching for a place where I can drop a salty pun (likely), or an uncomfortably bad joke (even more likely).
Besides the very clear social downsides of not giving proper attention to what my friends, colleagues, or family members are saying, the main drawback of hearing-but-not-really is that I am cursed to live in a world where I am accidentally analyzing the words people choose to use.
And ultimately, this leads to times when, as a matter of personal ethics, I cry myself to sleep.
Everyone, please take your seats for today’s lesson.
“Literally” has an actual meaning. “Literally” has a hyper-specific purpose, not to be changed. It is a rock. “Literally” literally means “actually.”
Sorry for shouting, but it is important that you write all of that down.
So please, don’t tell me that you “literally just crapped your pants” unless you’ve actually done the most humiliating and hilarious thing in your entire adult life.
And no, you didn’t “literally die” when you saw your ex-girlfriend in the potato chip aisle at the grocery store. You were very surprised. You were not rushed to the hospital before being declared deceased and subsequently buried in the ground while your heirs deal with your life insurance company and logistics of planning a emotionally crippling funeral.
No.
What happened was your heart sped up slightly as you reached for a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos.
I’m pretty sure you can spot the difference.
And last week when you were sick, your head didn’t “literally swell up to the size of a hot air balloon.” You would die if that happened. Your head would explode and you would die from lack of having a head. It would be disgusting and in the newspaper and would baffle doctors and scientists for generations. You would literally die.
The problem I have with the bastardization of this particular word isn’t just that it’s blatantly misused. I ain’t no English major, and I certainly haven’t ever been confused for Strunk and/or White.
My problem is that “literally” is being misused in a way that suggests that it means THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY (LITERALLY!) MEANS.
What you mean to say is “figuratively.”
Your story doesn’t get better when you say “literally.”
It becomes at best, false, and at worst, profoundly confusing.
“I’m really sorry about your pants.”
I also want to point out that this is not a case of cool kids and trend-setters brute-forcing a change to our vocabulary. When thinking about the literally/figuratively contradiction, my first instinct was to consider the fact that “hot” and “cool” mean the same thing in certain contexts, so why can’t “literally” and “figuratively”? (e.g., “That movie was hot!”/”That movie was cool!”)
But the answer to this question is simple: intent of the speaker.
When a well-meaning person casually explains that they “could literally eat a house,” they are making a mistake. (EXCEPTION: the house is small and made of gingerbread.) They’ve messed up. They are trying to convey an idea to you via metaphor, and their brain in good faith selects the wrong word (“literally”) which causes the speaker to metaphorically barf out a grammatically irresponsible sentence. They try to use to the correct word and they fail.
This is not an example of our language evolving through social interaction; it is an outright linguistic failure.
The only difference between wrongly blurting “literally” in a sentence and confusing the distinction between “I love you” and “I loathe you” is that only one of these mistakes is overlooked by polite society. Can you imagine if people would say “loathe” in a sentence where they actually wanted to say “love” and everyone just agreeing to ignore this grammatical catastrophe (grammastrophe?) if it’s obvious what the speaker means in context?
No, you cannot imagine.
You cannot imagine because living in that world would be crazy.
Upon researching this quandary further, I was distressed to learn that the 2006 version of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary explains that,
“since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning…The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing. Although this use of literally irritates some, it probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentences in which it occurs.”
A few points on the above quotation:
First, I recognize that dictionaries are in the business of documenting usage, not dictating use.
Second, however, I fail to understand why misuse, “probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentence.” I think it does. Especially when there is a word which has the exact meaning that the writer intends. It cheapens the sentence, and cheapens the word.
Class dismissed.
- 20 comments
- Posted under Grammar!

Permalink #
John Holt
said
Isn’t “neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning” much more of an insult than you acknowledge? It’s not much to ask of a word that it at appreciably enhance the meaning of the sentence in which it appears; a word that doesn’t do so has been cheapened by its pointless inclusion. I think you and the authors of the 2006 Unabridged share the same distaste for “literally,” but they’re just subtler about it.
Permalink #
Zach S.
said
I think you’re right in that they are being as insult-y as they can while also maintaining what looks to be fauxjectivity (!)
I guess it depends if you are more offended by people being exactly wrong about the definition of a word they are using (me) or if you are more offended by a word being used to mean nothing as opposed to something (them).
From the dictionary perspective, I think it’s a fine note, although I find it at least a little funny that they hedge with a “probably.”
I’m just not on board with the “people screw this up all the time — in everything except for ‘the most carefully edited writing’ (wtf?) — so let’s just all agree not to care” theory.
Permalink #
John Holt
said
(an unwitting example: the mistakenly undeleted “at” in the middle of my second sentence above probably doesn’t distort the meaning of the sentence, but that doesn’t make it less wrong.)
Permalink #
John Holt
said
My favorite recent example was a law firm that described one of its partners as “literally a pillar within the firm.”
How will he devote his full attention to my case while standing rigidly in place, maintaining the structural integrity of his office building?
Permalink #
Jessica Ryckman
said
I literally love you for this post. Don’t tell my husband.
Permalink #
Jeff
said
Well, it can still be a mistake and be part of an evolution. To wit:
“I am livid with rage”
Reads to people as something like:
“I am flushed with rage.”
Yet, the term originally meant the exact opposite – being white as a sheet, for example. “Nice” and “silly” are similar examples, and there are tons of other words that had significant shifts – disinterested, for example.
The evolution of language, much like that of species, is value-neutral. This use of “literally” is wrong relative to the conventional standards for English speakers (though it not wrong relative to the individual speaker’s lexicon).
Yet, those standards are clearly shifting. Nobody knows anymore that “disinterested” used to mean “unbiased,” and the same might happen with “literally.” Whether it is wrong or not is relative to how much we care about the standard (which is always behind language, most standards for English still think the gender-neutral singular “they” is not correct English).
Permalink #
Zach S.
said
I recognize that this can be part of the evolution of a language — but I don’t have to like it. It is up to us — the ones who understand the definition of “literally” — to maintain the value of the word. I tried to make this clear in the article, but the main issue with the literally/figuratively mistake is that in the long term, it has the impact of completely neutralizing the word. When a word like literally is defined as both X and ~X (logic for Jeff!), all you’ve done is removed a meaningful word from our language. In that way, it doesn’t *evolve* at all; it just dies. “Literally” would be defined as itself and its opposite, rendering it useless.
I don’t want to live in a future where “I tripped in the parking lot and literally broke my leg!” has to be followed by an earnest, “You really broke your leg?”
I’m not opposed to language evolving, but I am opposed to what amounts to the *removal* of a valuable English word from our vocabulary. Because of idiots!
Permalink #
Jeff
said
Fair point. Words like “actually” and “really” don’t do quite the same thing as “literally,” as they do not point to the exact phrasing.
In fact, I wonder if “literally” will always survive with dual meanings, since “literal” is not under siege and is a rather useful phrase. Of course, massive proliferation of ambiguity does not help matters – I’m not sure if you’d see “literally” become divorced from “literal” or if we’d just become really good at disambiguating the two senses of “literally” based on context.
Permalink #
Renée A. Schuls-Jacobson
said
Do you think I can just distribute this to my students tomorrow and literally leave the class?
Permalink #
Zach S.
said
You certainly have my permission to do so, although from the stories you’ve told, I don’t know how much impact it would have.
Permalink #
Crying Over Milk « Faux Outrage
said
[...] “Milk” now means “milk” and also “something that is by definition not milk.” How many words do we need that are defined as themselves and also their opposite? [...]
Permalink #
100% Milk « Faux Outrage
said
[...] “Milk” now means “milk” and also “something that is by definition not milk.” How many words do we need that are defined as themselves and also their opposite? [...]
Permalink #
Max Power « Faux Outrage
said
[...] next time, as I watch the sun literally burn a hole through my ceiling, I’ll make the leap and finally learn what “Max [...]
Permalink #
Put A Ring On It « Faux Outrage
said
[...] Literally any other loud noise. [...]
Permalink #
Andrew
said
Its not people using literally when they mean figuratively that pisses me off. It’s people using literally when there is no figurative way to take the expression.
For example i was with some friends talking about a movie and one said, “I literally just watched that movie last night.” New anchors too. “He literally won the election by 2000 votes.”
It seems like literally is a word people add to a sentence so people know they are being serious. Or maybe even exactly when talking about figures. But i guess were gonna have to used to it cause proper grammar has gone out the window with how we communicate now. To the point where i dont feel the need to use apostrophes or capitalize I in a comment where I diss other peoples’ grammar. Well i had to use that one,
Permalink #
Faux Word of the Day: cropportunity « Faux Outrage
said
[...] I guess this is also a reminder that you should never let you significant other get between you and your friends, literally. [...]
Permalink #
Mere Pressure « Faux Outrage
said
[...] The issue with barometers — which is not about barometers so much as “barometers” — will probably remind you of the devolution of language I wrote about a year ago, otherwise known as literally the worst problem in the world. [...]
Permalink #
Penciled In « Faux Outrage
said
[...] don’t literally have lists. We don’t know which list is large or which is small, and we don’t even know [...]
Permalink #
2012 « Faux Outrage
said
[...] religious war, and environmental catastrophe when the reality is that none of these things would literally lead to the end of the [...]
Permalink #
Two Potty System « Faux Outrage
said
[...] a shockingly low bar. Returning home from work and remarking, out loud, “At least no one literally urinated onto my person” should provide about as much emotional comfort as a teddy bear made [...]