The inmates are officially running the asylum
Why do I say this? Because the Oxford English Dictionary among others are now officially approving the use of the word "literally" for exaggerative purposes - in other words, the exact opposite of what it means. You literally cannot use a word more incorrectly than dropping a "literally" for figurative hyperbole, but now the various official gatekeepers of the language are saying they're OK with this.
Well, they shouldn't be. What sort of precedent does this set? What message does this send? The lesson appears to be: do the wrong thing enough times, and via that incorrect action, said action will become correct. I don't like it one bit.
Merriam-Webster offers that, "Since some people take sense 2 [Ed: the wrong one] to be the opposite of sense 1 [Ed: the right one], it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.”
Here I don't like the equivocation and "some people" blame-shifting in the first sentence. M-W should grow a spine and say 2 is wrong, 1 is right, and that's that.
Oxford is a little less permissive, at least, offering that, "In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread."
I like that they point out that it is "not acceptable in formal contexts," though I don't think it should be acceptable in any context, what with it being wrong and all. I also think that both M-W and Oxford give too much credit to people who misuse "literally," the first interpreting it as hyperbole and the second describing the usage as deliberate. Let's fact facts: most people who make this mistake with "literally" are clueless and/or careless with their language. I realize that English is a living, evolving thing, and that dictionaries should reflect actual usage...I just wish they'd taken a firmer stance against such blatant abuse of a pretty easy-to-understand word.
9 comments:
This usage goes back centuries, you are just being a curmudgeon.
Hey! You got the idea for this blog post from me, didn't you? I'm famous! Woo hoo!
For some reason I've actually seen a TED talk by a lexicographer.
http://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html
Stein: Nice ad hominen run-on sentence. At least it inspired me to listen to Nirvana's "Curmudgeon." This position I take has nothing to do with my personality - it's a fact that the "usage" is incorrect. Something having been done for a long time does not make it right. "Ain't" goes back centuries too, and remains incorrect. If opposing a usage of a word that puts it in direct opposition to its actual meaning, and a so-called authority on language that condones such abuse, makes me a curmudgeon, then so be it. "Return of the Rat" is on now too, and also rocks.
Jodie: Yes
JHH: I will check this out.
Andy, now that you're pope, maybe you can talk them into changing this back. Congratulations on that, by the way.
Oh i see now, you incorrectly believe there is such a thing as 'correct' English.
Stein, if you think that's what I'm saying then I haven't communicated clearly enough, despite writing "I realize that English is a living, evolving thing, and that dictionaries should reflect actual usage" in the original post. I never said anything close to what you allege; I do, however, firmly believe that there are some improper usages of words and phrases that we shouldn't accept. You wouldn't say "go" to mean "stop" and a dictionary shouldn't permit that usage either, since they are antonyms. That's an extreme case, sure, but to me using "literally" to mean "figuratively" its opposite, is no different .
At least I'm learning a lot about myself from my character flaws that you keep identifying.
Going back to your original post, it is literally (in the non-figurative sense) the case that if you and enough other people use a word in a different way relative to historic usage that you can legitimize the different usage. Why is that objectionable at all, especially if you admit that languages are living, evolving things? The point of language is to communicate ideas and as long as you can continue to do so, who cares what the specifics are?
And why should we consider the major English-language dictionaries to be "gatekeepers" of a language, deciding what is and isn't correct, and not something more akin to a stenographer: simply making note of how the language has been and is currently used?
You bring up 'Go' and 'Stop' as words you wouldn't mix, and I agree! But they are verbs, not descriptors like adjectives and adverbs. The use of 'literal' in a figurative/hyperbolic sense is much more akin to the accepted forms of language of metaphor and simile.
I would describe a traffic jam as being a parking lot, implying we were stopped, when in fact it may still be moving at a very slow speed. I might even say that my trip through that traffic jam as taking forever, even if I did think that there would be a finite amount of time before I was out and moving again. And at least among native English speakers I don't think I would have any problem communicating the situation by using such language.
Now that isn't to say that we couldn't change the meaning of verbs, just that it would be harder to accomplish.
Also, your protestations against ad hominem attacks would have more effect if you hadn't called 'most people' who use literal in a figurative sense clueless and/or careless.
What you're saying is that is makes sense to throw personal criticisms at me specifically - someone you know personally - because I (correctly, in my view) pointed out generally that most people who use "literally" to mean its exact opposite do so without considering its meaning carefully. I understand but do not agree.
I agree with you that the point of language is to communicate ideas - that's why I balk at widespread acceptance of a confusing usage of a word as its own antonym. The verb/adjective approach isn't a big deal - I could have made the same argument with light/dark or hot/cold. "Parking lot" and "forever" are idioms that are in no way representative of the argument I've made for literally. "Parking lot" is an extension; cars and people sit in parking lots indefinitely, and a traffic jam can feel that way. Likewise with "forever," - that's already a word that means a long time and it's used hyperbolically here to express a longer time. "Literally" does not fit the paradigm you've selected because the usage I'm criticizing doesn't extend its existing meaning farther; it uses a word - without context - to mean that word's generally-accepted opposite.
I am literally finished with this argument. I think "literally" should only mean "literally," you think it should mean both "literally" and "figuratively," and we disagree. OK.
Post a Comment