Literally

It's no mystery that the meanings of words evolve. They go in and out of popularity and propriety and, for being the primary method we have for describing our experiences, are by and large bloody unreliable. My  favorite example of this is the word "nice", although there are scores of examples of such words that used to mean one thing, and now are something very different. (But I will spare you my raving over these.)

And now I'm going to open my mouth (but not literally!) on that topic that has the most cursory linguaphile up-in-arms. It started (from what I can gather) with this article decrying the addition of the "figurative" definition of "literally" to the major dictionaries and Google.  Communicators, word-lovers, and Grammar Nazis alike have raged for many years against this egregious misuse by those less attentive than themselves, but this, it seems, was the last straw, and now the Internet is figuratively exploding with grammarian rants and counter-rants and great fervor over this small addition that would seem in line with general linguistic evolution.

There are two main lines of thinking when it comes to languages: the Prescriptive and the Descriptive. Prescriptive grammarians prefer to write the appropriate rules of the language, and then have people speak and write according to those rules, so that Standard English could be taught objectively. Descriptivists analyze current language trends, and write the rules to reflect these things, so that they can codify and record patterns in a particular time period and hopefully encourage standardization according to the common preference.  The Prescriptivists are the ones you will find most outraged by word-definition changes and grammatical misuse.

http://xkcd.com/725/

I would like to defend the prescriptivist camp from the reasonable but over-reaching criticisms that they just can't accept that languages change.  Below are my arguments for why indignation at the redefinition of "literally" is an appropriate response to common usage.  That being said, it is just fine for words to change meaning. Read this. The author speaks from the lexicographer's perspective, and elucidates the nature of linguistic evolution.

Words do not evolve independently

When a word does undergo a redefinition over time, the various parts of speech related to it tend to evolve simultaneously.  For instance, take "nervous". It used to mean vigorous, "full of nerves", lively. These days, being nervous is related to anxiety and a general lack of gumption. "My nerves stood on end" does not communicate that one was full of vigor, but that one was uneasy. And if one "fiddled nervously" with one's glasses, it is clear that one was timid, concerned, and any variety of not-brave feelings."Literally" is the only part of the word-family to which it belongs that is commonly used to mean "metaphorically".  "Literal" rarely can take that sense, but generally retains its true meaning, and is not blurred by a dictionary's dual meaning.  A "literalist" is never someone who takes his imagery figuratively, and "literality" and "literalism" are equally absolute.

There's already a word for that

When words evolve into new and different meanings, it is commonly a reflection of a gap (real or perceived) in the language.  People want to express a certain feeling and, not having a word in mind for what they want to say, will borrow another, similar word. Repeated word substitution leads to ingrained patterns and redefinition. Hence people think "sorry" is a word of apology, although its truest meaning is "sadness or sympathy"--it is almost exclusively used in the context of apology, so that is the expected meaning of it.

The colloquial use of "literally" does not arise from a gap in the language.  Formally, we have "figuratively", "virtually", "metaphorically", "almost", and "nearly".  Those may sound a bit stiff, so there's the phrase "just about", as in, "I just about died of excitement!" and in southern dialects, "liketa" functions similarly.  These still communicate a hyperbolic meaning--since very few people every truly or nearly die of excitement--which is the main purpose (according to the dictionaries' justification) of misuse of "literally".

If there are already multiple words for this idea, what need is there to re-purpose yet another word to do what those other words already do?

There is not another word for literally

It is challenging to find a single word, of a similar level of formality, that implies the same nuance as "literally".  Here, go ask the thesaurus.  They are different words, with different subtleties. "Actually", the most common substitution, is rooted in "act" and deals with happenings and tangibles. "Literally" comes from the same root as "letter" and describes truth as related to words and speech.  If "literally" is appropriated to mean "virtually", then there will be a gap in expression, requiring further redefinition and rearrangement. (Though, if we were going to totally revise the English language for efficiency, I'm on board with that.)

Relating to my first point, one can also not substitute the variations on "actually" for any of the variations on "literally" without changing the meaning somewhat.  A literalist is not the same as an actualist, and while literalism is a black-and-white style of reading, actualism is a school of philosophy.

The secondary definition is broken, literally.
Google defines the informal use of "literally" as "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true". This presents a problem, because it relies on the primary definition of "literally" being "truly, exactly". Now, other dictionaries do provide other definitions that are not so reciprocal. But those definitions still employ words such as "virtually"--which is also listed under antonyms of "literally"--or phrases along the lines of "not actually". But if a word is defined both as itself, and as not-a-synonym of itself, then this creates an unclear circular definition where things are not known. A similar problem arises if a word is defined as its antonym.


In my opinion, "literally" is a poor word through which to make the case for changing language. "Literally" is most often used in circumstances where the speaker employs hyperbole ("laughed himself to death"), so the figure of speech does not need to be superlatized (which should be a word) yet further by the addition of "literally". It is unnecessary and is used out of either ignorance of what one's words mean, or out of laziness as a filler (as is the case in much of spoken English).

But then, English is already a wacked-out, pretzel-y mess of words and grammar. So why worry too much? Let's just start speaking more precisely so that there's no need for this at all!