\u201cThat chili was so hot it literally blew my\nhead off\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cShe literally flew off the handle\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat person literally makes my blood boil\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Literally.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s the infamous term that infuriates editors,\nacademics, linguists, publishers, and journalists alike, with people using it\nwhen they actually mean \u2018figuratively\u2019 \u2013 the exact opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Encouraged by widespread use in celebrity and pop culture, this innocent(ish) adverb exploded into a senseless filler word around 20-30 years ago and is now used liberally and without question by the young (and old, but especially the young), to give their sentences extra \u2018oomph\u2019. The problem is that the word has a specific and useful meaning, which is being diluted and devalued by its overuse in incorrect contexts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is truly a crisis of language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least, that\u2019s what you\u2019d think had happened by some of\nthe reactions to the word \u2018literally\u2019. There seems to be a \u2018literal panic\u2019\nthese days around the use of the word \u2018literally\u2019\u2019. Linguistic prescriptivists\n\u2013 who generally prefer to keep the existing rules of English \u2013 have penned\ndozens of commentaries and articles on the subject to illustrate their rage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality is, in fact, much less extreme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s (figuratively) dive into the history\nof the word \u2018literally\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The phenomenon of overusing \u2018literally\u2019 feels\nlike an issue from the 21st<\/sup> century, but the reality is that this is\nnot the case. \u2018Literally\u2019 is nothing new, unusual or harmful, and the current\npanic about the loss of original meaning is somewhat misplaced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Non-literal \u2018literally\u2019 has been used for centuries!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s more, not only is it not a new\nthing, but the current controversial meaning \u2013 hyperbole and emphasis – developed\ngradually and legitimately over time through genuine linguistic change\nprocesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Literally\u2019 has origins in borrowings from\nFrench and Latin. The French word literal<\/em> means \u2018relating to letters or\nliterature\u2019, and the Latin word litteralis <\/em>describes \u2018taking words in\ntheir natural or customary meaning, without any ulterior spiritual or symbolic\nmeaning\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The first borrowings of these words can be\ndated back to the early 1400s. In around 1450, the first example of the words literal\n<\/em>and literally <\/em>as we know them today (i.e. a word describing the\nprimary sense of a concept) appeared. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By 1670, another meaning for the word literally<\/em>\nhad surfaced. OED described this as \u201cto indicate that the related phrase or\nword must be taken in its literal sense, usually to add emphasis.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n An example of this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat punishment has he suffered? Literally\nnone.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new meaning of literally, <\/em>designed\nto add emphasis, served as the precursor to today\u2019s controversial, hyperbolic usage.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The process of the word gaining this new\nmeaning took place through a steady language change process: bridging contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While it may seem illogical for a word to\nevolve from having one exact meaning to then acquiring a second, opposite\nmeaning, it is an interesting process that took literally<\/em> to also mean\n\u2018figuratively\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the example above, where literally<\/em>\nwas added to the word none <\/em>to illustrate the lack of punishment, there\nare two possible interpretations for the word literally: <\/em>the original\n(\u2018taken in a literal sense\u2019) and the new meaning, where literally<\/em> adds\nemphasis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Either interpretation would make sense in\nits own right, and in fact, it\u2019s even possible for the word literally <\/em>to\nserve both purposes \u2013 descriptive and<\/em> emphatic \u2013 in this context. We\nhave no way of knowing in which sense the writer chose the word literally<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ambiguity behind this example makes it\na bridging context<\/strong>, or a term used in a way that signals multiple\npossible interpretations. Readers interpreted the word in both original and\nemphatic senses, ultimately validating the emphatic literally<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With continuous use of literally <\/em>in\nthis ambiguous way, the meaning of the word gradually shifted further,\nculminating in the following excerpt from a 1769 text:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHe is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In this sentence, there is no other\npossible definition of literally<\/em> except the hyperbolic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While it is related to the emphatic literally<\/em>,\nit bears no resemblance to the original definition, \u2018taken in a literal sense\u2019.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n This shows the full cycle of bridging\ncontexts, with literally <\/em>on the \u2018other side of the bridge\u2019 in this\nexample, so to speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Language change is a continuous and gradual\nprocess. <\/p>\n\n\n\n New words, phrases, and structures become trendy among language speakers, leading to increased popularity, widespread use, and then standardization through inclusion in the dictionary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This change, and the inclusion of new terms in the dictionary, is nothing to be afraid of; it\u2019s been happening since the beginning of time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The late 20th<\/sup> and early 21st<\/sup>\ncenturies saw countless language changes: the Internet, computers, and globalization\nhave all provided catalysts for new word meanings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The word spam<\/em> is a perfect example\nof language change: originally a portmanteau of \u2018spiced ham\u2019 to describe a\nBritish processed meat product, its primary meaning now describes unwanted\ndigital communications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Now we understand where the modern literally<\/em>\ncame from, is it still correct that it receives such bad press?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although it is now regarded as a contronym (a word with two opposite meanings), there are hundreds of other contronyms in the English language, which are nowhere near as controversial (custom, dust, model, etc).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Language prescriptivists (people who disapprove of semantic change) have the loudest voices when it comes to criticizing literally<\/em>, but in reality, the figurative definition of the word has been listed in the OED since 1903.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky suggests\nthat we criticize the word literally<\/em> so harshly because of the recency\nillusion: a phenomenon where we believe that something is recent because we\nourselves only recently discovered it. When we know that \u2018literally\u2019 annoys us,\nwe\u2019re more likely to notice it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is related to confirmation bias, and\nfor those who are irked by literally<\/em>\u2019s explosion in popularity, it will\nbe easy to find endless examples of its (mis)use to support their anger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Language change is inevitable. New words\nand meanings evolve while old ones fall into obscurity and obsolescence. There\nis always a resistance to change from prescriptivists, but the vendetta against\nliterally <\/em>is unusual because it is not a new phenomenon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At some point in the early 20th<\/sup>\ncentury, the alternative definition for literally <\/em>was no longer a\nmisuse, but finally achieved the status of a new definition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is more, although it annoys some people, everyone understands the hyperbolic meaning of literally<\/em>. If the purpose of language is to be able to communicate, then surely the new meaning fulfills the purpose perfectly?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Language is constantly evolving, and it is exactly this element of change that makes it so interesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You might think learning a new language may seem like a huge challenge. But you can start speaking a new language in just a few days. With Pimsleur Language Programs<\/a>, you\u2019ll learn a language by speaking it, not by studying it. You\u2019ll be speaking the language on Day 1. After 30 days, you will be speaking with a near-native accent!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Try our app today. Your first language lesson<\/a> is on us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"parks](\"https:\/\/media2.giphy.com\/media\/xQDjOVmYhRGms\/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ad736bc95b5f71b5f1cbd81479b735eb2d2ad2e3&rid=giphy.gif\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n‘Literally’ – Language Evolution or Butchery? When did the Literal Panic Start?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The History of the Term Literally<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Literal Change: Words Gaining Extra Meanings Through Bridging Contexts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is a Bridging Context?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How Often Does Language Change Happen?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
So Why do We See Literally<\/em> as so Negative?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pimsleur Language Learning Will Literally Blow Your Mind!<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/d3brn974kg3172.cloudfront.net\/2020\/07\/797x338-French-Montage.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n