I think everyone on Facebook has a few grammar nerds who regularly post about things like the Oxford Comma or rant about the improper use of the word “literally.” While I’m not aggressive about these issues (yes, I have an opinion about the Oxford Comma, but I don’t always broadcast it), I have a profound appreciation for these guardians of language.
Today, I shared this CNN article that discusses how dictionaries are adding to the definition of the word literally to include figurative usage. For example, Google’s definition of literally now includes “Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.” The article points out that Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries have added similar non-literal definitions.
I posted the article with the comment, “This is so sad!” A couple of friends rightly pointed out that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive and such a change is appropriate.
But it still bothers me. So, I had to take some time to really figure out why. Here it is:
I have no issue with language changing. Sometimes, word meanings shift slowly as the nuances of a language shift. Sometimes new terms are adopted that are more descriptive or reflective of innovations. For example, converting the proper noun Google into the verb “google” seems entirely appropriate; Google was integral in enabling an action that was not available a few years back. Sometimes, we take a word such as “cool” and intentionally use a variant meaning, and that meaning becomes codified in our language. I grew up in California so I am guilty of way overusing this colloquialism.
I would have less issue with this latest change in the dictionaries if it were born out of an ironic use of the word “literal” to mean “figurative.” Unfortunately, though, this change was born out of ignorance. It isn’t that people are being ironic. They simply don’t know the difference between figurative and literal. If a portion of people thought the color green was the color red, would we adopt a secondary meaning for green? Maybe. But sometimes, I think it is better to just let people know they don’t know what a word means.
This essay is from our Anastasis Series, where we resurrect articles from the past that are either still relevant today or can be easily updated. This piece was first published on August 15, 2013, and has been lightly edited and updated.
About Post Author
What a great point about the change being born out of ignorance! We should be striving to become a more creative people. Unfortunately, this change means that we’ve literally become a less creative people when it comes to our language. (See what I did there?)
Bravo, Rondall. This is a line that has to be drawn. I like your comparison to adjectives for color.
What do you suggest for an ironic answer? We’re not all going to say things like, “I’m figuratively dying right now, that is so funny!” Talk about nerdy. I suppose we could just leave off the qualifier, but then the intensity would not be as great. According to what I have read, this qualifying, hyperbolic usage has been around since the 1800s, so saying that the usage is due to ignorance is a far stretch that requires going back generations.
I have no problem with the ironic answer, but the ironic answer depends on the word meaning something different from what is being stated. As you point out, there is a long history of using this turn of phrase ironically. My concern is that this is a definition change born out of ignorance, not irony. I say more about this in the last paragraph of the essay.