On the Misuse and Abuse of the Word "Literally"

Against This Most Vexing Blather

Many on the left are certainly an object of ridicule.  But with various civilization-destroying positions on a wide range of issues, including transgenderism, unrestrained, third world immigration, and abject animus for Europe, the West, and white European peoples, the woke are rightly hated and despised.  In addition to the positions they take, which are at once destructive, ridiculous, and dangerous, there is another odious and loathsome feature of the woke left: the cadence and manner in which they speak and write. While in the past use of “like” as a meaningless filler word was limited to spoken vernacular principally in young, mostly female white teenagers, many of these mutants, even well into adulthood, write like adolescent girls speak. 

A meme depicting leftist cadence all too well; the script of the NPC is as predictable as it is obnoxious.

There is perhaps no better avatar for this brain rot than the misuse and abuse of the word “literally.”  This problem of course is compounded and exacerbated by the disease of descriptivism—which has overtaken education at all levels, as well as various literary institutions.  As an ethos, descriptivism sanctions and endorses any usage, no matter how wrong, lazy, or ignorant, through entry in various dictionaries, as well as usage guides and articles. Unless someone has been completely isolated from modern society and is deprived of internet access (and thus unable to read this very essay), every reader should be all too familiar with this usage of “literally” that is only becoming more and more pervasive.  Instead of using “literally” in its true, proper sense, questionable or wrong usages of “literally” are no longer limited simply to mean the opposite of the word, i.e. “figuratively.”[1] Usage of the word has further devolved into a vague intensifier or crude emphasizer of a statement or utterance.  Examples would include “that’s literally a Porsche” or “they literally think that.”  Stated another way, usage of the word “literally” has devolved over at least two phases, first to mean figuratively as much if not more than its true. proper meaning, as it then devolved into a verbal tick to express adamance or emphasis of a given utterance by those who are unable to express themselves in a more articulate manner.

On the left, an excerpt from a recent, unhinged rant about how evil mainstream conservatives are by reddit’s troon super-moderator, Bardfinn, real name Steven Joel Akins.  Recall his motto: “Descriptivism, prescriptivisn’t.” Followed by a screenshot of a rant by Elon Musk’s estranged SON on Threads.  “Like, literally. . ..”

Alas, most dictionaries, long since fallen to the descriptivist contagion, have entries defining “literally” to mean the opposite of its original, true meaning, that is figuratively or hyperbolically.  Even the once venerable Oxford English Dictionary has succumbed to this terrible contagion of descriptivist lunacy. As further proof that the slippery slope theory is not a fallacy, these egregious usages, sanctioned by dictionaries and other corrupted authorities, have spread from millennials and zoomers to politicians, journalists, and others who are paid to speak and write for a living.

No need for further commentary. Source for this meme.

Despite entries in various dictionaries stating otherwise, and despite the increasing ubiquity of such egregious abuse and misuse of the word, “literally” should never be used figuratively or as a vague, non-descript intensifier. A proper use of “literally” specifies that something—often or usually referred to figuratively— is used “literally” in that instance. A classic example would be this exchange;

“My stomach is killing me.”

“Oh, do you have a bad stomach ache?”

“No, my stomach is literally killing me.  I was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer and the doctor informed me he does not expect me to survive beyond six months.” 

Here follows a short list of other examples, one of which pertains to a profane racial slur. Reader discretion is advised.

“He is literally a foamer; he literally foamed at the mouth when that heritage unit ran by the mainline,” in response to a railfan who was so excited to see a locomotive he started to foam at the mouth.  “Foamer” is slang for a railfan who is obnoxious by way of his excessive enthusiasm, lack of social skills, or otherwise defective personality. “Foamer” is a figurative term, an insult that disparages a certain sort of railfan who alienates others and gives other railfans generally a bad name, the suggestion being that a “foamer” is so spastic he foams at the mouth. Most if not all “foamers” do not actually foam at the mouth because of uncontrollable excitement at watching a train go by, but do so figuratively, as the term “foaming at the mouth” is often used figuratively as well. The use of “literally” in this case is an important word to denote that this railfan did actually foam at mouth, but has since been tainted by this misuse and abuse, as most hearing such an utterance would think the word is used figuratively or as a verbal tick.

“Look, a literal street-shitter,” in reference to the sight of an Indian defecating in the streets. “Street-shitter” is a racial slur for East Indians. Some Indians do shit on the streets, which is how the racial slur came to be, but usually it is used, one would hope, in a figurative sense.  The use of the word “literal” is important to indicate that in this instance, the East Indian was literally a street-shitter, as the person making the utterance sees the Indian defecating in the streets.

“He literally does nothing all day long.” This one is arguable, but often when someone says another person “does nothing,” it is often figurative.  The person does do something, but does so little he practically does nothing. Imagine though a case where an employee or person in another context does literally nothing, not one thing. Proper use of the word “literally” is important because it conveys that person is not just so lazy as to mean he figuratively does nothing, he truly, literally does nothing, nothing whatsoever, not one single thing.

Similar examples include “worthless,” “every,” or “always.” A house or other item for sale could be figuratively worthless, so that it receives negligible value for any sale, or it could be literally worthless so that it could not be sold at any value whatsoever. “He is late every time” could be figurative, to mean mostly or very often, or it could mean every in a literal sense, as in “he does that every time—literally every single time.”

To use the word “literal” or “literally” when something is not often or even never used figuratively is a misuse of the word, no matter how ubiquitous it is among those lacking even the barest semblance of a classical education, and to use it when no figurative meaning could be construed is redundant and defies one of the maxims of eloquence, to speak or write with clarity and precision, and to avoid words that are redundant or extraneous. “That is indeed a Porsche” or “I actually did say” should always be used rather than “that is literally a Porsche” or “I literally just said” because a car could never be a Porsche figuratively, just as one could never say this or that figuratively.  The error of stating “that is literally a Porsche” or “it literally did not work” comes into sharp relief when one considers these absurd utterances:

·         Feline cat

·         Wooden lumber

·         Wet water

·         Canine dog

·         Golden gold

Why are these wrong?[2]  Because a cat is always feline by its very nature, there has never existed a cat that was not feline.  The same principle applies to the other examples. “I literally said” or that “they literally believe” suffers from precisely the same absurd redundancy because those statements can never be uttered in a figurative sense. Something cannot be “said” or “believed” figuratively.  A maxim of speaking or writing with clarity and eloquence is to never blurt out extraneous or meaningless words or jargon.  Another maxim is to avoid speaking or writing in cliches, not just to keep the audience captivated, but to keep one’s own mind fresh and active, always looking for new, interesting, and original ways to express one’s self, while still using correct, proper English with eloquence, grace, and precision.

As stated before, dictionaries and other authorities that have succumbed to the descriptivist contagion have exacerbated this matter.  The usual descriptivist argument is made in defense of entering errors and even misspellings along with correct entries. In relation to the public outcry of OED’s disastrous decision to include wrong, erroneous definitions of “literally” in its hallowed pages, McPherson stated the following:

“Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way.”

By that absurd and also destructive rationale, entries for “loose” and “looser” should duplicate entries found under “lose” and “loser,” and the preposition “of” has a whole new meaning given how many conflate “of” with “have” with certain modal verbs. Webster-Mirriam made pretty much the same definition as seen in this definition, in tandem with this dreadful video presentation and article by the same. There are usage notes, but they hardly condemn or admonish improper or wrong usage at all. Robert Fiske noted how useless if not counter-productive such usage notes are, stating “the editors at Merriam-Webster use these [usage] notes to underscore their descriptivist bent and to rebut those who” know better and want to maintain “standards of language use.”  Without fail, these usage notes hardly admonish bad usage (if they do so at all) in accordance with the descriptivist creed, as any “usage note that does uphold the difference in meanings between commonly misused words is written [only] begrudgingly.” (7)

Most if not all descriptivist arguments for sanctioning wrong and improper definitions of “literally” buttress the “this is how words are used” argument with a peculiar tactic—the appeal to authority—whereby descriptivists scour the various belles-lettres in the English canon, and focus on any example, usually an aberration or exception, that invalidates or contravenes the prescriptivist rule at issue.  As demonstrated in this egregious article by Oxford, this tactic is used to advance the use of “singular they,” not just for pronouns that are conjugated in the singular but denote either a plurality or unknown quantity, but for a known, particular individual of a particular sex. In that vexing presentation by Merriam-Webster discussed earlier, the editor condones permissive use of the word “literally” by trying to be all things to all people. In answer to the question “Does this mean that [the reader] should use literally this way.” the answer provided is “Maybe,” justifying this non-committal guidance by listing several examples by prominent authors where “literally” was used to mean figuratively.  In efforts like these, it is noteworthy the descriptivists never seem to set forth a percentage in which the dubious or objectionable usage for which they advocate is used.[3]  This is true whether in relation to their insidious efforts to gain widespread approval of “singular they,” or, at issue at here, palming off a bastardized definition of “literally” to mean “figuratively,” or other improper uses that have been used in ways that those of a more enlightened, prescriptivist perspective rightly denounce. In this way, such sleight of hand not only sanctions and endorses errors by way of appeal to authority, but is likely presenting the exception to invalidate the rule, when the exception proves the rule. The same specious reasoning would inform the gullible and stupid that because Brigitte Nielsen is 6’1, women are just as tall as men, or that it is an error to state that men are taller than women as a general principle.  

In the instance of this presentation by Merriam-Webster in particular, the editors have taken instances of written hyperbole written years ago, using them as a trojan horse to then open the floodgates in order to justify the sloppy misuse and overuse of “literally” in everyday, modern usage.  The same rationale was offered by Fiona McPherson, then an editor at Oxford English Dictionary, in response to public outrage that the once authoritative, respectable OED had done the same, stating they “are in good company” because Mark Twain used the word that way, once.   This defies any sane lexiconical principle, as David Foster Wallace points out with the descriptivist ambition of describing any usage, wherever and however it is written or spoken (85). For indeed, any effort to incorporate literary uses of hyperbole by famous, notable authors would be a daunting task while providing little value to readers of dictionaries and usage guides who want guidance on how a term is properly used.  This is because hyperbole grossly exaggerates or emphasizes a statement by comparing a particular phenomenon with something it is not, either by simile, metaphor or the like. As an exaggeration that is contrary to reality, hyperbole can only be effective if it is unexpected and novel.

It must be noted that, despite “brand name” recognition of names like Dickens, Twain, or Nabokov, most of the examples cited are not particularly moving or elevated. If someone gave erudite, sophisticated readers these passages blindly, most would be unimpressed because most of the excerpts cited are not all that great as written prose. Beyond that, the editors fail to account for the context in which these cherry-picked excerpts were written, a time before the word “literally” was so overused, misused, and abused as to be intractably lazy, boring, and even meaningless.  Whereas it may not have been before, use of this word to mean figuratively for hyperbolic effect has long since become one of the most tiresome, worn-out cliches in the English language. These authors who used “literally” in this way then would never use that word now.

Something else needs to be stated; the sort of mutants on reddit, twitter, TikTok, and other places where such grating, noxious usage of “literally” is most ubiquitous are not generally articulate people, or at least by no means exhibit any sort of eloquence in most all instances.  These people and these vexatious utterances and usages do not deserve any comparison with the likes of Bronte or Nabokov. When the article “cautions that hyperbole requires care in handling and that your audience may not recognize it for what it is,” it perpetuates a lie by suggesting that even a small fraction of the modern audience uses it as hyperbole, rather than as the most vague, non-descriptive intensifier, a sort of guttural reflexive response constantly barked out by the stupid and brainwashed.  “Underscor[ing] their descriptive bent,” this article does far more than just fail to offer any meaningful admonition against such misuse and abuse of “literally,” a word so ubiquitous it has become little more than the most obnoxious, grating verbal tick. It patronizes the stupid by likening them to names like Bronte or Dickens while encouraging them to speak and write like fools, idiots, and cretins.

Aside from having popularized and legitimized a bastardized meaning that is the opposite of its correct usage, to the extent “literally” is now used as a vague, non-descript filler word or intensifier used to express emphasis, it violates other principles of good, proper English, both written and spoken. The constant repetition or usage of a word degrades its currency. One might call this “word inflation,” and it applies to many words used to emphasize or intensify the meaning of something or the adamance with which one makes a statement.  If someone used “indeed,” or “actually,” or “really” every sentence, practically or literally, those words would quickly lose their punch, as the constant repetition would, instead of offering emphasis, distract the audience. The same considerations apply to a general eschewal of profanity.  Consider for example constant, unremittent outbursts of “fuck” by the worst sort of unrepentant and hardened vulgarian, whether for example a t-shirt that reads “Fuck the Draft,” the subject at hand in the wrongly decided Cohen v California, or “fucking” as a vague, guttural emphasizer, such as in this sample sentence, “this fucking album rocks.” Constant usage of such profanity dilutes its power, it becomes banal and irritating with its meaninglessness. Compare and contrast with the more judicious usage of such words. Striving for a more antiquated, formal style, and in an effort to resist and reject the unspeakable vulgarity of the modern world to at least some small measure, this author, as a principle, refrains from such usage in his writing.  Providing a rare exception to that steadfast rule gives that indulgence power, as it does in this excerpt condemning the shattered grammar and prose that results from the mad folly of using singular they for known individuals of a specified sex:

“Sarah stated they are a member of the spin class” is nothing other than fucked-up English, a linguistic abomination that should embarrass any ESL student. The correct conjugation for a singular noun is “is,” of course.

This sentence and its use of profanity, placed in the context of the formal style of the rest of that essay and this author’s writing style overall, effectively emphasizes the strongest disapproval of and outrage at the “singular they” because such profanity is otherwise out of place and therefore surprising.  The limited indulgence in such profanity is thus able to convey this author’s anger and disgust effectively because it is abrupt, sudden, and seemingly out of place.

When critics survey how usage of the word “literally” has devolved over the years and decades, the disastrous effects of the permissiveness of descriptivist lexicography are better discerned. Very similar to the principles of Defining Deviancy Down, where tolerating deviant behavior normalizes it, putting more aberrant behavior further down the line on the outer edges of borderline behavior, the decision to sanction the hyperbolic use of “literally” as an official entry in the dictionary soon led to usage devolving further into the most noxious verbal tick to express the most diffuse, abstract, non-descript emphasis or intensifier of a given statement, not unlike the most insufferable, hardened vulgarian who blurts out “fuck” or “fucking” with nearly every sentence.

ESL students before reddit mutants. A non-native speaker complains about this pestilence, with select replies from the humanoid cattle that comprise the woke hive mind. Is this blight in our language really a “fun example of watching the language evolve? Is the constant, ubiquitous use of “’literally’” really clever and delightful..?” Lemmings and morons, all of them. The very exemplification of the herd mentality, so devoid of individuality and thus humanity, one wonders whether they are rightly considered people at all.

The importance of active, conscientious, and, yes, prescriptive pedagogy, from teachers, parents, and from society and culture at large is also demonstrated, as it the diminishment of such crucial guidance and instruction that has allowed and even encouraged language to devolve in this and many other ways. Consider for example the ubiquitous use of the word “like” as a non-descript filler word that has become more and more pervasive in spoken vernacular of young people over the decades. Despite descriptivist assertions to the contrary that any and all change is neither good nor bad, this development is a wholly negative one.  It disrupts clarity and fragments discourse.  An effective way for a parent, teacher, or other trusted elder to condition youngsters, particularly young women, is to, for example, hold out a finger each time a youngster says “like,” in order to keep a running tally, or make a silly or unpleasant or bizarre facial contortion.  As a form of negative conditioning, also known as negative reinforcement, those sorts of pedagogical techniques are remarkably effective in deterring that behavior. If more adults had done that in the eighties, the now ubiquitous use of “like” as a filler word would likely be far less prevalent.  The same applies to this newest verbal plague of using “literally” as a non-descript “filler” word. And of course, the hyper relativism of the descriptivist disease dissuaded and inhibited that sort of correction by teachers, parents, and elders that is so badly needed and could have put a damper on this.

This screenshot of a search for “literally” in Google News, offering the smallest sample of the misuse of the word in notable headlines. The tip of the tip of the iceberg. . ..

Some correctly revile this new pestilence in our language.  Most know intuitively—instinctively—that this usage is a most noxious abomination in the English language, even those who could not fully articulate some of the problems with such usage as set forth in this essay.  Using “literally” in these ways, and using it in such a constant, unremittent manner is lazy, vague, and redundant; it could not be more grating to anyone with even the mere semblance of a classical education.  As with other ways in which the descriptivist disease has denigrated and defiled our language, the permissiveness in regards to using “literally” in these ways is obfuscating the use of this word in the sorts of ways explicated above. If a spastic, poorly socialized rail fan reacts to seeing a train by literally foaming at the mouth, being able to use that word in this way is an important tool to have. Now, because of how this word has been ruined through overuse and misuse, if one were to utter this word in this way, there would likely be confusion as to whether the person was literally foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, or doing so only figuratively.  There is also reluctance to use it because this horrid usage of the word is conditioning many with a Pavlovian response to refrain from using it for fear of guilt by association or simply because of increasing aversion to the word overall. Intelligent, erudite people do not want to sound like such cretins.

A likely result for anyone who takes the Richard Parker challenge.

A final consideration demonstrates what a plague such usages are, not just in regards to “literally” as misused and abused in the ways specified in this tract, but the use of the filler word “like” as well. Compile a small collection of videos from TikTok, Instagram, and the like, featuring any number of millennials and zoomers speaking the way so many of them do while advocating for wokescold horseshit, whether transgender lunacy, or bloviating about the supposed evils of “systemic racism,” or whatever the “current thing” might be. Then, armed with these videos, take the Richard Parker challenge: a shot of tequila, vodka, or whiskey every time an objectionable use of “literally” or “like” is made.  This recent exchange with a radical gender ideologue with “Billboard Chris” is one such example of legion. Many would blackout from alcohol poisoning in very short order.  This drinking game challenge illustrates just how the state of our language has degraded and devolved, in large part because of the overt permissiveness and hyper relativism of the descriptivist plague that has so thoroughly infested our educational, literary, and cultural institutions.  Descriptivist ideologues and others think it is perfectly fine, an example of how “language is a living thing.”  Others of a far more enlightened view, who care about culture and society—who care about how we speak and write and the language in which we all find ourselves immersed in—know better, know that a language can both evolve and devolve. The question of how to do so remains unclear, but it could not be more blindingly obvious that these and other blights in our language need to be remedied with dire urgency.

A SPECIAL NOTE, particularly for new subscribers and those unacquianted with this publication. This essay is featured in a special section entitled “Matters of Language.” Those readers concerned about the devolution and degradation of not just the English language but European and world languages generally are encouraged to peruse that section. The flagship essay or treatise “Descriptivism Defied: In Defense of Prescriptivism in the Language Wars” is highly recommend in particular. Readers will also find essays on other important topics, including a two part series attacking the preposterous notion of customizable pronouns to advance the transgender and radical gender causes and how those interests have attempted to redefine the word “gender,” while insisting this the word has always signified the redefintion they advocate for.

Those readers who find this content particularly insightful and beneficial are urged to consider a paid subscription, or even pledge their support as a “founding member.”

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

---

[1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines literally as follows: “in a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc.” Then in 2011, it added this definition:  used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’.”  See also Garner’s Modern English Usage, which describes a third sense as expressing “emphasis, as we might use really or truly.” Garner states this usage is “not subject to serious criticism,” a position which this essay emphatically rejects.

[2] These errors technically pertain to usage, but they come across as an objective and egregious error of a different order than most usage errors.

[3] Many of these authors wrote centuries ago, notably Milton, whose use of they to refer to a single man was cited at length in Pollum’s “Ideology, Power, and Literary Theory,” before spelling and usage was standardized. In regards to esteemed authors of more recent vintage.