The use of "literally" in this context is so pervasive that any English dictionary will include it in its definition. This nit-picking is so pervasive that Merriam-Webster includes an FAQ on the words use.
"Can literally mean figuratively?
One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal").
Is the extended use of literally new?
The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.
Is the extended use of literally slang?
Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally)
I will stop figuratively dying on this hill when English literally acquires a word that only means "literally" in the single sense of "not figuratively".
You're not wrong, but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way. Most of the time, it's obvious from context what one means by 'literally' but not always. Why create extra ambiguity when there already exists other functional language constructs to express the same thought with clarity? It does make me wonder how much this happens in other languages, especially ones like French where there is an effort to keep the language from morphing too much, too quickly.
It's not "deterioration" just change. Deterioration implies deviation from a natural, ideal, or perfect state, which languages simply do not have. This belief that the language is in decline and losing some ineffable beauty or value is older than english, in fact some of our oldest historical documents at all are versions of this lament. The language we speak now is the result of millennia of such "deterioration."
Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era.
Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
Eh. It's not a deterioration, it's just language. It's not like there was a carefully designed "one true language" in the past and this is a fallen world speaking only inferior pidgins.
Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
A dictionary having a definition in it isn't evidence a given usage is good. The primary mission of most dictionaries is to help people understand language they encounter, which may include ill-advised-to-use, misleading, ironic, code- or register-specific, or slang senses of words.
In this case, it was not a good idea to use the word "literally" this way, in this place. The clearest sign that it wasn't a good idea is that this discussion about the word is happening.
The literal literary contestation between descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries is alive and well[0], though the war has been lost, and your fellow prescriptivist have yet to surrender.
I agree. Also, I dislike it, and the double emphasis provided by "quite" makes it even worse—how can something be especially non-metaphorical, or especially understood in the (already) "strongest admissible sense"?[0] Maybe my criticism should have been better targeted, but it's silly usage and I'm feeling like a SNOOT.[1]
Not to mention that English dictionaries have a definition for “cradle” like “a place, process, or event in which something originates or flourishes.” That river is literally that.
The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." If you want to talk about the "original" meaning or "etymologically faithful" meaning or whatever, then go for it, but note that most modern baby cradles aren't at all baskets in the sense that the English word originated. That's because all words originate as imperfectly-specified references to things and concepts. The things and concepts and our references to them change over time.
> The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor."
I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
I just think it’s a bit of a weird line to draw because you have to somehow choose how far back to go in the etymological history of the word and insist that every different meaning thereafter is “metaphorical.”
Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”
Yes. But at this point in time, no one is looking at a river or valley and using the noun “cradle” to categorize it. I’m not saying it could never become a literalism—only that it remains metaphorical, as a way to invoke the idea of a birthplace.
Definition's etymology is literally from dēfīnīre, which was a Latin word that was originally used in the context of setting bounds to physical land. This then turned into setting bounds around the meaning of words.
One can't play fast and loose with how language works. Almost all words got their meaning through metaphor as society become more abstract and complex. Just because one doesn't like something doesn't make it less valid.
Then don't play fast and loose. Maybe one day we will look at a river or valley and use the word "cradle" in a non-metaphorical manner. Right now, we don't.
I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word).
Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever?
Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?
Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms.
The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning.
Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example.
I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself.
I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.
Let's bring this back to typing because I think it really helps. Typos from Greek refers to a physical mark or impression made by a stamp (not inherently letters, any physical impression). We then used that etymology to come up with 'type' to represent the blocks that deposited ink onto paper . Kind of a stretch, but I would still consider that a first order label in your framework. Great we are aligned.
But wait, I'm typing this comment and there's no physical impressions being made on paper. Am I not literally typing?
>we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself.
Sure, I'm not imagining a printing press, but whether or not I know it, I am making a metaphor to it. So if we stopped using the term 'cradle' to refer to a basket (therefore breaking the metaphor), then cradle becomes literal? Seems like a fragile/not useful distinction to me.
I think "whether or not [you] know it" is key. The definitions I'm advancing have to do with the subjective mental work you do (or don't do). I agree that "typing" is literal because we do not loop in the concept of physical type making an impression when we interpret or describe the action of fingers on a keyboard. The term has flown the nest, so to speak.
What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China?
Of course it's weak. This is all pedantry. But then again, "literal" now means both "literal" and "not literal" so maybe all linguistic distinctions are fragile. Less useful once they're destroyed, though—it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
>What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China?
I didn't want to get off topic, but I speculate the most common usage of 'cradle' in American English is 'Cradle to Grave.' I didn't bring it up, since it torpedoes your argument (Cradle is used to mean infancy in this case, not a physical item), but it feels too nuanced to be a general argument.
>it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
> I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization.
I think I just factually disagree with you here. I think it would be very rare for a fluent English speaker to hear “cradle of civilization” and need to actually do the work of calling up the concept of a baby bed and make educated guesses about what metaphorical similarities the speaker is trying to evoke.
In fact, in American English I think it’s pretty rare to use “cradle” in informal speech to refer to a baby bed. “Crib” or even “bassinet” or “baby bed” are much more common. “Cradle” is in the lyrics of a well-known lullaby, but to use it in casual speech would be somewhat conspicuous. It’s much more common as a verb, like “cradle the baby in your arms,” which I suspect you would also describe as a metaphorical usage (and I would disagree).
No, we agree about the phrase. But that's the whole ballgame: if "cradle" independently referred to the place, there would be no need to say "of civilization." It's an idiomatic use that is expressly non-literal. We also agree that "cradle" as a verb is not metaphorical.
Whether "cradle" is more or less common than "crib" (say) doesn't indicate one way or another whether its usage in other contexts is as a first- or second-order signifier.
I think Merriam-Webster has this a little bit wrong, actually. It's not that it's a different meaning of the word, but that the word is being used hyperbolically. When someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "sometimes days means minutes" and fret about how anyone will understand time. We say that people exaggerate. The fact that this use shows up pretty much right away is evidence that it's not a different sense of the word, but people doing an ordinary thing they do with any word we hand them.
I think you're right that it's an example of hyperbole. The important thing to understand in the context of this discussion though, is that hyperbole is not ungrammatical. It serves a function in a sentence to communicate emphasis or draw attention. Saying 'it is quite literally the cradle of Chinese civilization' is no less grammatical than saying 'I have a tonne of work to do' or 'downtown is dead on Monday nights'.
I don't think anyone was saying "{Noun phrase} is literally {other noun phrase}" is ever ungrammatical, just disagreeing about how often it's incorrect.
@4:17
"No one complains about "fabulous"... or "marvelous"... or even the word "very"... etymologically meaning true..."
I myself am coming to a place of acceptance about the use of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". While I will never use it that way, I no longer literally grind my teeth to dust when I hear it.
> We want writing to be transparent, clear, and easy to read.
Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym.
Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose.
Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.
To rebut the expert in the video, the seemingly obvious difference is that "literally" has changed suddenly and in my lifetime, and specifically to mean the opposite of its true definition vs. merely adding a meaning.
It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.
This is simply not true. According to Merriam-Webster, its use in a figurative context goes back 300 years. And hyperbole has a real function in language - it's not just laziness. Omitting 'quite literally', or worse, replacing it with 'figuratively' in the original sentence would communicate something quite different.
No-one should be suggesting replacing "quite literally" with "figuratively", but there is no problem with removing it altogether. It is pointless to introduce hyperbole here.
Our other thread fleshes this out, but there's a difference between widespread idiom and accepted definition. A dictionary's description of idiomatic use does not indicate that the term independently denotes the idiomatic meaning.
Similarly, if I say "cats and dogs," that isn't a measure of volume or intensity except where paired with "raining." Having to say "of civilization" indicates that "cradle" is being used metaphorically or idiomatically.
Please be more charitable. None of what I've said is misinformation.
