The redundant "literally" (not the usual complaint!)

[Guy Barry]

Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
following, which I've just heard on BBC radio:

"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."

The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

--
Guy Barry

[Mike Barnes]

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

It's intensifying a non-metaphor.

Not that I'm condoning it.

[the Omrud]

Post by Mike Barnes

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

It's intensifying a non-metaphor.
Not that I'm condoning it.

You're literally not condoning it.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mike Barnes

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

It's intensifying a non-metaphor.
Not that I'm condoning it.

You're literally not condoning it.

But is he virtually condoning it?

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:43:20 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

I guess the point is to indicate definiteness, absoluteness or lack of
doubt. Perhaps the aim is to distinguish the statement from "...staffing
levels may not be safe for patients..."

However, it is the wrong word for the job.

[Mike L]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:36:37 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:43:20 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

I guess the point is to indicate definiteness, absoluteness or lack of
doubt. Perhaps the aim is to distinguish the statement from "...staffing
levels may not be safe for patients..."
However, it is the wrong word for the job.

After years of observation, I think they think "literally" is a
synonym of "simply". "They" may, I fear, even include the editors Don
deplores.

(To those who may leap up and tell us to stop moaning and accept that
language changes, and a jolly good thing, too, and who do we snobs
think we are, anyway? I'll just say "OK, I'm listening: what's your
replacement for 'literally'?")

[Mike Barnes]

Post by Mike L
(To those who may leap up and tell us to stop moaning and accept that
language changes, and a jolly good thing, too, and who do we snobs
think we are, anyway? I'll just say "OK, I'm listening: what's your
replacement for 'literally'?")

"not figuratively"

[Lanarcam]

Post by Mike Barnes

Post by Mike L
(To those who may leap up and tell us to stop moaning and accept that
language changes, and a jolly good thing, too, and who do we snobs
think we are, anyway? I'll just say "OK, I'm listening: what's your
replacement for 'literally'?")

"not figuratively"

non metaphorically

[Guy Barry]

Post by Mike L
(To those who may leap up and tell us to stop moaning and accept that
language changes, and a jolly good thing, too, and who do we snobs
think we are, anyway? I'll just say "OK, I'm listening: what's your
replacement for 'literally'?")

The trouble with the use of "literally" as an intensifier for
metaphors is that it retains its original meaning in many contexts
(e.g. "do you mean that literally?"), so there's scope for ambiguity.
If I say "I was literally on the edge of my seat", I could mean either
that I was physically sitting there, or that I was extremely
anxious. I suppose you could use a circumlocution like "in a literal
sense" or "in the true sense of the words" if you wanted to avoid
ambiguity. Also, I think the ambiguity disappears if you move
"literally" to the end of the sentence: "I was on the edge of my seat,
literally" can only refer to my physical location as far as I'm
concerned.

"Quite literally" seems to have taken over in some cases, although
even that seems to be misused: I recall having a discussion on this
group some time ago about whether it was OK to describe someone as
"quite literally nuts". (Salted or dry roasted?)

--
Guy Barry

[Mike L]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Mike L
(To those who may leap up and tell us to stop moaning and accept that
language changes, and a jolly good thing, too, and who do we snobs
think we are, anyway? I'll just say "OK, I'm listening: what's your
replacement for 'literally'?")

The trouble with the use of "literally" as an intensifier for
metaphors is that it retains its original meaning in many contexts
(e.g. "do you mean that literally?"), so there's scope for ambiguity.
If I say "I was literally on the edge of my seat", I could mean either
that I was physically sitting there, or that I was extremely
anxious. I suppose you could use a circumlocution like "in a literal
sense" or "in the true sense of the words" if you wanted to avoid
ambiguity. Also, I think the ambiguity disappears if you move
"literally" to the end of the sentence: "I was on the edge of my seat,
literally" can only refer to my physical location as far as I'm
concerned.

I think one meaning would have to give way, even if you could persuade
a few people to adopt that tactic.

Post by Guy Barry
"Quite literally" seems to have taken over in some cases, although
even that seems to be misused: I recall having a discussion on this
group some time ago about whether it was OK to describe someone as
"quite literally nuts". (Salted or dry roasted?)

The reason I decided that it was being used to mean "simply" is that
it really does often replace "simply" in descriptions of uncomplicated
actions, such as "You literally put it in a frying pan" as often as
it's used as an intensifier - perhaps more often - and "simply" can do
that, too: "We couldn't stop laughing for simply ages!"

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

GB seems wrong so far as "literally" is currently used to intensify
all types of statements -- not solely metaphors. "The points" number two:
-- Willingness of audiences to accept this as everyday rhetorical
emphasis.
-- A change in the relationship between Good Speaking and Good
Writing. The classical (Victorian?) tradition is that both were
legitimate
and autonomous, i.e. the norms and guidelines for Good Writing were
different from the norms and guidelines for Good Public Speaking.

It is nowadays widely expected that Good Writing is no more than accurate
transcription of Good Speech. (This saves time at school, if we no longer
expect students to master the traditionally different methods of both.) To
the traditionalist, "literal" in print catches the eye as an illegitimate
migrant from speech: but few contemporary editors nowadays notice it:
i.e. Gresham's Law functions no less well in the "marketplace of ideas.

(A measurable difference would be how much grammar and style
professional book and newspaper editors know nowadays. What I see
in print today suggests they know less today than used to be a minimum job
requirement 30 years ago.)

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Guy Barry
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

It's an intensifier.

For maximum redundancy, try this:

Even the fact that the chief butt-kicker is a
female girl lady woman is barely newsworthy.

http://www.film.com/movies/review-haywire

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally". However, I have
a different criticism. I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation. What is the point of adding
"literally"?

It's become just an intensifier. It means "really" or "definitely",
"certainly".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Guy Barry
Most criticism of "literally" comes about when it's used to intensify a
metaphor, and hence can be read as meaning "not literally".  However, I have
a different criticism.  I occasionally come across usages such as the
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation.  What is the point of adding
"literally"?

I take it to mean, "I'm not exaggerating, though you may find this
unbelievable." "Literally" can be seen as the opposite of
"hyperbolically" rather than "metaphorically" here.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Guy Barry]

[heard on BBC radio]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry
"...staffing levels are literally not safe for patients..."
The statement "staffing levels are not safe for patients" is a simple one
which has no metaphorical interpretation.  What is the point of adding
"literally"?

I take it to mean, "I'm not exaggerating, though you may find this
unbelievable."  "Literally" can be seen as the opposite of
"hyperbolically" rather than "metaphorically" here.

That seems the most plausible explanation. Despite what others have
suggested, I can't find any real evidence for the use of "literally"
as a general intensifier for non-metaphorical expressions. You
wouldn't, for instance, say "I literally enjoyed the show" instead of
"I really enjoyed..." or "I very much enjoyed...".

--
Guy Barry