literally the future of our country
January 13th, 2008 by Fitz
Continuing our series of political posts, reader Susanne caught the following serial abuse from Senator John Edwards:
John Edwards went crazy with the misuse of literally in his Iowa “victory” speech:
Here are the 4 misuses, all in a matter of minutes:
- And, as a result, they know that they can’t go to the emergency room and get chemotherapy. What are they supposed to do? What are they supposed to do? You can literally see the fear and terror in their eyes.
- Tomorrow morning, 37 million of our own people will wake up literally worried about feeding and clothing their own children.
- And I know that we’re going to get up tomorrow and keep pushing as hard as we can to get the message out about what is at stake in this election. Because we know that it is literally the future of our country.
- Our older son John Mark, our son David, his wife Lauren, our daughter Sarah, who’s literally lived in Iowa for the past 2 1/2 months.
Link (Thanks, Susanne)
January 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
While #2 and #3 are an opinion, the usage isn’t wrong. #4 is not wrong at all - his family *has* lived there for that amount of time. Only #1 is incorrect.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:29 am
yeah, I don’t get where the misuse is?
Maybe you could explain it a little more?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
It is not correct because, in order to say “literally” there must be an alternative figurative option. There is no way you can figuratively live in New Hampshire. Therefore, literally is unnecessary.
He means “actually” or “really.”
January 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Incorrect? Maybe not. Overused and, in cases 2 and 4, completely redundant? AAlmost certainly.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
These might not be misuse of the term but are examples of unnecessary and annoying uses of the word “literally”. I think people believe adding in such words as “literally” or “virtually” (among many others) makes what they are saying seem more weighty or important. I think it makes them appear more ignorant and shallow.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
There’s a lot of confusion. Maybe that’s why people are so attached to “literally.” It makes you sound smart, cultured. Susanne’s the expert here.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I disagree with Susanne. I think one can either literally live in Iowa or virtually live there.
If the Edward’s family changed their permanent residence, sold their old home and bought a new house or rented an apartment, changed the address on their drivers licenses, enrolled their children in new schools, and changed job locations, then they would actually live in Iowa–and in that case using literally would distinguish that set of circumstances from the other case. The other case is that they spent so much time in Iowa that they virtually lived there, although their actual residence was elsewhere.
Which is it, in this case?
January 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
In No. 1: Perhaps the people Mr. Edwards was looking at were themselves looking at a large sign that had the words “fear” and “terror” written on it, and what he was seeing was the reflection of the sign. If that was the case, his usage would be correct…but the words would have to be written backwards on the sign, or else Edwards would literally be seeing the “raef” and “rorrot” in their eyes.
In No. 2: Perhaps Mr. Edwards was concerned that unless he added the word “literally” to that sentence, we might mistake his meaning, and believe he was giving us the startling news that 37 million Americans wake up every day having been seized, especially by the throat, with the teeth and shaken or mangled, as one animal does another.
But I doubt it.
If he did have this concern, the insertion might be useful and correct. But since it’s clear that Edwards is using the past tense of the word “worry” in its simplest meaning, and his meaning is clear, “literally” is an unnecessary word, another example of incorrectly using the word for emphasis. I understand his desire for emphasis: If true, his assertion is indeed a disturbing one. I’d suggest that “actually” would be a better word to emphasize the point. But, strictly speaking, the usage is not inaccurate. To the extent that people are worried, they are worried in the traditional sense of that word.
No. 3 is similar. It’s an unnecessary word, used for emphasis, rather than to clarify meaning. Again, “actually,” is what he means, but here I would not suggest a substitution; “It’s the future of our country” is a more powerful statement, without any embellishment.
For number 4, we don’t know the facts of the case, so we cannot say for sure. Have the Edwards family members stayed within the borders of the state, continuously, for the time period stated? If they have, then the usage is marginally correct (they have lived, and they have done so within the state), though I agree with the comment above that perhaps a better word would have been “virtually.”
If any of the persons named ever travelled outside of the state of Iowa during that period, then of course the usage is incorrect. It would be better to say they “practically” lived in the state.
I think what we have in Edwards, a long-time trial lawyer, is a classic case of lawyerly embellishment. For a lot of these guys, more words are better fewer, even if they are misused.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
WEAK.
I was literally expecting to rofl at this post when I read the title; what a disappointment it has become. OMG was his usage technically or semantically incorrect??? MAYBE. The real question is whether he was hilariously misusing the word (e.g. “She’s literally on a roller coaster to hell“), or whether we’re such pedantic prescriptivists that any misuse must be hilarious.
Chris’ ironically verbose explanation of why Edwards’ speech to a non-academic crowd should have been less colloquial is really reaching.
And Rufus, is Susanne literally an expert? Because she’s literally wrong.
Susanne, I challenge you to show me a single reference. Each of the dictionaries and style guides to which I have immediate access say that “literally” can be used when there’s no figurative option, but an exaggerated one.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“The difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”
-Mark Twain
It may be a minor difference, but it is a difference. Also, if it wasn’t being overused to the point where I want to shoot myself in the head every time I hear it, it wouldn’t even be an issue. It goes along with “sort of” for annoying words/terms that won’t go away.
Literally literally means “word for word.” If there was no alternate figurative meaning, there wouldn’t be a need for the word’s existence. The word exists to point out a difference.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I think we’re losing sight of the fact that the world is filled with idiots as exemplified by the necessity of this web log. Next, how many of you drive while talking on the cell phone? Man, I gotta get my own web log……..
January 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
jessemoya is apparently a clairvoyant, able to read Edwards’ mind and motives, and has been able to determine that his misuse here is intentional and calculated, an attempt to speak in a “colloquial” way. This implies that he is capable of correct English usage if he chooses, but declines to employ it. This is quite a cynical indictment of the candidate, if you think about it. *I* was prepared to believe he’d made a simple mistake.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
jessemoya is apparently a clairvoyant, able to read Edwards’ mind and motives…
I KNEW you were gonna say that!
Seriously, though, I invite you to ponder the difference between formal and informal discourse and then revisit your comment from within that context.
I’m assuming that, yes, the speech was written, edited, and properly delivered, and that there was conscious thought put into speaking formally, but with accessibility. Remember, Edwards’ big focus is appearing to be “of the people.”
But even if this was an unknown Joe Schmo there is still a such thing at being too formal with one’s speech. And remember, pedantry and prescriptivism are too closely related to marry. And I say that as a proud member of the Facebook group “Good Grammar Is Hot.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Oh noes! I literally forgot to overuse a specific word in my last comment! Bugger.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mos of the items on this site crack me up.
This one is pretty marginal.
Any detection of abuse in Edwards’ speech is nit picking.
Especially #2, where any abuse is more due to bad editing than incorrectness. There are people who literally worry about feeding and clothing their children. The word literally isn’t needed in the sentence, but it is not necessarily incorrect. Quibbling about the 37 million figure is a discussion for another forum.
And it only takes a slight generalization of eye to include the eyelid and muscles surrounding the eye for #1 to make it true. One can literally see emotions expressed in people’s eyes. See the publications of Dr Paul Ekman, probably the world’s leading expert on human facial expression. For example, the way to tell a real smile from a fake one is the eyes. Not literally the eyeball, but generalizing to the area around the eye isn’t a huge leap.
This is the weakest entry I’ve seen yet.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:04 am
We should, literally, do away with literally and use “virtually forever,” … literally!
February 18th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“It may be a minor difference, but it is a difference. Also, if it wasn’t being overused to the point where I want to shoot myself in the head every time I hear it, it wouldn’t even be an issue. It goes along with “sort of” for annoying words/terms that won’t go away.”
I agree completely. Technically, his uses might not be incorrect, but they’re annoying as hell. Were any of those statements he made enhanced by adding “literally”? I would say not.
1. You can see the fear and terror in their eyes.
2. Tomorrow morning, 37 million of our own people will wake up worried about feeding and clothing their own children.
3. Because we know that it is the future of our country.
4. Our older son John Mark, our son David, his wife Lauren, our daughter Sarah, who’s lived in Iowa for the past 2 1/2 months.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“And remember, pedantry and prescriptivism are too closely related to marry.”
I’m gonna use that. and no way am I going to give you credit for it. But clever, nontheless. Although I still think the site is fun. Now I looked at a web site about apostrophe abuse - and quickly decided it was full of people that needed to feel superior so they pointed out grammar errors. But the “literally” site so far does not have that feel to me, at least not yet. But then again, I have only looked at it for the last sixty minutes. Or should I say, “for the last hour I have literally been reading this website.”
“Now discuss - was the usage correct?”
April 1st, 2008 at 1:21 am
These are indeed mild abuses of the word literally. You guys are a bunch of pedants. At least come up with examples that are flagrant or funny.