The Oxford University has recently acknowledged that “literally” is a word that has been so misused that its definition has had to be changed — literally — and that it has included the erroneous use of the word after the usage became popular. The dictionary’s new definition is “in a literal way or sense”, with the addition that, informally, it can be “used for emphasis rather than being actually true”. Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries as well as Google have also recently added the non-literal definition of the word.
It should come as a relief to those using the word colloquially. Last year, British deputy prime minister Nick Klegg described low-rate taxpayers as “literally living in a different galaxy” while in 2007, Sir Ian Botham said batsmen surviving appeals for leg-before-wicket dismissals had been “getting away with murder, literally”. Football pundit Jamie Redknapp once said of Wayne Rooney that his good form meant he was “literally on fire”.
The oldest misuse of the word, however, can be traced to 1769 when Francis Brooke wrote in The History of Emily Montague that he was “a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival literally to feed among the lilies”. Mark Twain did it when he wrote in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer that “from being a poor, poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth”. Grammar-loving folks have been picking up their red pens to point out how the word has been misused. But, this hasn’t stopped speakers and writers of English. Puritans may describe the change in the dictionary meaning of the word as a regressive move that undermines the sanctity of a language, but those who see English as a living language will endorse the OED and others for constantly looking out for new ways in which words can be interpreted.