A non-metaphorical study in emphasis
So I was listening to my teacher drone on and on about economics, and I was literally about to die of boredom.
My mom told me I wasn't allowed to go to Warped Tour and I honestly couldn't believe she would do that to me.
Last Saturday I tried to buy beer at the grocery store and the lady was being totally rude about it.
It's hard to figure out when exactly these words changed meaning, or rather when they accumulated additional meanings - but that is the beauty of metamorphemis. These three adverbs are examples of the somewhat modern phenomenon of words becoming "intensified," aptly labelling them as "intensifiers."
In a 2015 study regarding the nature of intensifiers, Kendra Calhoun surveyed popular media outlets to find out why these words have shifted/added meaning. As all linguistic conundrums draw from the age old argument, the issue of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism manifested, creating a perfect background for discussion.
According to Calhoun, critics of literally's usage as an intensifier view speakers who improperly use it as "less intelligent, less educated, lazy, and generally less attractive than speakers who do not" (8). On the other side, acceptors argue that there is no standard form "because language is fluid and definitions constantly change based on the most common ways that speakers use a word at a particular point in time" (Calhoun 6). Honestly nobody can agree.
So we agree, then, that some words are used as intensifiers to emphasize a thought, disregarding validity; e.g. literally can be defined as "in the literal sense," so "literally dying of boredom" can happen - although the phrase is often used in hyperbole.
Other words have shifted meanings entirely, such as hysterical, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of hysteria; affected with or suffering from hysteria," and "characterized by convulsive emotion or excitement such as marks hysteria; morbidly emotional or excited." What was once categorized as "convulsive emotion" has since become "really funny." In fact, the OED added the definition "in weakened use: extremely funny, hilarious. colloq"
to account for the regular misuse of the word - and yet, does that indicate that it was never misused, but rather altered?
If we are to decide that there even is a correct usage of a word, would that mean that many words we commonly use today need to be altered or even abandoned? Was George Orwell right all along?
Using literally as many intensifiers as possible, what do you think?
My mom told me I wasn't allowed to go to Warped Tour and I honestly couldn't believe she would do that to me.
Last Saturday I tried to buy beer at the grocery store and the lady was being totally rude about it.
It's hard to figure out when exactly these words changed meaning, or rather when they accumulated additional meanings - but that is the beauty of metamorphemis. These three adverbs are examples of the somewhat modern phenomenon of words becoming "intensified," aptly labelling them as "intensifiers."
In a 2015 study regarding the nature of intensifiers, Kendra Calhoun surveyed popular media outlets to find out why these words have shifted/added meaning. As all linguistic conundrums draw from the age old argument, the issue of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism manifested, creating a perfect background for discussion.
According to Calhoun, critics of literally's usage as an intensifier view speakers who improperly use it as "less intelligent, less educated, lazy, and generally less attractive than speakers who do not" (8). On the other side, acceptors argue that there is no standard form "because language is fluid and definitions constantly change based on the most common ways that speakers use a word at a particular point in time" (Calhoun 6). Honestly nobody can agree.
So we agree, then, that some words are used as intensifiers to emphasize a thought, disregarding validity; e.g. literally can be defined as "in the literal sense," so "literally dying of boredom" can happen - although the phrase is often used in hyperbole.
Other words have shifted meanings entirely, such as hysterical, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of hysteria; affected with or suffering from hysteria," and "characterized by convulsive emotion or excitement such as marks hysteria; morbidly emotional or excited." What was once categorized as "convulsive emotion" has since become "really funny." In fact, the OED added the definition "in weakened use: extremely funny, hilarious. colloq"
to account for the regular misuse of the word - and yet, does that indicate that it was never misused, but rather altered?
If we are to decide that there even is a correct usage of a word, would that mean that many words we commonly use today need to be altered or even abandoned? Was George Orwell right all along?
Using literally as many intensifiers as possible, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment