ABSTRACT
The recognition and analysis of figurative language, or figures of speech, depend upon a general distinction between literal and figurative uses of language. It should be stressed that the notion of literal meaning does not depend on the idea that each word has only one meaning. In fact, the word ‘literal’ itself has several meanings. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the term derives its original meaning from the Old French or Latin for ‘letter’, and one of its primary meanings is ‘Of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet’ or ‘expressed by letters’. In this sense, all writing is literal. A related meaning appears in the theological notion of interpreting the Christian scriptures according to the letter – that is, ‘taking the words of a text, etc., in their natural and customary meaning, and using the ordinary rules of grammar’. In this sense, literal is distinguished from the mystical or allegorical interpretation of scripture. This meaning and distinction is related to the way we will be using the term here: literal is ‘applied to taking words in their etymological or primary sense, or in the sense expressed by the actual wording of a passage, without recourse to any metaphorical or suggested meaning’. But what we are not concerned with here, however, is the recent tendency to use the term ‘literally’ as an intensifier. As Collins’ English Dictionary notes, this usage either adds nothing to the meaning (as in ‘the house was literally only five minutes away’) or results in absurdity (as in ‘the news was literally an eye-opener to me’). Such usages should be avoided altogether in literary criticism.
