Literally has two senses in every major dictionary: the old one, "in a literal sense or manner", and an informal intensifier, "in effect: virtually", as in I literally died of embarrassment. The second sense is not new. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) recorded it in 1903 as "improperly used", Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary noted it in 1909, and the uproar of August 2013 was about a use more than two centuries old. Our view, for academic writing: keep literally for statements that are literally true.
EdCitation publishes this guide. On 2 October 2026 we read the entries for literally at Merriam-Webster, the OED, Cambridge and Collins (Collins in an archived copy, as its site would not load for us), the OED's 1903 text in a scanned copy, the dictionaries' pages on how they decide, and the 2013 news reports.
EdCitation never writes any part of anyone's work, a promise we are proud to make: the sentence with literally in it is yours to keep or cut. What EdCitation does is look things up and check them. Mechanics QA, part of Pro, gives a finished paper a rule-by-rule read that includes the slips a spell-checker misses, and the free Find sources searches the scholarship on how words change.
Does literally mean figuratively now?
Not exactly. Merriam-Webster gives literally a second, informal sense, "in effect : virtually", used "in an exaggerated way" to stress something that is not literally true, and says this meaning "is not quite identical" to figuratively, which marks a metaphor (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c). I literally died of embarrassment exaggerates; it does not announce a figure of speech.
The same entry calls this the "disfavored use", yet says it is not slang, since slang belongs mainly to a particular group and is often lost on outsiders. Merriam-Webster's note on the sense calls it "pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis", often found where no extra emphasis was needed (Merriam-Webster, 2016). The word's 1769 evidence is in words that changed meaning; this guide follows the dictionaries.
When did each dictionary add the intensifying sense of literally?
Each labels it differently, and most never say when they added it. The table gives what each says on its own pages.
| Dictionary | How it labels the intensifier | When, by its own pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| OED | colloq. since its 2011 revision; "improperly used" in 1903 | First edition, 1903; revised September 2011 | Bradley (1908); Oxford University Press (n.d.-b) |
| Merriam-Webster | informal: "in effect : virtually" | Its 1909 unabridged called it "often used hyperbolically" | Merriam-Webster (n.d.-c, 2016) |
| Cambridge | informal: "used to emphasize what you are saying" | No date given; CNN reported the sense there in August 2013 | Cambridge University Press & Assessment (n.d.-b); Payne and Mendoza (2013) |
| Collins English Dictionary | "(intensifier)", with a usage note | No date given | HarperCollins Publishers (n.d.) |
| Random House, on Collins's site | "in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually" | In wide use "since the early 20th century" | HarperCollins Publishers (n.d.) |
The OED: from "improperly" to "colloquial"
The OED's first-edition entry appeared in 1903, in the L section edited by Henry Bradley. Under the literal sense, it noted that the word was "now often improperly used" to show that a conventional metaphor or exaggeration should be taken in its strongest sense, with quotations from 1687 to 1887 (Bradley, 1908). The disapproval sat inside the definition.
The entry was revised in September 2011, in a release of 1,546 revised entries built around key words, literal among them, which the OED's chief editor, John Simpson (2011), said were chosen for their productivity in modern English. Merriam-Webster (2016) quotes the revised sense, labelled colloq.: "virtually, as good as", and also "completely, utterly, absolutely". The judgement "improperly" had become a register label. The OED's free factsheet counts seven meanings, two obsolete, and about 20 uses per million words of modern written English (Oxford University Press, n.d.-b); the definitions sit behind its subscription, so we quote the 2011 sense as Merriam-Webster prints it.
Merriam-Webster: in the unabridged by 1909
Merriam-Webster (2016) says its 1909 unabridged dictionary already called the word "often used hyperbolically", with the example he literally flew. Today's entry labels the second sense informal, and its usage guide warns that phrases such as "books literally flying off the shelves" "greatly irk many people" (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c). Its article on the dispute, published on 3 August 2016, answers readers who accused it of redefining the word: lexicographers are in the business of "defining language, rather than judging it".
Cambridge and Collins: informal, with a warning
Cambridge labels the sense informal, with I was literally bowled over by the news among its examples, and adds no usage note (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, n.d.-b). Collins is firmer. Its English dictionary marks the sense "(intensifier)" and notes that the use often "results in absurdity" and is "best avoided in formal contexts". Its learner's dictionary says that "some careful speakers" think the use incorrect, and the Random House entry on the same page says it "appears in all but the most carefully edited writing" (HarperCollins Publishers, n.d.).
Why did people think the dictionary changed literally in 2013?
Because a search engine showed them. In August 2013 Gizmodo noticed that Google's definition of literally included a sense for something not literally true, used "for emphasis or to express strong feeling", and the story spread (Payne & Mendoza, 2013).
- The Guardian, 14 August. Gill (2013) wrote that the word had "officially changed definition", traced playful uses back to Walter Scott in 1827, and suggested avoiding it for the moment.
- CNN, 15 August. Its headline read "Dictionaries change: This is literally the end of the English language". It named Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, and praised Dictionary.com for putting the sense in an editor's note instead (Payne & Mendoza, 2013).
- National Geographic, 18 August. Skurie (2013) pointed out that the OED had listed the sense since 1903, and quoted Katherine Martin, named as head of US dictionaries at Oxford University Press: a dictionary must "provide definitions of words as they are actually used".
Martin put the stir down to what the linguist Arnold Zwicky had named the Recency Illusion: believing that something you have only just noticed is new (Zwicky, 2005). The complaints outlived the news cycle. Merriam-Webster's 2016 article quotes a reader's comment left at its entry, "the dictionary is literally wrong", and replies that every modern dictionary carries the sense.
Which other words did dictionaries change after people used them?
Plenty, and the pattern repeats: a use spreads, readers object, and the dictionary records it with a label or a note. Five that the dictionaries discuss on their own pages:
| Word | The use that drew complaints | What the dictionary says now | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| irregardless | A synonym of regardless | Labelled "nonstandard"; use regardless "if you wish to avoid criticism" | Merriam-Webster (n.d.-b, 2018) |
| nonplussed | "Not bothered", the reverse of perplexed | A second sense, "chiefly US", still "widely regarded as an error" | Merriam-Webster (n.d.-d) |
| peruse | To skim, beside "to read carefully" | Both listed, both in wide use "for some four hundred years" | Merriam-Webster (n.d.-e) |
| hopefully | "It is hoped", criticised after a surge in the 1960s | The sense dates to the 17th century and is "entirely standard" | Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a) |
| tweet | Posting on a social network | Added to the OED in June 2013, against its own ten-year rule | Simpson (2013) |
Irregardless also shows a dictionary disagreeing with itself. Merriam-Webster's entry gives its first known use as 1847, the usage guide on the same page dates it to the late eighteenth century, the entry's FAQ speaks of almost 200 years of use, and the 2018 article of over two hundred (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b, 2018). If you need a date, quote the dated first use and say whose it is.
Tweet came with a confession: Simpson (2013) wrote that it broke the rule that a word be "current for ten years" before the OED considers it. Older shifts, such as nice and decimate, are in words that changed meaning, and a pronoun the dictionaries changed is in singular they from Chaucer to APA.
How do dictionaries decide to add new definitions?
By evidence of use, measured against a threshold each dictionary sets for itself. The general process, Merriam-Webster's citation files and the OED's watch list, is in who decides what is correct English. Three points explain literally.
- Enough people, long enough, one meaning. Merriam-Webster (2018) says irregardless qualified because millions of people had used it for a long time "with a specific and identifiable meaning", and that judging whether a word is necessary is not a dictionary's job. Unregardless stayed out: far rarer, and used with shifting meanings.
- A new sense goes where its evidence puts it. The OED places a new sense of an existing word in its chronological position in the entry and publishes in quarterly updates (Oxford University Press, n.d.-a), so a sense can be dated long before anyone complained about it, and first dates move as evidence turns up, as words Shakespeare is credited with shows.
- A corpus, and staying power. Cambridge says its dictionaries are informed by the Cambridge English Corpus of "more than 1.5 billion words of real English" (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, n.d.-a). On Cambridge University Press's blog, Stollznow (2025) reports more than 6,000 words added to the Cambridge Dictionary in a year, slang often failing the vetting, words admitted for their staying power, and words retired once they fall out of use.
Labels are the dictionary's warning
A dictionary shows disapproval by label and note, not by leaving a sense out. Merriam-Webster defines "nonstandard" as not matching the usage "generally characteristic of educated native speakers", and adds that "a definition is not an endorsement" (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b). Read informal, colloq. and nonstandard as advice for formal writing, and a usage note as the dictionary telling you the argument exists. Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755 also built its definitions from quotations.
Should you use literally in academic writing?
Only in its literal sense, and even then rarely. APA's student paper checklist does not name literally, but it allows no "jargon, contractions, colloquialisms, or creative literary devices" (American Psychological Association, 2021), and the dictionaries label the intensifier informal or colloq. Collins says outright that it is best kept out of formal contexts (HarperCollins Publishers, n.d.).
The Guardian's style guide teases it as a term used, "particularly by sports commentators", for something not literally true (Guardian News & Media, 2021). The Chicago Manual of Style's usage glossary and the AP Stylebook sit behind subscriptions we could not read, so we report nothing from them.
What to do with each case
- A literal claim. "The participants literally copied the model answer" is accurate if they copied it word for word, but "copied" already says so.
- An exaggeration. "Literally thousands of studies" becomes the count your search returned, with the date you ran it.
- A quotation. A source's literally stays as written: quoting a sentence is not adopting its style.
- An essay about meaning. Cite the dictionary entry and the date you read it; the OED and its volunteers shows the OED form in APA 7.
A five-minute check for literally and its cousins
- Search the draft for literally. Keep it only where the statement is true word for word, then ask whether the sentence is better without it.
- Replace each exaggeration with what is true: the number, the measured effect, the quoted words.
- Search for irregardless, nonplussed, peruse and an opening hopefully. Write regardless; choose puzzled or unconcerned; say read closely or skimmed; and decide whether a hope belongs in your argument at all (hedging gives the cautious verbs).
- Cite each dictionary entry you rely on. Cite a source builds the reference from a web address in APA 7 or five other styles, and you can fix the page's details first.
- Run the finished file through EdCitation's Mechanics QA, then paste the reference list into Verify references, free.
How can EdCitation help with word choice and sources?
EdCitation is, in our view, the right partner for the last read of a paper, because it checks against rules and published records and composes nothing: whether literally stays is your call, and your evidence comes from the record, as this guide's came from the dictionaries' own pages.
- Mechanics QA, in Pro at $8 a month (pricing). Give it the paper as a Word file or PDF and it works through the rules a marker reads by: font, size, spacing, margins, title page, headings and reference list, measured against the APA 7 student paper; any comment, tracked change, placeholder or template text still in the file; citations set against the reference list, with every reference looked up in the publisher's record; figures that disagree between sections or fail to add up; and the slips a spell-checker misses. Its findings come from rules, not from a model reading your prose, and each one names its rule and the fix. Its description does not name literally or intensifiers, so step 1 above stays with you. A free account gets three checks a month.
- Find sources, free: about 300 million published works to search, by topic or by claim. We searched "literally as an intensifier" on 2 October 2026: it returned 2,477 results, provider OpenAlex. First came Semi Park's 2016 study "Literally does not always mean literally: a corpus-based diachronic study on literally as an intensifier", from Seoul National University's repository; then Wayne Schiess's 2017 SSRN paper "Using Intensifiers is Literally a Crime"; then Michael Israel's 2002 article "Literally speaking" in the Journal of Pragmatics, cited by 20.
- Cite a source, free. Given the DOI of Israel's article, it returned this APA 7 entry from Crossref's record, with no retraction notice:
Israel, M. (2002). Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00048-0
The entry needed no correction; read the article itself before you cite it.
- Verify references, free: paste the finished list and every entry returns as verified, "check this" or not found, with any retraction flagged; an entry it could not check says so and is never reported as not found.
Quick questions
Does literally mean figuratively in the dictionary?
Not exactly. Merriam-Webster defines the informal sense as "in effect : virtually", an exaggeration for emphasis, and says it is not quite the same as figuratively.
When was the figurative literally added to the dictionary?
The OED's first edition recorded it in 1903, calling it improper, and its 2011 revision labels it colloquial. Merriam-Webster's 1909 unabridged dictionary already noted the hyperbolic use.
Is it correct to use literally for emphasis?
It is common enough to be in every major dictionary, labelled informal or colloquial. In an essay or report, use literally only for something literally true.
Is irregardless a real word?
Yes, says Merriam-Webster, which labels it nonstandard and recommends regardless if you want to avoid criticism.
Can EdCitation check my essay for words like literally?
Partly. EdCitation's Mechanics QA, in Pro, gives the finished file a rule-by-rule read, from APA 7 formatting and leftover tracked changes to figures and the slips no spell-checker catches. Literally is not among the checks it names, so find that word with your own search.
References
- American Psychological Association. (2021). Publication Manual, 7th edition student paper checklist. https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/publication-manual-formatting-checklist.pdf
- Bradley, H. (1908). L. In J. A. H. Murray (Ed.), A new English dictionary on historical principles (Vol. 6). Clarendon Press. https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch
- Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.-a). About Cambridge Dictionary. https://web.archive.org/web/20260927225055/https://dictionary.cambridge.org/about.html
- Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.-b). Literally. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
- Gill, M. (2013, August 14). Have we literally broken the English language? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-language-definition
- Guardian News & Media. (2021, April 30). Guardian style guide: L. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-l
- HarperCollins Publishers. (n.d.). Literally. In Collins English dictionary. https://web.archive.org/web/20260215151850/https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literally
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-a). Hopefully. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hopefully
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-b). Irregardless. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-c). Literally. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-d). Nonplussed. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonplussed
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-e). Peruse. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peruse
- Merriam-Webster. (2016, August 3). Did we change the definition of "literally"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
- Merriam-Webster. (2018, July 27). Is "irregardless" a real word? https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/is-irregardless-a-real-word-heh-heh
- Oxford University Press. (n.d.-a). How words enter the OED. Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com/information/editorial-policy/how-words-enter-the-oed/
- Oxford University Press. (n.d.-b). Literally, adv. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved October 2, 2026, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/literally_adv
- Payne, E., & Mendoza, D. (2013, August 15). Dictionaries change: This is literally the end of the English language. CNN. https://web.archive.org/web/20131112200236/http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/living/literally-definition/index.html
- Simpson, J. (2011). Who thought small was beautiful? Oxford English Dictionary. https://web.archive.org/web/20140208053348/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/previous-updates/september-2011/who-thought-small-was-beautiful/
- Simpson, J. (2013). A heads up for the June 2013 OED release. Oxford English Dictionary. https://web.archive.org/web/20130629231204/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2013-update/a-heads-up-for-the-june-2013-oed-release/
- Skurie, J. (2013, August 18). The literal truth about the word "literally". National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/1308016-words-literally-oxford-english-dictionary-linguistics-etymology
- Stollznow, K. (2025, August 29). Skibidi, delulu, tradwife are new words in the Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2025/08/29/cup-skibidi-delulu-tradwife-are-new-words-in-the-cambridge-dictionary/
- Zwicky, A. (2005, August 7). Just between Dr. Language and I. Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002386.html