Hello happy rhetors! Let's continue to beef up our awesome rhetorical analysis skillz. Here's what you need to do this week to achieve full credit for this blog. 1. Read this article by Jen Doll in The Atlantic. And this article by Dana Coleman that kind of contradicts Jen. 2. Then, in a well-developed paragraph, complete a mini-rhetorical analysis identifying how Jen Doll and Dana Coleman crafts their argument of the misuse/use and deconstruction of the English language through rhetorical appeals and use of rhetorical devices. 3. Once you have posted, you are not done. Come back to this blog and comment on someone else's posting, expressing your own interpretation, questioning his or her analyses, or suggesting changes to improve his or her writing. This will be due Friday, January 30th by midnight. |
Kirsten Hilton
1/27/2015 12:10:54 pm
“You're Saying It Wrong” by Jen Doll and “According to the dictionary ‘literally’ now also means ‘figuratively’” by Dana Coleman both report on the (now former) news that dictionaries have officially added a twenty-first century meaning of the word literally. From years of its use in pop culture and the daily social setting, literally has come to mean the exact opposite of what its traditional sentiment was. Each article reflects on a different interpretation and voice on the matter. In Jen Doll’s article, specific and stylized diction makes the foundation her argument on. Her use of words such as “lexicograpical“ and an in-depth example of peeving strengthens her argument; giving credibility to her claims as well as her syllogisms. This gives the article an overall tone of educated yet bitter about the English language’s up and coming changes. However, sometimes her diction and voice could have been simpler while maintaining the same weight as some of the arrogant seeming words. Doll’s syntax pattern, mixing long complex and brief direct statements, also helped her argument that language will change but this change wasn't for the best. In Dana Coleman's article there were more direct thoughts. Her general phrasing and choice of words made her argument basic yet convincing, as she referenced different sources and appealed to more of an average readers' vocabulary. The tone of the article was casual yet the voice was journalistic in the sense that it was brief and to the point. Still, Coleman appealed to her audience’s sense of logic by questioning the event and making the article itself interactive by asking for replies of the readers' thoughts.
Dominique Harry
1/29/2015 09:53:01 am
I find it interesting how you point out the syllogisms. Since it's a recent term and I barely understand it myself, it's nice to see someone use it in their analysis. Also, I like that you pointed out the bitter tone in the article because I noticed that as well.
Connor Ferraro
2/1/2015 03:39:15 pm
It's interesting how you pointed out that Coleman connected more to the average reader through her basic diction, looking back at the article, I can see how she may have accomplished that.
Anna Coleman
1/28/2015 07:25:53 am
Jen Doll, Author of "You're Saying It Wrong," and Dana Coleman, author of "According to the dictionary, 'literally' now also means 'figuratively,'" both analyze the misuse of the word literally in their respective articles, but they approach the issue in different ways. Coleman's article is short and written with simple diction, creating a forthright tone while making her argument relateable and easy to comprehend. She argues that the "new" definition of literally did not originate organically: it was aided greatly by characters on popular sitcoms. This example is somthing that many average people can relate to, establishing her credibility as "one of us." Conversely, Doll chose an academic approach to her writing. She argues that dictionaries reflect language and do not dictate it. Her syntax is varied, using long descriptive senctences for descriptions and short blunt sentences for her main points. The diction of the artice is specific and advanced, creating a didactic tone. This tone is furthered by numerous historical examples of words whos meanings have changed over time. This mini lesson on the transformation of the English language makes Doll's argument seem credible and logical.
Adam Kovel
1/29/2015 09:08:05 am
I like how you say that she is "one of us" but I feel like that is more for just relatability and not necessarily credible. I can be "one of us" but not be suited to convey an argument. What do you think?
Anna Coleman
1/29/2015 10:50:45 am
I absolutely agree. In retrospect, I think I could have stated what I was trying to say better, because it is kind of confusing. When I said "establishes her credibility as 'one of us'" I meant that she is establishing the fact that she is relatable to her audience, not necessarily that she is a credible source of information.
Andrew Lubbers
1/29/2015 11:59:03 am
Compared to Doll's argument, I think her sit-com references lack credibility. Doll's sources were much more professional and relatable to the topic of change in language. Coleman was simply listing popular TV shows. Or is there another side of her strategy that I'm not understanding?
Sara Moeller
1/29/2015 01:03:54 pm
To reply to Andrew-
Adam Kovel
1/29/2015 09:04:50 am
Both authors discuss their reactions to the new definition of "literally" by a variety of means. Jen Doll appeals to pathos by talking about how the new definition peeves her. Saying it peeves her and others allows readers to agree, or picture things that are their on pet peeves, also becoming relatable. Her tone proves quirky, as saying "Thank goodness for that. His syntax was awful," regarding Pinker's statement. Coleman's article uses more casual tone and diction in portraying her argument, such as when she concludes the article with "hmph." This word choice devalues her credibility. However, she also seems relatable as she mentions popular shows Parks and Recreation and How I Met Your Mother.
Elana Lawson
1/29/2015 03:36:28 pm
I like how you mentioned Coleman's casual tone and how it was relatable to popular TV Show. I hadn't thought of that.
Rob Wilson
1/30/2015 09:50:45 am
Nice man, I like how you connected what Jen said to how it could connect with us or even other readers.
Anabel Prince
1/30/2015 02:51:32 pm
I didn't note Coleman's casual tone in my response, but now reading the article again I don't know how I missed it. Nice catch!
Dominique Harry
1/29/2015 09:50:46 am
In both articles, the authors discuss the meaning of the word "literally" and how it has evolved. While the "You're Saying It Wrong" article convinces the reader that "literally" is just another word that evolved over time, the Coleman article argues that this "evolution" is more of an insult. Coleman and Doll both use differing types of diction to aid in their argument. Doll used a more formal and high sort of diction. For example, she uses phrases such as "bemoaned" and "linguistic scrutiny". Contrary, Coleman uses a more neutral and informal diction, using phrases such as "really, really, really"and "jumped on board", and . The two authors also used differing tones. Doll's article displayed a more humorous tone, like when she makes the reference to Tarzan. Coleman's article is more bitter and sarcastic, which she makes obvious in the subtitle. The two articles have differing perspectives on the use/misuse of the word "literally" and use distinct rhetorical devices to portray these perspectives.
Ashley Hunter
1/29/2015 01:25:51 pm
I liked your analysis of the two articles and their very different opinions. I hadn't even thought of Coleman's article as having a sarcastic tone until now, nice job!
Andrew Lubbers
1/29/2015 11:52:05 am
An obvious contrast between Dana Coleman and Jen Doll was their use of syntax. Coleman used short, simple sentences and paragraphs to express her point while Doll’s words seemed to drag on as the reader awaits a stand. Coleman stated her point quickly and firmly, which results in a better understanding for the reader. Doll appealed to ethos as she gathered quotes from various credible sources such as Jack Lynch, an English professor at Rutgers University and the author of The Lexicographer’s Dilemma, Kory Stamper, a Merriam-Webster lexicographer, and Steven Pinker, a language expert and psychology professor at Harvard. While Coleman weakly referred Rob Lowe’s drinking game. The appeal to ethos strengthens Doll’s argument that change in language remains inevitable.
Sara Moeller
1/29/2015 01:01:01 pm
I liked that you picked up on syntax. I didn't even notice it.
Abby Buchanan
1/30/2015 11:49:38 am
I also didn't think of the syntax. I liked that you mentioned ethos. It's an important difference between the two articles.
Anna Coleman
1/30/2015 12:19:39 pm
I agree that Doll's lengthy syntax dragged on and on. It also made it hard for the reader to decide what her opinion on the topic was.
Sara Moeller
1/29/2015 01:00:06 pm
Jen Doll's "You're saying it wrong" and Dana Coleman's "According to the Dictionary.." both address that literally is misused too often. Doll's column appeals to logos in her statements about the dictionary: it's always changing to reflect our language. Her point that the dictionary should not dictate how we use words was quite resonant. If we can make up words or change the meanings of words, should we? [Does anyone remember the book "Frindle"? It was about this kid who renamed a "pen" as "frindle," then convinced everyone else to use that word and eventually it was added to the dictionary. However, frindle was intentional, and I don't believe that the changing meaning of 'literally' was. What's the purpose of changing our language? Is it reflective of our evolvement? (Or our ignorance? Literally does not mean figuratively..not even a little bit.)] Coleman's column of the changing meaning of literally is much more condescending than accepting. Her biting diction exposes this. Her argument that literally and figuratively should not be interchanged is valid, though. It's like saying something very hot is "cold." It's illogical; and Coleman points that out. Both Doll and Coleman make strong points that are well-supported by their strong diction and tone.
Ashley Hunter
1/29/2015 01:22:50 pm
In "According to the dictionary, 'literally' now also means 'figuratively'" and "You're Saying It Wrong", authors Dana Coleman and Jen Doll both discuss the evolution of the word literally into its now contradicting meaning and their reactions to the misuse. In "You're Saying It Wrong" author Jen Doll utilizes high diction and a bitter tone to express her point, shown through her use of phrases such as "vociferous peevery" and blatant statements describing her issues with the misuse of literally. Doll also appeals to ethos by having a good portion of her article composed of references to various English literary experts. On the contrary, in her article, "According to the dictionary, 'literally' now also means 'figuratively'" Dana Coleman utilizes a casual tone with neutral diction. Coleman appeals to readers by having an average-level vocabulary, adding to her casual tone. She also references many popular American sitcoms, adding to her laid-back persona and writing style.
nabila pranto
1/30/2015 03:13:04 pm
I agree with your line about Dana having more of a neutral tone versus Jen having more of a higher and sophisticated tone, I thought Dana's last sentence seemed to be sarcastic since she didn't agree with the fact the "literally" isn't literally.
Elana Lawson
1/29/2015 03:34:24 pm
The article "You're Saying It Wrong" by Jen Doll expressed a judgmental and accusatory tone. Her argument states that the word literally has changed to mean figuratively over the years. The author called this misuse of literally a peeve. She admits that she "peeves" often and suggests that readers also peeve when words are not used correctly. This was an appeal to pathos, but not logos because there are no specific facts to support that all readers peeve. Doll's diction was high and formal as she exhibits words like vociferous and lexicographical travesty. The author's high level of diction proved her credibility and her argument which claimed when language changes, people peeve. The second article "According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively," Dana Coleman uses a different approach in proving the same argument. She uses informal diction and appeals to logos by using specific examples and facts to prove her argument.
Alexandra Medina
1/30/2015 04:45:09 am
I liked how you identified that the first article did not appeal completely to logos through the evidence. I think it's a common misconception that when an author has a lot of evidence to back up their claim that its logos, but that's not always the case. Good job!
Alexandra Medina
1/30/2015 04:37:04 am
In “You’re Saying It Wrong” by Jen Doll, Doll begins her article with strong diction. Starting with, “the outcry began” appeals to pathos negatively and the reader wonders why people are upset. Doll uses these feelings to her advantage as she continues on with her article and how she and many other literary scholars are upset with the new definition of “literally.” And of course, there is the other literary scholars. Doll references countless articles, authors and books who agree with her on the completely wrong but new definition of literally. These references, strong diction and elaborate syntax add to her ethos and she becomes more credible and sounds more educated as the article continues. When comparing that article to, “According to the dictionary, ‘literally’ now also means ‘figuratively’” by Dana Coleman, the diction and syntax are completely different. Coleman uses shorter, more neutral and easily understandable words to make her point. Even though the article is more relatable in that it is easy to understand, Coleman looses credibility thorough it when she references sitcoms and drinking games on TV. The reader may understand these references because they recognize them and use the word literally in the same way, however Coleman does not use much information to back herself up which turns the reader away from believing her.
Mattie Prosser
1/30/2015 09:01:41 am
I agree with the way you analyzed Coleman's article. A lot of the references she makes damages her credibility. In an article that criticizes the use of a word, you would think she would try to come across as more professional in her diction.
Mattie Prosser
1/30/2015 06:20:24 am
Both of the articles reflect the true meaning of the word "literally" and how it's meaning perceived by the audience has evolved through the history of English language. Doll experiences this change of meaning as an awakening, she questions why people do not go through with changes if the word is used a completely different way by a significant amount of people. She uses complex sentences to demonstrate her point as a series of drawn out thoughts. Her tone is showing that she does not appreciate changing the meaning of words as she discusses "peeving", which she expands on throughout the article. In Coleman's article, she discusses the word "literally" to provide emphasis by using examples relevant in our culture today. Her argument ultimately discourages the use of literally as figuratively. She attracts young readers by using a casual tone and short sentences to capture their attention.
Jack Pearson
1/30/2015 10:00:52 am
Good point on the tone differences! Doll's article does sound like she doesn't appreciate the change in the usage.
Abby Buchanan
1/30/2015 11:52:00 am
It's cool that you pointed out the audience. I think that Coleman's article is directed toward younger people than Doll's, do you?
Rob Wilson
1/30/2015 09:45:42 am
Both of the articles are saying the same thing but in different ways. In the article "You're saying it wrong" by Jen Doll she is saying that the term "literally" has two meanings, but the second meaning is considered to be wrong by "peevers" when in an actual sense it says the word "literally" is used to express extreme hyperbole. Whereas the first meaning when using "literally" to describe something that actually happened is considered correct. This article is all about that both uses are correct, just for different reasons. Jen has a very understanding and casual tone with a hint of ridiculing when talking about the use of the word literally because she recognizes it is becoming a part of our culture to change some of the things we say, but her ridiculing tone shows at the end of the article, "“we’re not grunting like Tarzan.”Thank goodness for that. His syntax was awful" (line 50-51). Now in the second article, "According To The Dictionary, "literally" now also means "figuratively" by Dana Coleman she argues with a literal tone that we are using the word "literally" correctly by the dictionaries standards but not by hers. She shows how in TV shows like How I Met Your Mother and Parks and Recreation they use the word literally in a figurative tone which makes people watching the shows start to speak like them. From what I gathered both articles argue that "literally" should be used in a literal statement, but both authors understand why it is not and are coming to terms with it.
Jack Pearson
1/30/2015 09:55:06 am
Both "According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively” by Dana Coleman and “You’re saying it wrong” by Jen Doll demonstrate how modern day usage of the word ‘Literally’ has become something completely opposite of its original intentions. While both articles discuss such a simple topic, they both have unique ways of getting their message across. Dana Coleman’s article is short and sweet, linking the change in usage to pop culture, such as Rob Lowe’s usage in Parks and Recreation: LIT-rally. This is an appeal to pathos as many of these media outlets provoke feelings of joy or good times. On the other hand, Jen Doll’s article attempts to appeal to ethos as she provides historical context of the words use. While both articles relay the same information, Dana Coleman’s article does it better. The short article length paired with a pop culture references allows readers to stay interested, unlike Jen Doll’s short novel with references to the 1600’s peevery problem. I literally fell asleep. Literally.
Nathaniel Bigelow
1/30/2015 12:32:53 pm
Very funny at the end! I like how you told us (very clearly) which article you preferred.
Gabe Rivera
1/30/2015 02:03:30 pm
Love your introduction! Also, I figuratively laughed at the end.
Lindsey Deutsch
1/30/2015 03:21:03 pm
You're analysis has more comedic diction and makes a better argument because of that than both of the articles combined, literally. Good job.
Abby Buchanan
1/30/2015 12:23:38 pm
Both Jen Doll and Dana Coleman discuss their reactions to dictionaries adding a new definition of “literally”. Coleman appeals to younger audiences than Doll through her casual diction/tone and use of popular television shows as examples. She uses second person, asks the audience questions and includes sounds like “huh” and “hmph” in her article for emphasis. This aids her argument since it seems she is ‘for’ using “literally” as “figuratively” and it is the younger generations that use it that way. Coleman also appeals to logos since she actually includes the new definition of “literally” in her article and Doll cites the definition from reddit (which is soo credible, right?). Doll creates formal diction with many polysyllabic words such as “lexicographical travesty”, “linguistic scrutiny” and others. This helps her appeal to ethos because she seems more educated than Coleman and appeals to an older audience. Doll has a deeper understanding of rhetorical devices and proper word usage; she even mentions how Tarzan’s “syntax was awful”. This appeals to ethos because it establishes credibility. Doll begins her article with a dramatic and derisive tone. Doll’s tone throughout the article is negative. It seems she doesn't like the word misuse but also doesn't approve of the way people criticize the word misuse. Doll herself “misused” several words that are cited at the bottom of the article. She wants the audience to acknowledge that word misuse may be annoying, but there’s nothing you can do about it.
Dominique Cooper
1/30/2015 01:19:47 pm
I love that you pointed out the ages that they are appealing to with their articles. That is not a factor that I really considered. However, I did interpret their view on the topic ('for' versus 'against') opposite from your interpretation.
Nathaniel Bigelow
1/30/2015 12:30:23 pm
Both "According to the dictionary, "literally" now also means figuratively" by Dana Coleman and "You're saying it wrong" by Jen Doll explain that literally now has a new definition in the dictionary that is the direct opposite of it's original meaning. However, the articles differed in the style used to get their messages across. Coleman's piece is short and features very casual diction. This can be witnessed in the first person that she uses in her article and the continued use of monosyllabic words. She also attracts readers through the connections she makes to mainstream media such as the popular television show, "How I met your mother". In short, Coleman uses casual diction and references to mainstream media in order to attract a younger, more casual audience. While Coleman uses casual diction, Doll uses high diction through the use of polysyllabic words and complex sentences. Doll also appeals to ethos in order to appeal to more sophisticated target audience through the references to statistics from credible sources such as Steven Pinker, a language expert and psychology professor at Harvard. Overall both articles discuss the same topic, but Doll's use of diction and her appeal to ethos make her target audience a more sophisticated one compared to that of Coleman's article which appeals to a more laid back audience.
Danielle Kelly
1/30/2015 12:53:48 pm
I find it really interesting how you took apart the diction that was used in these selections. I did not think to include whether or not the words used were monosyllabic or polysyllabic. Great job!
Danielle Kelly
1/30/2015 12:51:53 pm
In both "You're Saying It Wrong," and "According to the dictionary, 'literally' now also means 'figuratively'" both authors describe the term "literally" as being a term of evolution. An obvious rhetorical contrast between the two pieces is the syntax that was used. Dana Coleman used simple, straight-to-the-point sentences, while Jen Doll constantly elaborated on her claims. In "According to the dictionary, 'literally' now also means figuratively,'" Coleman expresses her thoughts through using an extremely casual tone, while on the other hand, Doll utilizes a formal tone. Another difference between the two selections is the appeal to ethos. Jen Doll references numerous articles and authors that agree with her opinions regarding the everlasting altering definition of "literally". This enhances her credibility immensely. Dana Coleman, however, diminishes her credibility by connecting her claims to drinking games and television sitcoms.
Dominique Cooper
1/30/2015 01:14:30 pm
While Jen Doll and Dana Coleman have differing opinions on the use or misuse of the word “literally,” they both use high-formal diction to get their point across to the readers. Jen Doll’s word choice of “peeving” and “eradicated” express her professionalism and coverage of the topic at hand which, in turn, appeals to ethos by proving her credibility of writing about the use of words. Although she makes a point of proving that she has amazing word choice, Doll maintains an understanding tone throughout the article which expands on her argument that, even though people are used to certain word rules, words change with society. Dana Coleman articulates her high-formal diction with words like “sanctioning” and “I digress.” The word choice, like with Doll, proves her credibility for writing on the topic, however, the same word choice of “I digress” takes away from that credibility. This is because she is letting everyone know that she is angered by this topic which is fine until she ends the article with “hmph.” “Hmph” puts me in the mindset of a child who has not gotten their way. The aggravated tone throughout the article proves her argument that “literally” should not be used “figuratively,” but it seems to have an unnecessary emphasis on the annoyance.
Gabe Rivera
1/30/2015 02:26:41 pm
Alas, the issue has been properly addressed! Both Jen Doll and Dana Coleman have brought awareness to the growing epidemic which we call the modern English language. Whether Jen went too in depth or Dana didn't write enough, both authors gave a similar opinion and brought strong points to the table (figuratively). While Jen portrayed a more formal or educated tone, Dana was able to make her argument with the "average reader's" vocabulary. Both authors were able to incorporate some sort of humorous statement(s) which in some eyes have injured the credibility they had assembled at the beginning of their passages. These works seem to back up the logos and ethos side of rhetoric, rather than pathos. Throughout the passages, you may find the author patronizing Google for adding the word to the online dictionary, as well as the individuals whom use the word "literally" incorrectly. They are sure to back up their credibility using sources and definitions to defend their opinions. Google better watch out for these vicious opinionated bloggers; they might get themselves killed! (literally?)
Anabel Prince
1/30/2015 02:49:34 pm
Doll’s paragraph appeals to ethos by citing the The Oxford English Dictionary and The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and through her use of historical evidence mentioning Jack Lynch, John Dryden, and others. She backs her argument up with facts, appealing to logos. She ends by stating that as long as we change, so will language.
nabila pranto
1/30/2015 03:08:54 pm
The first strong rhetorical device that appealed in each article were the titles Jen Doll and Dana Coleman decided to use. “You’re Saying It Wrong” and “According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively”. Both authors use charged words like “increasingly”(Dana Coleman’s article), “informal” and “digress” (Dana Coleman’s article) and “peeve”(Jen Doll’s article) to indicate how “literally” is being misused in today’s society. Those words also create a negative tone in the author’s writing because they both disagree with the fact that literally should not contain two meanings. Coleman uses more of a sarcastic tone throughout the article “So it’s okay to use literally to mean figuratively as long as you really, really, really need to do so? Hmph.” which shows that she does not take the fact that ”literally” could have two meanings. Unlike Coleman, Doll creates a sophisticated tone in her article and quotes a Merriam-Webster lexicographer, a language expert professor from Harvard and Jack Lynch an author and an English professor at Rutgers University which account to her credibility.
Lindsey Deutsch
1/30/2015 03:18:20 pm
In “You’re Saying It Wrong,” Jen Doll uses more complex syntax and satire at the end of her article to get her point across on the new definition of literally. On the other hand, “According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively” uses simple syntax to explain the same point. Both authors had a negative tone to their writing and obviously are both unhappy with the unilateral definition of literally. Doll’s use of satire at the end of her article while making fun of Steven Pinker’s syntax, keeping the article fresh in the readers mind and strongly making her point in the argument.
Trezden Matthews
1/30/2015 04:00:48 pm
I believe that while Doll used a more formal diction, Coleman used a stronger sarcastic tone leaving her point more prominently in the reader's head. However, both shared a common disdain for the butchering of the English language.
Trezden Matthews
1/30/2015 03:57:35 pm
Jen Doll carefully crafts an expository essay, in You’re Saying It Wrong, shedding light on the origin of peeves, such as the misuse of words. Doll points to established lexicographers’ accounts of their thoughts on linguistic misuse, while fairly not blaming anyone. Doll’s ending note logically appealed to a societal cycle of peevery. However, Dana Coleman concisely attacks the use of “literally” in the English language. Coleman’s main point was that noted dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster have two contradictory definitions of “literally”, allowing “literally to show extent both actually and figuratively is a clear contradiction. Coleman also is highly logical in her appeals, and even relates to the audience by being personable, referencing popular sitcoms and a sarcastic tone.
Connor Ferraro
2/1/2015 03:35:24 pm
“You're Saying It Wrong” by Jen Doll and “According to the dictionary ‘literally’ now also means ‘figuratively’” by Dana Coleman discuss the changing of the dictionary definition of the word: “literally”. They point out how modern culture has inadvertently changed the definition of the word literally to the exact opposite of its original definition. Jen Doll makes use of complex and specialized diction throughout her article. She uses words such as, “lexicographical”, as well as complex phrases such as, “linguistic doomsayers”, to strengthen her argument. This gives her a certain credibility, and also creates a gloomy, yet educated tone towards these changes to the once-elegant English language. Dana Coleman makes use of syntax throughout her article, combining complex, as well as direct, to-the-point sentences. Unlike Doll, Coleman uses simple diction to make her points, and while not being as elegantly written, it is effective, though it creates a more casual tone. She proves her credibility through citing reliable sources and providing good information rather than creating an educated tone. She appealed more to the logical aspects of her audience, rather than the emotional aspects Doll appealed to throughout her article.
Simone McQueen-Gunn
2/8/2015 04:22:38 pm
I thought it was interesting how you described Jen Doll's tone as "gloomy, yet educated..." I hadn't picked up on that while I was reading her article.
Simone McQueen-Gunn
2/8/2015 04:16:05 pm
Both authors include the definition of "literally" in their articles along with the added definition to strengthen their argument. Jen Doll then defines the word "peeving" and gives examples of other words or phrases that people peeve about and used to peeve about as a way to remind the reader that there has always been words that set people off and there is nothing that we can do about that. Doll finds the added definition of "literally" fine to use as a hyperbole. She uses other commonly peeved words defined in the dictionary. Dana Coleman is far less thrilled about the added definition. She sees it as the complete opposite definition rather than a mere exaggeration. Coleman delves more into the misuse(?) of the word than Doll does by giving examples from popular media. In the end, people will always peeve over words being misused. Comments are closed.
|
Mrs. theakerI eat books. Archives
September 2017
Categories
All
|