The term "literal language" is correct and can be used in written English.
It refers to language that is used in a straightforward and factual way, without any intended deeper meaning or figurative language. It is the opposite of figurative language, which uses metaphors, similes, and other literary devices to convey a meaning beyond the literal definition of the words. Example: In his speeches, the politician often uses literal language to convey his policies and plans to the public, rather than relying on figurative language or persuasive tactics.
While mystics use much literal language in describing their experiences (see Alston, 1992, 80 102), the literality need not extend to paradox in senses (3) or (4).
Under its literal language, a signer agrees to "oppose" any efforts to increase taxes but does not irrevocably commit to voting against them.
"There is not one word in that decision that is not factually correct and in keeping with the intent and literal language of the law".
Critics can also press their point by adhering to directives in ways that are consistent with their literal language but inconsistent with common practice or common sense – a tactic we call "uncivil obedience".
They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language.
It is not just that God exceeds our conceptual reach and grasp as well as our literal language.
And people everywhere on earth do – all cultures use forms of non-literal language.
Either singly or in combination, the two binaries — words vs. images and literal, information-bearing words vs. words aiming to persuade — have led to a search for what Thomas Kuhn has called a "neutral observation language," a super-literal language uninflected and uninfected by the distortions of any human, or as Leon terms it, "subjective" perspective.
For Lakoff and Johnson, this non-literal language is not merely peripheral expression useful for adding bells and whistles to the bustle of communication, but reflects something deep about how love is conceptualized.
One way to argue for fictionalism about a region of discourse is to show that our use of declarative sentences within the discourse resembles our use of non-literal language in other areas.
This may seem crude and excludes cases of non-literal language use, lying, cheating and error from the start, but it may serve to rationalize common patterns of pragmatic reasoning among cooperative, information-seeking interlocutors.
