In English there has been a recent popularization over the questionable use of the word 'literally'. It has been pointed out that it is a common informal usage (often called a mistake) in English of 'literally' as an intensifier rather than as a marker of non-figurative use, especially since it seems to be used non-literally by well-respected modern authors. There is a lot of evidence that it has been used non-literally literally for centuries.
"Literal", in English, is primarily used to imply 'exactly as spoken/written' so that when something is said that sounds like hyperbole, it will be taken as truthful rather than exaggerated.
But that situation also is semantically ambiguous in that things could seem truly exaggerated. And then, if one didn't know otherwise, the term 'literally' could be understood as an intensifier, and therefore taken in a non-literal manner.
It seems to me that there is nothing special about 'literal' in English that it should be the only one to have such ambiguity leading to semantic drift.
Has this phenomenon occurred in German?
The Germanic languages all have variants of 'buchstäblich' or 'wörtlich' which sound a little closer to 'word for word'. I'm wondering if a term is transparent (it says what it means) that it might be less open to semantic drift. But smantic drift happens all the time, so that may not be a barrier at all.
Is there any evidence in German, written or spoken, that the corresponding terms for 'literal' have similar figurative uses?