“Evaluate the idea that language change is either a process of evolution or of decay.”
Language change is the idea that the words we use are open to alteration in terms of their phonology, orthography
and etymology, and how we use them can vary in ways such as syntax. This large scope of alteration opens up the
debate of whether it is the process of evolution or of decay. Evolution is the progression by which our language
gradually develops whilst language decay is the notion in which standards are declining.
One way in which language has changed is in its etymology. An example of changed meaning is the adjective
“awesome”, linguist Justyna Robinson researched how the word was used by both older and younger generations.
She found that young people use “awesome” to describe things which they deem cool or nice, but the older
generations use it to mean fear or terror. This discrepancy between meanings could create miscommunications in
conversation where younger language users want a word to mean one thing but older users interpret it to mean
another. Such inconsistencies are perhaps examples of decay; our language could be approaching a point where the
meanings of words have changed so much they can no longer be understood across generations. However, when
analysing this idea reasonably, we must consider the importance of context. Depending on what “awesome” was
pre-modifying would give a good indication as to how the language user felt about it; most people would agree that
an “awesome” sunny day is positive and not horrifying.
An alternative idea is that changing etymology is a form of evolution as words take on more politically correct
meanings. These words have undergone semantic reclamation, a type of amelioration where words with a strong
negative association begin to be used in a more positive way. An example of a word currently undergoing this
progression is “slut”. Its origins show it once described something dirty but it now invites judgement and violence on
women who are sexually active. Recently feminists have tried to reclaim the word and so called ‘slut walks’ have
attempted to re-appropriate the word. When language changes to remove demeaning associations, this is clearly an
example of evolution; the lexis we use is developing to be less. But what difference does it make? Linguistic
determinism suggests that language influences the way we think, therefore negative language creates negative
perceptions, consequently we can challenge or change words in order to affect the views held by people. However
this has been questioned by linguistic reflectionism which argues that language actually reflects the way we think
and simply changing the meaning of words would not alter behaviour in society so wouldn’t aid evolution.
A leading factor in language change is technology. The increase in online gaming, texting and internet chat on social
media has resulted in a range of new words and ways of using language. Technology has created the need for faster
communication, so users have introduced initialisms such as “FWIW” (for what it’s worth), abbreviations such as
“convo” (for conversation) and emoticons. Many prescriptivists see initialisms and abbreviations as decay because
they appear lazy- people cannot be bothered to write the full version. Prescriptivism attempts to ‘protect’ our
language from the brevity that language associated with technology brings, however often it fails to recognise that
there was never a ‘pure’ form of English, it has always been compiled of foreign influences, and nonstandard
spellings such as “wot” were in the dictionary in the 1800s.
This view also ignores the fun that using initialisms or emoticons can bring, author Colleen Walter said that such
examples are a “slippery slope” as we may forget the fundamentals of Standard English and even what punctuation
looks like. Yet there is little hard evidence to support this, and it isn’t unusual that it is no more than a gut feeling
that people refuse to accept linguistic facts on. Facts such as those from David Crystal, he argued that abbreviations
like those used in technology were natural and intuitive. In addition, emoticons help written language to replicate
spoken language more, as facial expressions are imitated in texts adding a richness to written language.
Functional theory explains the way in which language changes to meet the needs of its users, if people want to
spend less time writing out the full version of words, then more abbreviations and initialisms will be introduced.
Equally, as new products are invented and other things die out, we see the same happen to words- for example as
the popularity of records decreases the word “vinyl” is used less frequently but neologisms such as “Bluetooth” rise
in use. The new words can be formed through blends, compounding or acronyms.
Language change is the idea that the words we use are open to alteration in terms of their phonology, orthography
and etymology, and how we use them can vary in ways such as syntax. This large scope of alteration opens up the
debate of whether it is the process of evolution or of decay. Evolution is the progression by which our language
gradually develops whilst language decay is the notion in which standards are declining.
One way in which language has changed is in its etymology. An example of changed meaning is the adjective
“awesome”, linguist Justyna Robinson researched how the word was used by both older and younger generations.
She found that young people use “awesome” to describe things which they deem cool or nice, but the older
generations use it to mean fear or terror. This discrepancy between meanings could create miscommunications in
conversation where younger language users want a word to mean one thing but older users interpret it to mean
another. Such inconsistencies are perhaps examples of decay; our language could be approaching a point where the
meanings of words have changed so much they can no longer be understood across generations. However, when
analysing this idea reasonably, we must consider the importance of context. Depending on what “awesome” was
pre-modifying would give a good indication as to how the language user felt about it; most people would agree that
an “awesome” sunny day is positive and not horrifying.
An alternative idea is that changing etymology is a form of evolution as words take on more politically correct
meanings. These words have undergone semantic reclamation, a type of amelioration where words with a strong
negative association begin to be used in a more positive way. An example of a word currently undergoing this
progression is “slut”. Its origins show it once described something dirty but it now invites judgement and violence on
women who are sexually active. Recently feminists have tried to reclaim the word and so called ‘slut walks’ have
attempted to re-appropriate the word. When language changes to remove demeaning associations, this is clearly an
example of evolution; the lexis we use is developing to be less. But what difference does it make? Linguistic
determinism suggests that language influences the way we think, therefore negative language creates negative
perceptions, consequently we can challenge or change words in order to affect the views held by people. However
this has been questioned by linguistic reflectionism which argues that language actually reflects the way we think
and simply changing the meaning of words would not alter behaviour in society so wouldn’t aid evolution.
A leading factor in language change is technology. The increase in online gaming, texting and internet chat on social
media has resulted in a range of new words and ways of using language. Technology has created the need for faster
communication, so users have introduced initialisms such as “FWIW” (for what it’s worth), abbreviations such as
“convo” (for conversation) and emoticons. Many prescriptivists see initialisms and abbreviations as decay because
they appear lazy- people cannot be bothered to write the full version. Prescriptivism attempts to ‘protect’ our
language from the brevity that language associated with technology brings, however often it fails to recognise that
there was never a ‘pure’ form of English, it has always been compiled of foreign influences, and nonstandard
spellings such as “wot” were in the dictionary in the 1800s.
This view also ignores the fun that using initialisms or emoticons can bring, author Colleen Walter said that such
examples are a “slippery slope” as we may forget the fundamentals of Standard English and even what punctuation
looks like. Yet there is little hard evidence to support this, and it isn’t unusual that it is no more than a gut feeling
that people refuse to accept linguistic facts on. Facts such as those from David Crystal, he argued that abbreviations
like those used in technology were natural and intuitive. In addition, emoticons help written language to replicate
spoken language more, as facial expressions are imitated in texts adding a richness to written language.
Functional theory explains the way in which language changes to meet the needs of its users, if people want to
spend less time writing out the full version of words, then more abbreviations and initialisms will be introduced.
Equally, as new products are invented and other things die out, we see the same happen to words- for example as
the popularity of records decreases the word “vinyl” is used less frequently but neologisms such as “Bluetooth” rise
in use. The new words can be formed through blends, compounding or acronyms.
