Arial Weiberlen

English 21002

Professor Zayas 

Language Myth Project

February 18, 2026

Language Changing is Not Decay: Challenging the Myth of Fixed Meanings  

 

Although some people believe that words should remain fixed to preserve clarity and tradition. Peter Tristin demonstrates that words that change their meaning are natural, unavoidable, and can be beneficial, showing that language belongs to its speaker, not to dictionaries or purists.

 

Language is constantly evolving, however some think that words should maintain their original meanings. In “The meanings of words should not be allowed to vary or change”, Peter Trudgill challenged this belief by arguing that the way meanings of words change is not only natural but inevitable. While critics fear confusion and it being undesirable, Trudgil demonstrates that language belongs to the us, the people, the speakers. Meanings change because language is a living social system, and attempts to stop it from change is unrealistic, unavoidable and unnecessary. 

 

Trudgil begins by showing that language changing is universal. Explains that pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary have always changed over time. For example Trudgil talks about how the “k” in knee was pronounced. Also how grammatical structures such as “Saw you my son?” was common instead of saying “Did you see my son?”. The most noticeable change, however , occurs in the meanings of words. Words such as nice originally meant “ignorant” or “not cutting” but gradually over time turned into “pleasant”. Trudgil states that today “ No one in their right mind, though, would argue that the ‘real’ meaning of nice is, or ought to be “not cutting””. (page 2) This example shows how meaningless it is to argue for a single “real” meaning of a word because no person in modern time would insist that the word “nice” should return to its original meaning. 

A major concern about meanings changing is how it can be confusing. Trudgil addresses this through examples such as disinterested and uninterested. Originally, disinterested meant neutral or impartial, while uninterested meant bored. However, people or speakers now use disinterested to mean “not interested”. Critics argue that this change eliminated an important distinction. While Trudgil argues that context almost always makes the meaning clear. Just as we understand the different meanings of words like state, or affairs depending on context, speakers naturally interpret meaning through surrounding information. Communication does not collapse because a word gains an additional meaning. 

Jean Airchison reinforces these ideas in “Language Change: Progress or Decay?”. Archison writes, “Time changes all things: there is no reason why language should escape this universal law.”(page4). By comparing language to all other changing aspects of life, Airchison emphasizes that linguistic change is not abnormal, as it is expected. Just as societies, technology, and cultural values evolve with time, so does language. To demand that words remain frozen in time would be to ignore the fundamental nature of human communication.  

Airchison also addresses concerns from the public about language decline. She states “in spite of this, large numbers of intelligent people confirm and resent language change, regarding alterations as due to unnnesscsry sloppiness, laziness or ignorance.” (Page4). This statement reflects modern complaints that language is “getting worse”. Rather than seeing change as adoptions, some may interpret it as moral or educational failure. Every generation believes language is getting worse, however language continues to function effectively. This reinforces Trudgi’s claim that change is part of how language adapts to social needs. 

Similarly, John Mc Whorter also challenges the idea that language is deteriorating. In his TED talk  “John McWhorter: txtng is killing language.JK”, McWhorter explains that modern texting is not destroying English but represents a new form of communication. Claims that “texting is not writing at all, texting is fingered speech”. Also explains that language evolution is constantly occurring and that new forms of communication do not weaken language but expand it. Describing texting this way, Mcwhorther argues that texting is more like casual conversation than formal writing and that change does not equal decline, just a transformation. 

 

Together, these statements reinforce the argument made by Trudgil and Aitchison that the evolution of  language is natural, and new forms of expression should not automatically be viewed as declining as it is also communities adopting new ways to communicate. 

 

To gain another perspective, I interviewed my husband to better understand how people feel about language change. I conducted an interview on February 16, 2026. 

I asked, “Do you think words should keep their original meanings?”

He responded: “Yes and No. As society changes people change the use of the word thus making the word meaning something different than the original form.”

I then asked, “Does it bother you when people use words ‘incorrectly’?”

Marco: “Absolutely ! Because an educated person should know what a word means and use it correctly. I strongly believe that words that are used improperly are indicative of poor education and failure on society’s part to maintain an extensive vocabulary. If a persons uses the word incorrectly it’s because they don’t know the meaning of the word. Example the word is converse not conversate.”

Next, I asked, “Do you think language is getting worse or just changing? And why”

Marco: “I think language is getting worse. Because of people’s laziness and our inability to hold people to a higher standard. It is degrading as time goes on. Due to our system failing us and people not holding themselves accountable to learning.”

Finally, I asked, “How do you feel about words like ‘literally’ being used figuratively?”

He explained: “This is part of how language changes in society and becomes acceptable to use a word that has a very specific meaning and specific intent in a looser, less confined way.”

While Marcos’ concern reflects a common fear that language change signals decline, his perspective ultimately highlights a deeper issue about education and inequalities rather than the natural evolution of words themselves. 

Personally, I believe that change in the meanings of words is natural and necessary because that’s simply how language works. As society evolves so will words and their meanings. Trying to prevent that seems unrealistic. However, I do believe that education specifically in the United States is declining. Not because people are adapting to a new language, but because of deeper structural issues within the education system itself and the community environment. In my experiences and from research on community impact, areas in Title I schools, which are low income families, have clear disparities in access to resources, academic sources and overall community support. There is a growing class divide, and unless students actively seek out communities that will benefit them or seek out education beyond mandatory school hours, they often do not receive the same level of preparation for the future. Compared to a class that is rich in education, money or community support. This difference in opportunity, rather than language change itself, contributes to gaps in literacy and vocabulary development. Therefore, I do not see evolving language as a problem, but I do see inequality in education and community support as a serious concern that has affected the way language can be used. 

This myth matters because it reveals how language is tied to identity, power, and education. Those who label new usages as “ignorant” often imply that certain speakers are less educated or careless. However, research shows that variation is natural and not a sign of decline. Understanding this can reduce unnecessary judgement and allow us to view language as dynamic rather than deteriorating. 

In conclusion, the belief that words should not be allowed to vary or change ignores the fundamental nature of language. As Trudgil demonstrates, change does not destroy communication but reflects the adaptability of human interaction. Meanings of words shift because speakers reshape language to fit their needs. Rather than resisting change, we should recognize it as evidence that language is alive. 

 

Work Cited 

Aitchison, Jean. Language Change: Progress or Decay? 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Trudgill, Peter. “The Meanings of Words Should Not Be Allowed to Vary or Change.” Language Myths, edited by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill, Penguin Books, 1998.

Mc Whorter, John. “txtng is Killing Language. JK!!” Ted.com, TED Talks, Feb. 2013, 

https://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk