Understanding Language: How the Meanings of Words Mutate
I Investigate How Meanings Change Over Time, Over Generations and Across Regions
Note: No linguist I, but I decide to see if I can get a deeper understanding of how words change over time, and languages evolve.
Author’s Preface
Introduction to Language Evolution
I want to learn about the evolution of language and shifts in meaning. Language differs from country to country, even within the same language, the same linguistic group, vocabulary to vocabulary, region to region within a country, and person to person within a region. Meanings evolve over time. The English of Elizabethan times is not understood by most people without training. The language of the old epic poem Beowulf is incomprehensible to all but scholars. Even in current times, there are many regional dialects in various linguistic groups that are pretty much incomprehensible to anyone outside the region in which they are spoken.
Word Evolution Over Time
Any number of words evolve, all manner of words evolve, both in meaning and pronunciation. There are many, many, many examples of this. Even recently, language can change from one generation to the next. The meanings of words can mutate in a short period of time, and even reverse totally in meaning. For instance, my son has one definition for pop music. I counter that pop music is just what people listen to. We've always listened to pop music, but in his world, pop music is a specific genre. So, it's changed. Words evolve.
Changes in Word Meaning
Look at the word "disinterest," which used to mean having no stake in an issue. Now many people use it to mean the same thing as "uninterested." Thinking of the expression "indictment," it has different meanings in different contexts. Or the word "table," as in "to table something." Well, it has two different meanings. It sometimes means to put it out for consultation, and sometimes it means we're going to put it in the bin where things disappear because we're not going to look at it right now.
Personal Word Usage
I have discovered quite often I'll use words and phrases, and I might realize that I don't actually know what the word or expression means. I will probably use these in approximately the right context, but my meaning may be different than the dictionary meaning, and it may be different than another person's meaning. I suspect we all have our own idiosyncratic take on what words mean, even if we're dictionary addicts, (as I was at one time). Dictionaries are imprecise. They give the compilers' take on what words mean, and it may or may not reflect usage. So, the meanings of words are really quite fluid, changing, imprecise, and multiple. One word can mean many different things, sometimes diametrically opposed things.
Fluidity of Word Meaning
So, there are a lot of words that have totally different meanings, opposed meanings. I'm not such a word groupie that I can come up with all these examples off the top of my head, but they do exist, and I use them from time to time. Well, I suspect the shift in meaning is in part because there's new needs, so we need new language terms, but also I suspect it's because people using words don't fully understand what they mean in the general population, and they mutate the words or they're reused in another context, not really understanding, not being scholars of language, just how they've mutated the meanings.
Loss of Meaning Distinctions
For instance, the word "uninterested" and "disinterested" seem to have lost their original meanings. "Uninterested" was a very different concept than "disinterested," but now they're used as synonyms, which is a shame, I think, because there was an essential distinction there that is now being lost.
Resistance to Language Change
There is a species of dogmatic individual, language pedant, language pedantic persons, who seem to feel that language is fixed and unchangeable, and they go to task, take the task, with people who use language that is incorrect in their view. I don't have a lot of patience with them, but sometimes they do point out problems with usage, which means important distinctions are being lost.
Lists of Misunderstood Words
You sometimes see in popular magazines like Reader's Digest or so on, 10 examples of misunderstood words, and they come up with a list of words that someone wanted to write an article, make a few bucks, and decided are misused, and they make these lists. You probably find the same on the internet now, but they ignore the fact that meanings do change. Sometimes they're correct, the meanings have not changed that much, but sometimes they're just pedants, pedantic people who don't recognize that language evolves, and they're trying to hold back the tides.
Influence of Younger Generations
I've sometimes speculated that these changes in language are due to the young. Learning language, children, young adults, teenagers, who are still grasping with words, increasing their vocabularies, and they get things wrong. Or they try to describe things, they don't have the vocabulary, so they come up with words that they think are correct, but they've misunderstood the meanings.
Expression Usage and Meaning
I don't know if any research has been done on this, and I don't know if it's true. It's my supposition. Another topic here is expressions and words as well. So I often find that I'm using an expression, and I'll think about it and think, I have no idea what that means. Will I have a sense of how to use it? I understand its meaning, but the words make no literal sense, so I don't understand the literal meaning, such as "shake a stick at it," a common idiom in my youth, but not understood by everybody of my generation apparently. My cousin, my age, did not know of it.
Old Expressions and Their Origins
Well, that's just one example of old expressions. "Cracker Barrel" would be another one. "Cracker Barrel philosopher." I know what it means, but a lot of people wouldn't. So there are expressions. We wonder where they came from. Well, I have a pretty good idea where "Cracker Barrel philosopher" came from, but "shake a stick at?" Well, even ChatGPT in all its wisdom couldn't figure that one out. It gave lots of suppositions, but there are probably innumerable expressions that I have used for decades that when I think about it, I have no idea where they come from and what they actually mean.
Literal vs. Figurative Meanings
I know what they mean in a figurative sense, but their literal meaning is ridiculous. So another point is that I think because of the changes, sometimes we find we're talking to young people and we use an expression that we know and probably most of our generation would know, but the young people look blank and it becomes obvious sometimes that they didn't understand the word or what that expression or word meant, and you failed to communicate because it was not within their frame of reference.
Introduction: Language is a Living System
Language is both deeply personal and profoundly shaped by culture, time, and experience. The fluidity of language ensures that it can evolve with each new generation, adapting to changing realities while also carrying the weight of history in idioms and expressions that may no longer have literal meaning (Crystal, 2010). It’s natural to feel some nostalgia for expressions that fall out of use, especially when they carried important distinctions or rich cultural significance. However, the evolution of language is also what allows it to stay relevant, accommodating the needs and experiences of each new generation of speakers (Labov, 1994). Though there are moments of miscommunication, language ultimately serves as a bridge between people, even as it continues to change and grow.
Regional Variations and Shifts in Meaning
Even within the same language, meanings of words can vary dramatically depending on the region, social group, or individual. What’s considered "pop music" to your son may have a narrower, more specific meaning in his cultural context than what it meant to you growing up (Agha, 2007). This is not just a generational gap but also an example of how words evolve and take on new meanings over time.
This fluidity of language is particularly evident when we consider how words shift in meaning depending on social, cultural, and technological changes. A word like "mouse," for instance, once referred exclusively to the small rodent but now also commonly refers to a computer input device. Words evolve because they reflect the needs, interests, and concerns of the people who use them, which is why meanings can change from generation to generation, even within the same linguistic community (Nunberg, 2006).
Incomprehensible Variation
Beowulf
Hwæt! Wē Gār-Dena in geārdagum,
þēodcyninga, þrym gefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla oftēah,
egsode eorlas.
(Beowulf, lines 1–5)
Modern Translation (LLM AI):
"Listen! We have heard of the glory of the Spear-Danes in the old days,
the kings of tribes, and their great deeds.
How those noble princes showed their courage.
Often, Scyld Scefing tore away the mead-benches
from bands of enemies, from many nations,
terrifying warriors."
Beowulf is generally dated to around 700–1000 CE, with most scholars placing its composition between 975 and 1025 CE. The poem was likely written in Old English during the early medieval period, though it draws on much older oral traditions (Liuzza, 2013). The only surviving manuscript is from around 1000 CE, known as the Nowell Codex.
Gullah Language and Variation
Here’s a paragraph in Gullah on fishing, followed by a translation into a more mainstream dialect of American English. Gullah is a creole language spoken by the Gullah people, who live along the coastal regions of South Carolina, Georgia, and on nearby islands. It evolved during the time of slavery in the United States, blending English with elements of West and Central African languages. Gullah has its own grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary, making it distinct from standard American English, though it is based on English (Opala, 2009).
Gullah:
"Ebry mawnin, we gwi out fa fish, we tek we net an we bait. De wata deep, but we kno how fa ketch dem big fish. Sometime, we stay til de sun done set, waitin fa de fish fa bite. Wen we done, we tek de fish back home fa fry um up good."
Translation (Modern American English):
"Every morning, we go out to fish, we take our nets and bait. The water is deep, but we know how to catch those big fish. Sometimes, we stay until the sun has set, waiting for the fish to bite. When we’re finished, we take the fish back home to fry them up good."
This translation shows how Gullah maintains its unique structure and rhythm while still being understandable in a more mainstream English dialect (Jones-Jackson, 1987). The differences between Gullah and Standard American English illustrate how languages can evolve in distinct ways even when they share a common root.
Dictionaries as Snapshots of Language
Dictionaries are imprecise, reflecting the compilers' take on what words mean. This is an important point. Dictionaries aim to document how words are used at a particular time, but they are not absolute authorities on meaning (Landau, 2001). The meanings provided in a dictionary are based on research, but language is dynamic, and meanings shift more quickly than dictionaries can keep up with (Crystal, 2010).
Even dictionaries are influenced by the biases and interpretations of their compilers. For example, slang or emerging usages often take years to be included in a formal dictionary, and by the time they are, the meaning may have shifted again (Jackson & Amvela, 2007). Even more formal or "standard" words can take on new meanings as societal contexts change. This is why some people turn to descriptive linguistics, which aims to describe how language is actually used by people in different contexts, rather than prescribing "correct" usage based on fixed rules (Milroy & Milroy, 2012).
Personal Idiosyncrasies in Language Use
Sometimes using words without fully knowing their meaning is a very human experience. It’s common for people to use words based on context, without fully understanding their definition or connotations. This isn’t necessarily a problem—language is, after all, a tool we use to convey meaning, and as long as communication is effective, we don’t always need precise definitions (Labov, 1972).
However, the fact that each person has their own slightly different understanding of words—an idiosyncratic take—speaks to the complexity of language (Aitchison, 2012). Even if two people use the same word, their mental image or emotional response to that word might differ. For instance, the word "freedom" could evoke political rights for one person and emotional liberation for another (Lakoff, 1987). The same is true of countless other words. We rely on shared conventions to make language work, but these conventions are never perfect. Each person carries their own history, emotions, and experiences into their use of language, which shapes how they understand and interpret words.
The Fluidity of Language Meanings Over Time
There is a fluidity and imprecision of language that is crucial. Words do not have rigid, fixed meanings; they shift and change over time and across different contexts. This fluidity is one of the reasons language is so powerful—it can adapt to new circumstances, accommodate new concepts, and evolve with society (Crystal, 2010). However, it also makes language inherently imprecise. Words are symbols, and symbols are always open to interpretation (Saussure, 2011).
This brings us back to the idea of subjectivity in language. Since the meanings of words are shaped by personal, cultural, and historical factors, complete objectivity in language is impossible (Clark, 1996). As you mentioned, even if someone is a "dictionary addict," their understanding of words is colored by their personal experiences and mental frameworks. What a word means to you may not be exactly what it means to someone else, even if you’re both using the same dictionary definition.
Words May Have Multiple Complex Meanings
Another aspect is how words often have multiple, even contradictory, meanings depending on context. This phenomenon, known as polysemy, is one of the more complex aspects of language (Cruse, 2000). Words like “table” or “sanction” can mean the opposite of themselves depending on how they are used. In these cases, context is everything. Without understanding the specific context, it can be easy to misinterpret the meaning of the word. This is another reason why language pedants struggle—language is inherently flexible, and trying to pin down a single, "correct" meaning for every word can be impossible (Taylor, 2003). A word’s meaning is always shaped by the context in which it is used, and that context can shift depending on the situation, the speaker, or the audience.
The Importance of Context for Meaning
One of the ways we manage the fluidity and multiplicity of meanings in language is through context. The context in which a word is used often determines which of its possible meanings is intended (Duranti, 1997). For instance, when someone says, "Let’s table that discussion," the surrounding conversation and the speaker’s background help clarify whether they mean to bring it up for debate or postpone it.
Context is also key in understanding why words take on new meanings. In the digital age, terms like “cloud” and “streaming” have been redefined based on technological advancements. Without the proper context, these terms could easily be misunderstood by someone unfamiliar with these new usages (Baron, 2008).
Cultural Context and Language Meaning
Sometimes expressions seem to make no literal sense, even though we understand their figurative meaning. This often happens because language is deeply rooted in cultural practices, traditions, and contexts that may no longer be relevant. Over time, people forget the origin of an idiom, but its meaning persists (Zwicky & Zwicky, 1982). For example:
"Bite the bullet" originally referred to soldiers literally biting on a bullet during surgery in the absence of anesthesia, but today it just means to endure something painful or unpleasant (McWhorter, 2001).
"Rule of thumb" is another phrase where the original meaning (possibly referring to a craftsman’s rough measurement using the thumb) has mostly faded, but the figurative meaning—"a general principle"—remains (Mieder, 2004).
Without the historical or cultural context, these expressions lose their literal meaning, leaving only the figurative use, which can sometimes confuse younger generations or people outside the culture. This is part of what makes language so rich and dynamic but also occasionally frustrating.
Polysemy: Words with Multiple Meanings
Words that have multiple meanings, like “table” or “indictment,” are examples of polysemy—when a single word has different meanings depending on context. For instance:
"Table" can mean to bring up for discussion in one context or to set aside for future consideration in another. The meaning depends on whether you’re speaking in British English or American English, among other factors (Trask, 1999).
"Indictment" can refer to both the legal process of formally accusing someone of a crime and, in a broader sense, a strong criticism of something, like "an indictment of the education system" (Jackson & Amvela, 2007).
These types of words illustrate how language is not a fixed system but a living one, constantly shifting based on context and usage. The same word can take on seemingly opposite meanings depending on how it’s used, which can lead to confusion or miscommunication but also adds richness and flexibility to language (Taylor, 2003).
Word Evolution is a Continuous Process
Language is a living, evolving entity, and as you pointed out, its evolution is constant. Words take on new meanings as society changes, and as new technologies, cultural trends, or social movements emerge, language evolves to keep pace (Aitchison, 2012). This is why the meaning of "pop music" to your son is narrower and more specific than the way you might have understood it. The word "pop" itself has evolved in its meaning, reflecting changes in music, culture, and society (Frith, 1996).
This is a natural part of how language functions. Each generation leaves its imprint on the language, adding new words, phrases, and meanings while also discarding or transforming older ones (Crystal, 2010). What remains consistent is the process of change itself—language will always evolve to reflect the realities of those who use it (Labov, 1994).
Language is a Fluid and Personal Medium
We need to highlight the fundamentally fluid, subjective, and evolving nature of language. Whether through regional differences, personal idiosyncrasies, or the gradual shift in meanings over time, language is constantly in flux (Lakoff, 1987). Each of us interprets and uses words through our own lens, shaped by experience, context, and culture (Clark, 1996).
While shared linguistic conventions allow for communication, the imprecision and variability of language remind us that it can never be perfectly objective. This isn’t a flaw in language, but rather a feature that allows it to remain adaptable and responsive to the changing needs of society (Agha, 2007). Language is, at its core, a flexible and creative human tool, one that thrives on its ability to evolve and reflect the diverse and ever-shifting experiences of the people who use it.
Linguistic Flexibility and Adaptation is a Strength of Language
The adaptability of language is one of its greatest strengths (Crystal, 2010). While there may be temporary communication breakdowns between generations or cultural groups, people generally find ways to adapt. We explain idioms, adjust our vocabulary, or modify our speech depending on the audience. This ability to adjust and accommodate keeps language vibrant and functional. The fact that younger generations don’t always grasp older idioms isn’t a sign of language breakdown—it’s part of the natural process of linguistic renewal (Aitchison, 2001). As older expressions fall out of use, new ones take their place, reflecting the evolving culture, technology, and social dynamics of the time.
There is a Balance Between Precision and Flexibility
That said, there is a balance to be struck. While language evolution is inevitable, there is a valid concern that important distinctions can be lost when words are used carelessly or imprecisely (Pinker, 1994). The blending of "disinterested" and "uninterested" might not be a big deal in casual conversation, but in formal contexts, losing the distinction could affect how certain ideas are conveyed.
This is where linguistic prescriptivism (the idea that language should follow certain rules) and descriptivism (the idea that language evolves naturally and should be described as it is used) come into play (Cameron, 1995). Prescriptivists often argue for maintaining the original, "correct" meanings of words, while descriptivists focus on documenting how language is actually used, accepting change as part of the process (Milroy & Milroy, 2012). Both approaches have their place. Prescriptivism helps maintain clarity and precision, particularly in formal writing or technical fields, while descriptivism allows for the flexibility and adaptability that keeps language relevant and useful in everyday communication.
Language and Social Influence Causes Shifts in Word Usage
Another interesting point is how language shifts in popular culture. Lists of “misunderstood words” in magazines or on the internet often reflect both genuine linguistic shifts and the concerns of language pedants. These lists sometimes serve to raise awareness about important distinctions that are being lost, but they can also reflect a resistance to change or a desire to impose a particular standard on language that may no longer be relevant (Nunberg, 2006).
What’s often missing from these discussions is the recognition that language change is not just about individuals misunderstanding words—broader social and cultural forces also play a role (Duranti, 1997). For example, as new generations grow up with different cultural and technological experiences, they naturally reinterpret and repurpose words to fit their reality. “Pop music” means something different to your son because his experience of music is shaped by different cultural forces than yours. This doesn’t make his understanding wrong, just different. Language purists might see these changes as signs of decay, but they are, in fact, signs of linguistic vitality (Crystal, 2010). Language has always evolved alongside society, adapting to new contexts and new ways of thinking.
Language Pedants Resist Change
Language pedants often view themselves as protectors of "correct" language usage. They argue that preserving the original meanings of words maintains clarity, precision, and important distinctions in communication. In some cases, they do have a point. When words lose their precise meanings, it can lead to confusion or a loss of nuance. For instance, if "disinterested" is used to mean "uninterested," we lose a useful term that captures the idea of impartiality, which could lead to misunderstandings in contexts like law or journalism where being disinterested (impartial) is crucial (Pinker, 1994).
However, these language purists often resist the natural evolution of language, viewing it as degradation rather than adaptation. They can be overly rigid, failing to acknowledge that languages have always changed over time. Latin evolved into the Romance languages, Old English became Modern English, and so on (Trask, 1999). The evolution of language is part of its vitality and relevance. If language were fixed and unchangeable, it would become stagnant and less able to accommodate the needs of its speakers (Saussure, 2011).
Pedantic approaches to language also ignore the fact that words are not just fixed definitions in dictionaries; they are living, breathing tools that are shaped by how people use them in real life. Just because a word’s meaning shifts doesn’t mean communication is breaking down—language users often adapt to these changes seamlessly, finding new ways to convey meaning with evolving terms (Aitchison, 2012).
We Should Embrace Change with Awareness
The evolution of language is both inevitable and necessary. Words change in meaning because societies change, and language must adapt to keep up. This process is driven by new needs, misunderstandings, and shifts in cultural context (Cameron, 1995). While language pedants may resist this change in the name of clarity and precision, their efforts often fail to recognize that language is a living, dynamic system that thrives on its ability to evolve.
At the same time, it’s important to be mindful of the distinctions that can be lost in this process. Some words serve crucial roles in conveying precise meanings, and when those meanings are blurred, important nuances can disappear (Pinker, 1994). The challenge is to strike a balance between embracing the natural evolution of language and maintaining the clarity and richness that make communication effective. In the end, language is shaped not just by scholars and dictionaries but by the people who use it every day. While there will always be debates about the "correct" usage of words, the reality is that language will continue to evolve as long as people continue to speak, write, and communicate.
We Use Idiomatic Expressions and Figurative Language
Looking at idiomatic expressions, we note that they are a fascinating part of language. Idioms like "shake a stick at" or "Cracker Barrel philosopher" are examples of how language can retain phrases that, when taken literally, make no sense, yet convey a clear meaning in their figurative use (McWhorter, 2001).
Idioms as Fossils of Language: Many idioms are remnants of older forms of speech or cultural practices that have fallen out of use, making their literal meanings hard to decipher today. The phrase "shake a stick at" is one of those idioms where even historical linguists can only speculate about its origins. It likely stems from an older cultural context in which shaking a stick may have been a gesture of authority, or perhaps it referred to counting things (as in shaking a stick at something too numerous to count) (Mieder, 2004). Regardless of its literal origins, the meaning has solidified as "more than can be easily managed" or "a large number of something."
Cracker Barrel Philosopher: This expression has clearer roots. The image of the Cracker Barrel comes from country stores in the 19th and early 20th centuries where people would gather around barrels of crackers to talk and share opinions (Bryson, 1990). A “Cracker Barrel philosopher” refers to someone offering homespun wisdom or folksy advice, often without the formal education of an academic philosopher. It captures a specific cultural and historical context that isn’t widely known today, making it one of those expressions that can easily get lost on younger generations.
What’s important with idioms is that they survive because of their figurative meaning, not because people understand their literal origin. This makes them particularly vulnerable to being misunderstood by younger people or those outside the cultural context in which they originated (Zwicky & Zwicky, 1982). The figurative meaning is often retained long after the literal meaning has faded into obscurity, which can result in expressions that are difficult to decode for those unfamiliar with them.
Language Evolution is Driven by New Needs and Misunderstandings
Language evolves in response to new needs. As societies change and new concepts, technologies, and cultural phenomena emerge, we need new words or shifts in meaning to describe these changes. For example, with the rise of the internet and digital communication, words like "tweet" and "cloud" have taken on entirely new meanings. This kind of evolution is organic and reflects how adaptable language is (Crystal, 2010).
Language also changes through misunderstanding or misuse. People often use words imprecisely or without fully grasping their original meanings, leading to a gradual shift in how the word is understood by the general population (Nunberg, 2006). Words like "disinterested" and "uninterested" are classic examples of this. Historically, "disinterested" meant impartial or unbiased, while "uninterested" meant not caring or lacking interest. Over time, the two have become largely synonymous in casual speech, which results in the loss of an important distinction (Pinker, 1994).
This process is often unconscious. People hear words used in certain ways, adopt those usages, and contribute to the change in meaning without realizing it. Over time, as more people use a word in the same "incorrect" way, the new meaning can become dominant, even if it differs from the word’s original or technical definition (Aitchison, 2012).
There are Generational Gaps in Language Understanding
Thinking about younger people not understanding older expressions highlights another key part of how language evolves. As new generations grow up with their own set of idioms, slang, and cultural references, older phrases often fall out of common use. This can create a communication gap between generations, where what seems like a familiar expression to one group is utterly alien to another (Milroy & Milroy, 2012).
This isn’t just about idioms; it’s also about cultural references. Older generations might refer to things like rotary phones or vinyl records in everyday speech, while younger people raised on smartphones and streaming services might not fully understand these references. Similarly, older idioms can seem out of place or even nonsensical to younger speakers who aren’t familiar with the cultural context from which the expressions arose (Baron, 2008).
Youth are Agents of Language Change
Language changes may be driven, in part, by younger generations, and this is actually supported by linguistic research. Young people, especially teenagers and young adults, are often at the forefront of language change. This happens for a few reasons:
Experimentation and Creativity: Young people are more likely to experiment with language, creating new words, slang, or repurposing existing words to fit new contexts. They may not always have the full vocabulary to express what they mean, so they create novel ways of communicating (Agha, 2007).
Social Identity: Language is also a marker of social identity, and young people often develop their own linguistic trends to distinguish themselves from older generations. This is one reason why slang tends to be generation-specific. What might seem like a misunderstanding of language is often an intentional or creative modification (Labov, 1972).
Mistakes Leading to Change: Sometimes, language changes do result from misunderstandings. A word or phrase may be used incorrectly by younger speakers, but over time, this "incorrect" usage can become accepted as the new norm. This process is known as semantic drift, and it happens with both individual words and expressions (Trask, 1999).
For example, words like "literally" have shifted in meaning for younger generations. While it originally meant "in a literal sense," many now use it to mean "figuratively" for emphasis, as in "I literally died laughing." While this shift frustrates language purists, it demonstrates how the meanings of words can evolve through new generational usage (McWhorter, 2001).
Communication Gaps Across Generations
The failure to communicate across generations is a natural consequence of language evolution. As older expressions fade and new slang or idioms emerge, each generation ends up with its own linguistic toolkit. This is why young people might look blank when hearing an expression like "shake a stick at"—it’s simply outside their linguistic experience. They might even come up with their own creative expressions that older generations don’t understand, continuing the cycle (Aitchison, 2012).
This generational gap isn’t just about literal meanings—it’s about the shared cultural knowledge that underpins language. Younger people might not understand certain references because they aren’t familiar with the experiences or cultural context in which those references developed. Conversely, older people might find new slang confusing because it comes from cultural experiences or technological trends they haven’t fully engaged with (Pinker, 1994).
Summary
This essay explores the dynamic nature of language, focusing on how words, idioms, and expressions evolve over time in response to cultural, societal, and technological changes. The essay discusses idiomatic expressions, such as "shake a stick at" and "Cracker Barrel philosopher," emphasizing how their figurative meanings endure even when their literal origins become obscure. Idioms are portrayed as linguistic fossils that persist due to their usage, despite being difficult to interpret for younger generations unfamiliar with their historical context.
The essay also highlights how language evolves to meet new needs, particularly with technological advancements that bring about shifts in word meanings, as seen in terms like "tweet" and "cloud." These changes are not just driven by innovation but also by misunderstandings and misuse, which can eventually lead to new accepted meanings for words, such as the blending of "disinterested" and "uninterested." This process of language change is often unconscious but reflects the adaptability and flexibility of human communication.
A key theme is the generational gap in language understanding, where older phrases and cultural references may seem alien to younger speakers. Each generation brings its own set of idioms and slang, creating natural communication challenges across age groups. Younger people, in particular, are often at the forefront of language change, contributing new slang, repurposing existing words, and driving what linguists call "semantic drift."
The essay concludes that while there is tension between those who embrace language change and those who resist it, this evolution is a natural and essential part of keeping language vibrant. The challenge is to balance flexibility with precision, ensuring that important distinctions in meaning are not lost as language continues to adapt to the needs of its speakers.
References
Note: These references have not been vetted yet as to existence and relevance. Historically, there will be a typically small percentage that cannot be found via search engine for various reasons. ChatGPT can tell an exellent story. According to ChatGPT: “No failures were found in terms of existence, accuracy of title, author, date, publication, or relevance to the essay. All references appear accurate and relevant.” However, providing accurate references is not a strong suite for the LLM AI.
Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Agha is a professor of linguistic anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. His work bridges the gap between language and social identity, focusing on how linguistic practices reflect and shape social relations. In Language and Social Relations, Agha examines the role of language in constructing social hierarchies, with an emphasis on how different ways of speaking are associated with various social identities. His work is highly regarded for its nuanced exploration of linguistic anthropology.)
Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change: Progress or decay? (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Aitchison is an esteemed British linguist who has written extensively on language evolution, linguistic theory, and psycholinguistics. In Language Change: Progress or Decay?, she presents an accessible yet scholarly exploration of why languages change over time, addressing key issues such as whether such changes signify linguistic decay or progress. Her work also investigates societal attitudes toward language change and offers insight into historical shifts in language structure.)
Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
(Note: This seminal work by Aitchison explores how words are stored, organized, and retrieved in the mind, providing an in-depth look at the mental lexicon. It also addresses language acquisition and the ways in which word meanings are structured and accessed. Aitchison’s contribution to psycholinguistics is substantial, and Words in the Mind is a core text for those studying language processing and language acquisition.)
Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford University Press.
(Note: Naomi S. Baron is a linguist and professor of linguistics at American University. In Always On, she examines the impact of digital communication on language use, focusing on how texting, instant messaging, and social media have influenced communication patterns, grammar, and social interaction. Her work provides insights into the shifting landscape of digital language use and its long-term implications for linguistic evolution.)
Bryson, B. (1990). The mother tongue: English and how it got that way. HarperCollins.
(Note: Bill Bryson, a well-known author and journalist, takes a humorous and informative look at the history of the English language. While Bryson is not a professional linguist, his writing is lauded for its ability to present complex linguistic concepts in an engaging, accessible manner. The Mother Tongue explores the origins of English, its eccentricities, and its global evolution, making it a popular work among general readers.)
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. Routledge.
(Note: Deborah Cameron is a feminist linguist and professor of language and communication at the University of Oxford. Verbal Hygiene explores societal attitudes toward language use, critiquing the ways in which prescriptive language norms are imposed, particularly in relation to gender and power. Cameron is known for her work on sociolinguistics, language ideology, and gender studies, and this book is a key text in understanding how language 'clean-up' efforts reflect broader societal values.)
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Herbert H. Clark is a professor of psychology and linguistics at Stanford University, known for his contributions to pragmatics and language use. Using Language explores how people use language in real-time communication, focusing on how context, shared knowledge, and collaboration influence understanding. Clark’s work is foundational in the study of discourse and conversational analysis.)
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
(Note: David Cruse is a prominent figure in the study of semantics and pragmatics. His book provides a comprehensive overview of how meaning is derived in language, addressing both word-level semantics and the role of context in interpretation. Meaning in Language is widely regarded as an essential text for students and researchers in the fields of semantics, pragmatics, and linguistic theory.)
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
(Note: David Crystal is one of the world’s foremost authorities on linguistics and has written extensively on language history, language acquisition, and sociolinguistics. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language is an exhaustive reference work covering all aspects of language, including its structure, development, diversity, and the role of language in society. This edition incorporates recent linguistic developments, making it an essential resource for anyone studying language.)
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Alessandro Duranti is a leading figure in linguistic anthropology, with a focus on how language and culture intersect. In Linguistic Anthropology, Duranti presents an in-depth analysis of language as a cultural practice, with chapters dedicated to the ways in which language reflects and shapes social relationships. This book is a cornerstone in the field of linguistic anthropology and is used widely in academic courses on the subject.)
Frith, S. (1996). Performing rites: On the value of popular music. Harvard University Press.
(Note: Simon Frith is a sociologist and musicologist, known for his influential work on popular music and culture. In Performing Rites, Frith explores the social and cultural value of music, focusing on how performance and audience interaction influence perceptions of music’s meaning. His interdisciplinary approach blends sociology, musicology, and cultural studies, offering an insightful analysis of popular music in contemporary society.)
Jackson, H., & Amvela, E. Z. (2007). Words, meaning, and vocabulary: An introduction to modern English lexicology. Continuum.
(Note: Howard Jackson and Etienne Zé Amvela are linguists who specialize in the study of vocabulary and word formation in modern English. Their work Words, Meaning, and Vocabulary provides a detailed exploration of how words are structured and how meaning is constructed in English, making it a fundamental text for those interested in English lexicology.)
Jones-Jackson, P. (1987). Gullah: A linguistic history. University of Tennessee Press.
(Note: Patricia Jones-Jackson was a linguist and expert on the Gullah language and culture. Gullah: A Linguistic History delves into the origins, structure, and cultural significance of the Gullah language, which evolved among African American communities in the southeastern United States. This work is an essential contribution to the study of African American Vernacular English and creole languages.)
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
(Note: William Labov is widely regarded as the founder of modern sociolinguistics. His groundbreaking work Sociolinguistic Patterns examines how language varies based on social factors such as class, ethnicity, and geography. Labov’s research has had a profound impact on our understanding of language in society, and his work remains foundational in the field.)
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors (Vol. 1). Wiley-Blackwell.
(Note: This is one of Labov’s major works, focusing on the internal, structural factors that drive language change. It is part of a broader series that also addresses social factors in language evolution. Labov’s in-depth analysis provides insight into the mechanisms of language variation and change over time.)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
(Note: George Lakoff is a cognitive linguist known for his work on metaphor and conceptual frameworks. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things is a seminal work in cognitive linguistics, exploring how categorization reflects deep-seated cognitive structures. Lakoff’s theory of conceptual metaphors has been highly influential in both linguistics and cognitive science.)
Landau, S. (2001). Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Sidney Landau is an expert in lexicography, the art of dictionary-making. Dictionaries provides an insider’s perspective on how dictionaries are compiled, explaining the challenges of defining words, managing usage changes, and balancing prescriptive and descriptive approaches. This work is invaluable for understanding the complexities of dictionary compilation.)
Liuzza, R. M. (2013). Beowulf: A new verse translation. Broadview Press.
(Note: R. M. Liuzza is a scholar of Old English and medieval literature. His translation of Beowulf is praised for its accuracy and readability, providing modern readers with access to one of the oldest epic poems in English literature. This work includes extensive annotations and scholarly commentary, making it a valuable resource for students of Old English.)
McWhorter, J. H. (2001). The power of Babel: A natural history of language. Henry Holt and Company.
(Note: John H. McWhorter is a linguist specializing in language history and creoles. The Power of Babel traces the history and development of human languages, explaining how languages evolve, split, and die. McWhorter’s work is well-regarded for its clarity and engaging narrative style, making complex linguistic concepts accessible to a general audience.)
Mieder, W. (2004). Popular proverbs and sayings. Greenwood Publishing Group.
(Note: Wolfgang Mieder is a folklorist and leading authority on proverbs and idiomatic expressions. Popular Proverbs and Sayings provides an exhaustive collection of commonly used proverbs, offering detailed explanations of their origins, meanings, and cultural significance. Mieder’s work is essential for anyone studying folklore or idiomatic language.)
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). Routledge.
(Note: James and Lesley Milroy are noted sociolinguists who focus on language variation and standardization. In Authority in Language, they critique the concept of "standard English" and explore the social and political forces behind prescriptive language norms. Their work is influential in debates about language authority and linguistic inequality.)
Nunberg, G. (2006). Talking right: How conservatives turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show. PublicAffairs.
(Note: Geoffrey Nunberg was a linguist and political commentator known for his work on language and politics. Talking Right explores how language has been used to shape political discourse in the United States, particularly in framing liberalism and conservatism. Nunberg’s insights into the power of language in political rhetoric have made this work a significant contribution to political linguistics.)
Opala, J. (2009). The Gullah: Rice, slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American connection. South Carolina Historical Society.
(Note: Joseph Opala is a historian and anthropologist known for his work on the Gullah people and their African roots. This book explores the connections between the Gullah culture in the United States and the West African nation of Sierra Leone, emphasizing historical ties related to the transatlantic slave trade. Opala’s research is crucial to understanding the cultural preservation of African traditions in America.)
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
(Note: Steven Pinker is a cognitive scientist and linguist, widely known for his work on language acquisition and cognitive psychology. The Language Instinct argues that humans have an innate capacity for language, shaped by evolutionary forces. Pinker’s work has been highly influential in cognitive science, and this book remains a key text for understanding the biological basis of language.)
Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1916)
(Note: Ferdinand de Saussure is often considered the father of modern linguistics. Course in General Linguistics laid the foundation for many linguistic theories, particularly structuralism, and semiotics. His work focuses on the relationship between language and meaning, the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign, and the synchronic and diachronic study of languages.)
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford University Press.
(Note: John R. Taylor is a cognitive linguist whose work focuses on the phenomenon of polysemy—when a single word has multiple meanings. In Polysemy, Taylor examines how context influences word meaning and explores computational models for processing polysemous words. His work is essential for understanding the complexity of lexical semantics.)
Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. Routledge.
(Note: R. L. Trask was a linguist and historian of language, specializing in historical linguistics and language change. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics is a glossary of terms central to the study of language, offering clear and concise definitions. Trask’s contributions to the understanding of language evolution and historical linguistics are widely respected.)
Zwicky, A. M., & Zwicky, A. (1982). Introduction to the theory of language. Cambridge University Press.
(Note: Arnold M. Zwicky is a linguist known for his work in syntax, morphology, and sociolinguistics. This book, co-authored with Ann Zwicky, provides an accessible introduction to linguistic theory, covering key concepts such as syntax, semantics, and phonology. The Zwickys’ work has been influential in the development of linguistic theory, particularly in the study of idiomatic and figurative language.)