Like, Literally, Dude

1. Language Change is Natural, Not Decay

Language change is natural, built into the language system itself, and not just a way for teenagers to torture their parents.

Evolution is constant. English, like all living languages, is in a perpetual state of flux. The language spoken today is vastly different from Old English (like in Beowulf), which is unintelligible to modern speakers. This transformation isn't a decline but a healthy progression, shedding complex systems (like Old English endings) and adapting to new social and linguistic pressures.

Historical shifts. Major changes occurred between Old and Middle English periods, influenced by languages like Old Norse, Latin, and Norman French. These influences weakened stress patterns, leading to the loss of many grammatical endings. This historical perspective shows that the changes we observe today are minor compared to the radical restructuring English has undergone in the past.

Inevitability of change. New forms and features emerge with every generation, whether seen as useful (googling, tweeting) or annoying (um, like). These innovations are an inherent part of the language system, driven by underlying cognitive and articulatory forces interacting with social triggers. Understanding this natural process helps explain why language resists static rules.

2. Prescriptive Grammar is Social, Not Inherent

These ideas about what is “right” and what is “wrong” were very much influenced by who was steering English as it emerged from the shadow of classical languages.

Rules are preferences. Much of what we consider "grammar rules" were established in the eighteenth century by those seeking to codify English usage, often based on Latin models and the speech of the upper class. These standards were externally imposed social preferences, not inherent linguistic principles, designed to transmit language across time and space.

Historical context. In earlier periods, English was less constrained by top-down regulation. Latin and French held prestige, leaving English free to evolve organically. The rise of London's dialect and the printing press in the fifteenth century began the move towards standardization, but it wasn't until the eighteenth century that usage guides and dictionaries solidified prescriptive norms.

Spoken vs. written. Our understanding of "correctness" is often skewed by prioritizing written language over spoken language. Spoken English follows its own internal grammar, shaped by psychological, social, and historical influences, not just the rules drilled in school. Features like ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting infinitives don't violate linguistic rules, only socially inscribed ones.

3. "Bad" English Often Has Surprising Historical Roots

The reality is that we are all the products of centuries of similar linguistic innovations, but we were just not witness to the process as we are with the current crop du jour of speech habits people are talking about.

Continuity in change. Many linguistic features criticized today have surprising historical precedents. What seems like a modern "tic" is often a continuation or re-emergence of patterns that existed centuries ago. We only notice and judge them now because we are witnessing their spread in real-time.

Examples of historical patterns:

• Consonant deletion (like in "handsome" or "often") has been happening since the fifteenth century.
• Adding sounds for ease of pronunciation (like the 'p' in "hampster") is a natural tendency.
• The alternation between -in' and -ing pronunciation echoes a historical distinction between noun and verb suffixes in Old English.
• Figurative use of words like "literally" dates back centuries, used by esteemed authors like Jane Austen and Mark Twain.

Perspective matters. Living only in our modern linguistic moment prevents us from seeing the long history of change. Features that are now commonplace and accepted were once bemoaned as evidence of English's decay. The difference between accepted norms and criticized innovations is often just a matter of time and perspective.

4. Social Forces Drive Language Evolution

The difference between the features we embrace and those we can’t tolerate is really just one of power and perspective.

Beyond grammar. Language change isn't random; it's driven by a mix of internal linguistic pressures and powerful social forces. Factors like imperialism, urbanization, migration, social upheaval, class struggles, gender norms, and generational gaps all play a role.

Social stratification. The way people speak is often used as a gauge of social standing. Historically, upper-class speech formed the basis of standard English, while vernacular forms were devalued. However, lower-status speakers often lead linguistic innovation, less bound by prescriptive norms and more attuned to using language for social connection.

Identity and belonging. Speech habits help craft social identities and signal group membership. Using certain features can communicate authenticity, camaraderie, or rebellion. This is why politicians adopt folksy terms or why subcultures develop unique slang – language is a tool for building connection and expressing who you are.

5. Young Women Lead Linguistic Innovation

Sounding like a girl, it seems, is pretty much the pinnacle of linguistic achievement.

Vanguard of change. Contrary to stereotypes, young people, particularly young women, are often the primary drivers of linguistic change. While boys may adopt more noticeable nonstandard forms, girls tend to be at the forefront of introducing subtle innovations that eventually become new norms.

Historical pattern. This pattern isn't new. Studies of language change across centuries and different languages show women consistently leading the adoption of new forms. Examples include shifts in verb endings or the rise of new grammatical constructions.

Social sensitivity. Young women appear highly sensitive to subtle linguistic variations and their potential for crafting social identities. They navigate complex social expectations, sometimes adopting features associated with higher status and other times using novel forms that appeal to their peer group, laying the groundwork for future linguistic norms.

6. Filled Pauses (Um, Uh) Are Functional Communication Aids

The halting ums and hesitant uhs that pop into our pauses are absent from Alexa’s text-to-speech-based delivery.

More than just hesitation. Often seen as signs of disfluency or lack of preparation, filled pauses like "um" and "uh" are actually functional linguistic units. They are nearly universal across languages and serve purposes beyond simply filling silence.

Cognitive and communicative roles:

• Signal speech planning difficulties or searching for words.
• Buy the speaker time while holding the conversational floor.
• Alert listeners that something less predictable or more complex is coming.
• Help listeners anticipate upcoming words or integrate new information more easily.
• Can even improve listener memory and processing speed.

Social nuances. While men tend to use "uh" more, "um" is increasing, particularly among younger speakers and women. In writing, "um" and "uh" are used stylistically to convey hesitation, sarcasm, or delicate phrasing, showing their evolution beyond simple vocalizations.

7. Discourse Markers (Like, So) Add Pragmatic Meaning

Without them, our speech would sound less conversational and more computer-like.

Beyond literal meaning. Words like "like," "so," "you know," and "actually" function as discourse markers. They don't contribute directly to the semantic content of a sentence but provide crucial clues about a speaker's intentions, attitude, or how the information should be interpreted.

Historical presence. Discourse markers are not a modern phenomenon. English has used them for centuries (e.g., Old English hwæt or þa). Their forms change over time, but their function of organizing talk and managing interaction persists.

Functions of "like":

• Approximating marker: Indicates imprecision or estimation ("like ten hours").
• Focuser: Highlights a particular aspect of a sentence ("She's, like, one of the popular girls").
• Quotative verb: Introduces reported speech or thought ("I was like, 'I can't stand it!'").

Despite criticism, these markers are essential for natural, conversational speech, adding nuance and helping speakers connect with listeners.

8. Vernacular Features (Dude, -in') Build Identity and Solidarity

The power of using slang features comes from the streetwise currency they provide, which is what attracted boys to their use in the first place.

Social signaling. Features often labeled as "sloppy" or "uneducated," like the -in' pronunciation of -ing or the use of "dude," carry significant social meaning. They are stylistic choices that communicate aspects of identity, social standing, and group affiliation.

-in' vs. -ing: The alternation between these pronunciations is not random. -in' is more common in progressive verb forms ("They were dancin'") and is strongly associated with informality, masculinity, and working-class identity. It echoes a historical linguistic pattern and serves as a marker of solidarity.

The evolution of "dude": Originally a nineteenth-century insult for an effeminate dandy, "dude" transformed through subcultures (African American zoot-suiters, surfers) to become a term of laid-back masculine solidarity. Today, it's a multifunctional term of address, commiseration, or exclamation, increasingly used by women too, signaling cool camaraderie.

9. Intensifiers (Literally, Very) Constantly Evolve for Expressiveness

Our thirst for novel ways of expressing intensity has never been easily quenched, and grammarian efforts are often too little, too late.

Boosting expression. Intensifiers like "really," "so," "totally," and "literally" amplify adjectives and adverbs, adding emotional punch and emphasizing degree. They are vital for conveying the depth of our experiences and feelings.

Semantic bleaching. Intensifiers often originate from adverbs of manner (like "horribly" or "literally") whose literal meaning weakens over time until only their boosting capacity remains. This process of delexification is constant and affects countless words.

Historical turnover. The set of popular intensifiers changes rapidly across centuries. Old English used swiþe, followed by "full," "well," "right," and "pretty." "Very" had the longest run, but "really" has largely supplanted it in modern spoken English, with "so," "totally," and others gaining ground. This continuous innovation is driven by the need for fresh ways to express strong feelings.

10. Voice Qualities (Vocal Fry, Pitch) Face Social Judgment

The fact that the ones talking are women, not the voice quality, that damns young women in the workplace from the get-go.

Beyond acoustics. Voice qualities like pitch and vocal fry (creaky voice) are often judged socially, reflecting cultural stereotypes rather than inherent unpleasantness or pathology. These judgments disproportionately target women.

Historical bias. Women's voices have been policed for centuries, cautioned against being too loud, high-pitched, or talkative in public spheres. This historical bias continues today, with features associated with women's voices (like vocal fry or uptalk) facing intense criticism.

Vocal fry: This low-pitch vocalization is not new or exclusive to women, appearing in men's speech historically and currently. However, it has become demonized as a "female tic," despite research showing it can be perceived as authoritative or confident, and its use may be a strategy for women to adopt a lower-pitch style often associated with dominance in professional settings.

11. Pronouns (They) Adapt to Reflect Social Change

Language change is part and parcel of social change, dynamically reflecting it and fueling it at the same time, so it should be no surprise that as we have become more gender aware, changes to our pronouns—from including she with he or introducing they—have arrived alongside.

Evolution of pronouns. English pronouns have changed significantly over time. The third-person plural "they" was inherited from Old Norse, replacing confusing Old English forms. Singular "they," used generically for nonspecific antecedents ("Everyone loves their mother"), has been in use for about 700 years, despite prescriptive attempts to enforce generic "he."

Meeting new needs. The recent rise of singular "they" to refer to specific nonbinary individuals is a linguistic adaptation driven by social change. It provides a necessary term for those whose gender identity falls outside the traditional male/female binary, offering visibility and affirmation.

Resistance and acceptance. Like past pronoun shifts (e.g., the move from "thou" to "you"), the expansion of singular "they" faces resistance, often framed as grammatical incorrectness. However, its increasing use, particularly among younger generations and in formal style guides, suggests it is becoming a widely accepted part of the language, demonstrating language's capacity to evolve for inclusivity.

12. Linguistic Variation is a Strength, Not a Weakness

By eradicating the very thing that allows us a range of social expression—that renders visible our similarities as well as our differences—we lose much more than we would gain.

Diversity is valuable. The variations in how we speak are not flaws but powerful tools for social expression. They allow us to build identities, signal group membership, convey nuance, and connect with others on different levels. Eliminating variation would strip language of much of its richness and social function.

Beyond judgment. Our tendency to judge linguistic differences often stems from biases related to nationality, ethnicity, class, or gender. These judgments are rarely based on linguistic merit but on who is speaking and the social status associated with their group.

Appreciating innovation. The features we criticize today are often the linguistic innovations of tomorrow. They emerge from the dynamic interplay of linguistic principles and social forces, driven by speakers on the edges who push boundaries. Understanding this history fosters appreciation for the adaptive, creative nature of language and its speakers.

Last updated: May 19, 2025