Was there ever a generation that didn’t bemoan the ‘decline’ of their language? In recent times, blame has been apportioned to everything from globalisation to social media, but for centuries, historical documents show that people have railed against what they see as negative influences on the language they feel they own. Today, arguments range from improper grammar usage to emojis removing the need for written language; but the argument that comes up time and again is related to the internet, which, for some, has created a ‘dumbing down’ of English, resulting in a ‘simpler’ language with more slang.

There is little need for such concern. Clinging to grammatical forms and lexis that are falling out of fashion with the aim of preserving language is an endeavour we can only fail at. Change is inevitable in all things, and despite some people’s consternation, this is something to celebrate rather than grieve. We cannot hold back the relentless march of time that affects everything in life, and nor should we. Change is neither inherently good nor bad, but simply an inescapable part of life, and one that it makes more sense to embrace than reject. It is an opportunity for growth and learning, and why shouldn’t this be the case when it comes to language, too? No language escapes it, after all.

All languages evolve, as the world around us does. For example, the emergence of new technologies has prompted the coining of words and phrases. Along with every new concept comes a new expression: things like ‘in the cloud’, ‘live streaming’ and ‘screen time’ would have left people scratching their heads, bemused, only a couple of decades ago. Of course, words drop out of use all the time, too: think of ‘fax machines’, ‘the Walkman’ and ‘rolling down’ the car window. We’re happy to acknowledge that technology is advancing, but if language keeps pace with its development, how can language be declining? Are those who consider language to be deteriorating the same as those who favour pens and paper over electronic devices?

Language prescriptivists are concerned with ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ usages of language, and believe that rules are important. Whilst this stance has long been abandoned by descriptivist linguists, who prefer to describe language as it is, rather than as it should be, non-academic prescriptivists feel they have a valid point to make about language standards: without them, they claim, we wouldn’t be able to understand each other. While it’s fair to say that some grammatical rules are required to aid both teachers and learners, these, too, adapt over time. Consider the somewhat controversial English word ‘ain’t’, a version of am not / is not / are not / has not / have not. Now considered non-standard and informal – and disliked by traditional grammarians despite its widespread use – ‘ain’t’ was once a form used by renowned authors and heard widely across all regions and social classes.

There are many kinds of language change. Meanings change: ‘nice’ once meant foolish or idiotic. Nouns have become verbs: the use of the word ‘party’ was once restricted to social events or celebrations that were to be attended; now people ‘party all weekend’. The same goes for proper nouns: we now ‘google’ something instead of searching for something on Google; athletes ‘podium’ when they win a medal, rather than getting onto the podium to receive it; and we ‘action’ our emails whereas once we might have taken action. Like it or lump it, they’re here to stay – for a time at least. Shakespeare, the renowned 16th-century English playwright, read and revered around the world, coined hundreds of words, many of which are still very much in use today. Interestingly, even those who loudly protest against language change uphold Shakespeare as one of the most accomplished playwrights of all time. Had they lived when Shakespeare was at his peak, they may well have shaken their heads in dismay at such arrogance.

As we adapt to new concepts, our language does, too, and we should view it to be as flexible, alive and ever-evolving as those who use it.