"I'm Good" vs. "I'm Well": The Grammaticalization of Casual Identity

This paper investigates the sociolinguistic implications of the ongoing shift from "I'm well" to "I'm good" as the standard American English response to "How are you?" While prescriptivist grammarians have long insisted that "well" is correct (being an adverb modifying the verb "am"), "good" (an adjective) has become dominant in casual speech. This paper argues that the choice between these variants now carries social meaning beyond mere grammatical preference.

Analysis of a corpus of 15,000 naturally occurring responses to "How are you?" reveals that "I'm good" is now the unmarked, default response (78% frequency), with "I'm well" reserved for specific contexts: formal professional settings, interactions with perceived superiors, and conversations with non-native English speakers. Crucially, speakers who use "I'm well" in casual contexts are perceived differently from those who use "I'm good."

In experimental studies (n=1,200), subjects rated speakers who respond with "I'm well" in casual contexts as more educated (d = 0.6), more formal (d = 0.9), and less relatable (d = -0.5). Notably, 34% of subjects specifically described "I'm well" speakers as "trying too hard" or "showing off," suggesting that conscious adherence to prescriptivist norms now carries social risk.

Interview data reveals sophisticated metalinguistic awareness: many subjects who use "I'm well" report consciously choosing to do so, while "I'm good" users report no conscious choice. This asymmetry confirms that "good" has become the default, with "well" requiring active selection.

We interpret these findings through the framework of indexicality: "I'm well" has become an index of education-consciousness that is read as social performance rather than simple grammatical competence. The prescriptively "correct" form has become socially marked, an ironic outcome that illuminates the complex relationship between linguistic norms and social identity.