Language and Design Culpability

Reading this article I was yet again stuck wondering what it had to do with Communication Design, but yet again, was surprised at how well it fit, the writer first going into what linguistics was and how it differed from other scientific ventures, defined language and then moved onto the main topic which was the abstraction and nature of language.
The writer makes clear, spoken language is only one small part of a wider whole that is language, where we take certain things, assign meanings, and then communicate them, a physical process by someone takes note of a physical phenomenon and attaches meaning. The writer makes clear, the relationship between the physical sounds and the meaning that the receiving party pulls from them is completely arbitrary, the idea of a car, and the signs and sounds associated that we use to communicate the idea of a car, are not the same.
How does this relate to design? In the recommended class book “Graphic Design Theory” as designers we collectively, through the universality and remixability of design, play an integral role in what signs and symbols are associated with such and such a meaning, part of our responsibility might be to safeguard language, as it is produced on a massive scale, cheaply, though we often claim no authorship, still play an active role in creating the environment that the author states will be inherited by the next generation to then pass on and build upon themselves.
A clear question arises from this of course, how can one without authorship truly be a steward over their career? Is the lack of an individual mark jeopardizing our language, since we can remain anonymous, and not own up to the work we do and are a part of? I don’t mean to be over-the-top, would the “detached neutrality of the International Style” promote disregard for social responsibility?