More generally, it's likely incorrect to presume that language has an explicit drive toward being easier. Rather, there are tangible forces at play that result in it generally being easier, but not always (e.g., nope).
"Easier" language certainly isn't the goal with Cockney Rhyming Slang. Nor is it the point with Pig Latin or with many rap/urban slang terms. In this last case, as far as I can tell (and I've never made a study other than anecdotal) the culture of Hip Hop and it's correlating language structure is consistently an effort to be "cool" and creative beyond the "norm".
******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama
Is nope really an exact synonym to no? Maybe the intention is to add some finality to the pronouncement; as the author says, the addition of the plosive finishes the word off nicely.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Finally, an article about a language feature in a main-stream medium written by a linguist. @arnie: he does write about the syntactic context in which nope is used (i.e., by itself) and that it is emphatic and final.
I also, like how he just offered some possible explanations and ignored the usual deprecations that accompanies an article about language change. Refreshing.
