A world where words wield power and every hashtag tells a story—welcome to the exploration of slang on Twitter.
Exploring the intricate dance between language, identity, and culture, this study delves into the phenomenon of linguistic appropriation on Twitter. Focusing on the adoption of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) by non-Black individuals, particularly white working-class Twitter users, we uncover patterns that illuminate the dynamics of identity formation in digital spaces. Through analysis of tweets from Black Drag Queens and white Twitter users, we dissect linguistic elements such as phonetics, word choice, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture of language use, shedding light on the motivations behind linguistic appropriation and its implications for cultural dynamics and societal norms.
In today’s digital age, social media platforms like Twitter serve as microcosms of linguistic diversity, offering insights into how language is used and appropriated across different communities. Our study zooms in on the use of slang, particularly AAVE, among Black Drag Queens and white working-class Twitter users. The origin of these slangs has been falsified for many years, as many in the linguistic community believed working-class men were the main group who created/implemented AAVE. As seen by the UMASS research group, “early work on AAE perpetuated myths that the language variety was uniform across regions and that it was spoken primarily by working-class men, due to being conducted in inner city areas and examining a specific set of linguistic features” (Masis 2023). These myths have only further fueled the fire that is cultural appropriation, specifically in regards to AAVE slang which are primarily used and created by the Black Drag Queen Community. By examining linguistic patterns, we aim to address the appropriation and misuse of AAVE by non-Black individuals, highlighting its impact on cultural dynamics and identity formation. This research builds upon existing literature in linguistic anthropology, which underscores the need to recognize and honor the origins of linguistic expressions while promoting mindfulness regarding their impact on marginalized communities.
Methods
We employed two primary methods for data collection: identifying key accounts and leveraging hashtags and trends related to drag culture and AAVE. By focusing on tweets from Black Drag Queens and white Twitter users, we analyzed linguistic elements such as phonetics, word choice, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Our analysis aimed to uncover patterns of linguistic appropriation and identity formation within digital environments.
Results
Our analysis revealed a discernible trend wherein white Twitter users demonstrate a propensity to adopt and replicate the linguistic style characteristic of Black Drag Queen Twitter users. Analyzing Tweets by white, middle-class men and Black Drag Queens helped us understand the misuses of AAVE efficiently. A white man used the words “Yo this is bussin” in a tweet and a famous phrase that originates in African communities non-individuals from communities using AAVE is cultural appropriation. Linguistic analysis allows us to understand when words are being used as cultural appropriation.
Discussion
While Black Drag Queens employ AAVE as an intrinsic component of their everyday discourse, white users often utilize it as a means to cultivate an alternative dimension of their identity primarily manifesting within the online realm of Twitter. Examples such as the use of “ass” as a postpositive particle and the alteration of “with” to “wit” exemplify this linguistic appropriation.
Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between language, identity, and culture in digital spaces. By uncovering patterns of linguistic appropriation, we shed light on the motivations behind the adoption of AAVE by non-Black individuals and its implications for cultural dynamics. This research underscores the need for individuals to be mindful of the impact of their language on marginalized communities and to respect cultural heritage and contributions. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of recognizing and honoring the origins of linguistic expressions while promoting inclusive and respectful communication practices.
This study draws inspiration from literature in linguistic anthropology, which emphasizes the role of language in shaping cultural dynamics and identity formation. Scholars have long discussed the appropriation and misuse of AAVE by non-Black individuals, highlighting its perpetuation of harmful stereotypes and inequalities. According to the UMASS research group, led by Tessa Masis, “Our results show that, contrary to sociolinguistic myths of uniformity, there is clear variation in AAE across both geographic and social dimensions (Masis 2023).”
By building upon this literature, our research offers a nuanced analysis of linguistic appropriation on Twitter, providing insights into the motivations and implications of language use in digital environments. In the ever-evolving landscape of digital communication, the exploration of slang on Twitter serves as a window into the complexities of language, identity, and culture. Through our research, we invite readers to delve deeper into the nuances of linguistic appropriation, fostering a deeper understanding of the power dynamics at play in online discourse. As we navigate the digital labyrinth of Twitter, let us remain vigilant in our pursuit of inclusive and respectful communication practices, honoring the rich tapestry of linguistic diversity that defines our digital landscape.
Conclusion
In the dynamic world of digital communication, where language shapes identities and cultures, our study serves as a springboard for future research endeavors exploring linguistic appropriation and digital discourse. Our research methodology lays a sturdy groundwork for data collection and analysis. By integrating the identification of key accounts with the exploration of relevant hashtags and trends, researchers can cast a wide net to gather a diverse dataset reflecting various linguistic communities on Twitter. Our focus on analyzing linguistic elements such as phonetics, word choice, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics offers researchers a multifaceted lens through which to examine patterns of linguistic appropriation. Potential analysis tools such as the BERT machine learning tool, used by the UMASS research group in order to narrow down research methods. These methods provide a more efficient way of analyzing tweets in specific, due to there being hundreds of millions of tweets throughout the history of the social media app. “Many feature-based studies of large corpora use keyword searches or regular expressions to detect features; however, keyword searches are limited by orthographic variation in tweets and regular expressions cannot be made for all features. To circumvent these obstacles, we use the BERT-based machine learning method used in Masis et al” (Masis, 2023).
By employing similar analytical techniques, researchers can uncover subtle nuances in language use and identity formation within digital environments. This approach fosters a deeper understanding of the intricate interplay between language, culture, and identity in online spaces. Researchers can expand on this theme by exploring the implications of linguistic appropriation for marginalized communities and investigating strategies for promoting respectful and equitable language use in online spaces.
References
Ilbury, C. (2019). “Sassy Queens”: Stylistic orthographic variation in Twitter and the enregisterment of AAVE. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 24. 10.1111/josl.12366.
Masis, Tessa; Eggleston, Chloe; Green, Lisa J.; Jones, Taylor; Armstrong, Meghan; and O’Connor, Brendan (2023) “Investigating Morphosyntactic Variation in African American English on Twitter,” Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics: Vol. 6, Article 41.DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/zdg0-0914
“How are you today?” Wait- Before you answer this, consider that this innocuous question in fact is compelling you to respond in a certain way. This phatic expression is a social tool aimed at maintaining communication channels. But these expressions also contain packets of information intended to guide the recipient’s behavior. This project aims to recognize the significance of phatic expressions in communication dynamics and how they intertwine with identity development. Our study will aim to go deep into the intricate relationship between language similarities and identity formation within the context of a vibrant Latina community. We will focus on undergraduate Latina students affiliated with UCLA’s Hermanas Unidas organization. We also gathered data on how people in the Latina community often used slang to communicate with their peers. The use of slang made their communication more personal and easier. We examined informal speech and phatic expressions in English-Spanish dialogue within the Latina community. By observing the way they spoke their language and communicated with slang, we gathered that language truly shapes relationships and reveals the complex layers of language, identity, and communication dynamics. This study will allow us to observe how language forms relationships and unravel the various layers of language, identity, and communication.
Within Jakobson’s six language functions, the emotive and conative functions are specifically those which convey information about the speaker and recipient. The latter function is generally considered to contain imperatives in the form of information about the recipient. However, certain other language functions also index facets of the identities of participants in this way or feature similar containerization. Among these are phatic expressions, those which are concerned primarily with the communication channel (Žegarac and Clark, 2024).
A commonly recognized form of phatic expression is a greeting such as, “How was your day?” Chances are, the questioner would find it frustrating if they were met with every detail of the respondent’s day. So, by asking “How are you?” The questioner is compelling the listener to respond only in a certain way. Therefore, this expression might be considered to have an imperative component. That’s not necessarily a bad thing– it provides the recipient with a quick and easy path to the locus of the conversation. But this additional capability for encoding the intentions and attitudes of the speaker can obviously be exploited for certain ends. Therefore, we were curious about whether or not phatic expressions are actually used by speakers to transmit information this way. We at first wondered about the exclusionary purposes of these expressions; for example, in the aforementioned example, the speaker is attempting to exclude a certain unwanted response. We realized that this exclusionary purpose may serve to delineate inter-group and intra-group identities. Therefore, we also asked to what extent phatic expressions index group identities in general. In fact, could phatic expressions also help to establish and maintain notions of identity by these mechanisms?
Methods
Figure 1: An instance of a phatic expression that indexes shared group knowledge
Figure 2: Use of phatic expressions during a representative 3-minute sample of presentations at a Hermanas Unidas club meeting. Instances featuring implicit imperative components, as well as instances that index specific aspects of the shared club and/or linguistic identity are indicated
Our research was conducted on two meetings for the club Hermanas Unidas de UCLA, the first being a general body meeting where group members welcome both past members and new members to meet on a weekly basis to discuss different topics and act as a debrief circle, and the second meeting being an event where past members, also open to new members as well, meet to complete activities and talk in a more intimate space in comparison to the general body meeting. The general body meeting consisted of around 30 members, while the second event only had about 15. In both settings, members were prompted to both speak in the large setting to the entire group, and were also split into smaller groups. In these settings, we were able to analyze the communication between the members and how it shifted when there either was use of phatic expressions, or was not. This club primarily consists of Latina undergraduate members, so we were able to observe the use of phatic expressions in both Spanish and English, as well as both languages used together. When members spoke in the larger settings during the general body meetings, it was noted that the main speaker was often using words such as “y’all” and “um”, which made the speaker sound more natural when addressing the crowd, as well as the crowd being more engaging.
For this reason, we decided to analyze the presentation section of the general body meeting in order to establish a reliable baseline of phatic expression use relative to our specific areas of interest. We isolated a 3-minute segment of audio in which there were multiple presenters who would generally introduce themselves and their announcements, allowing for significant use of phatic expressions during the analyzed time period. The results are indicated in Figure 2: a significant fraction of the phatic expressions observed contain the imperative elements, index aspects of group identity, or both. During the second meeting, where members were split into groups of about 4-5 and were prompted with more personal questions. While the members were tasked to complete the activity they were given and answer these ice breaker kinds of questions, there was an instant switch in how communication was being made. We were able to hear phrases such as “I could’ve easily done Superman bro”, the word “like” and “literally”, “aw hell nah bruh” and using Spanish words when communicating (Araceli, 2010). The use of phatic expressions here also caused a more natural flow of conversation, more engaging body movement, and overall more emotion, such as laughing and smiling.
Results and Analysis
Upon thorough analysis of our data, particularly within a 3-minute segment of the general body meeting where a club member addressed the audience with an announcement, we observed the utilization patterns of “um” and “y’all.” The incorporation of phatic expressions notably enhanced the crowd’s engagement, leading to cheers from the rest of the club members. During this significant moment, the speaker effectively conveyed information that resonated with each audience member, fostering a collective connection. The evident impact of the speaker’s language in captivating the crowd underscores the influential role of phatic expressions in communication. Moreover, we encountered similar findings in the second dataset collected during a smaller meeting. Despite the smaller group dynamics, participants’ use of phatic expressions facilitated deeper engagement among individuals, rendering conversations more meaningful. This highlights the universal efficacy of phatic expressions in fostering interpersonal connections, irrespective of the setting or audience size.
Discussion and Conclusions
In relation to language, culture, and the course content overall, analyzing the use of phatic expressions through an anthropological lens provided us with a nuanced perspective of the use of phatic expressions within interpersonal communication and interethnic encounters. Examining the usage of language functions among Latina students on campus offered us insights into their communication dynamics and social comfort levels in these settings. This also uncovered unique communication patterns and preferences and provided an intimate look into the interplay between language and social interaction. In the overall aim of our project, we planned to identify specific language functions as they appeared in conversation, specifically at the Hermanas Unidas club meetings, and analyze how expressions that serve specific functions are used to accommodate differing identities (including linguistic and club identity). One of our research questions we want to answer is “In which cases do phatic expressions serve an exclusionary purpose?”, and we identified that _these uses of exclusionary language with words like ‘bruh’, ‘like’, or ‘literally’ did not serve an intentional purpose but rather a means of reinforcing cohesion and camaraderie amongst the group of students in the campus-organization Hermanas Unidas. Additionally, we captured how these interactions and use of expressions help to shape these students’ cultural identity in various sociocultural environments whether on campus or elsewhere.
References
De Katzew, L. (2004). Interlingualism: T]he language of Chicanos/as.
Osorio, Araceli, “The role of Spanglish in the social and academic lives of second generation Latino students: students’ and parents’ perspectives” (2010). Doctoral Dissertations. 366. https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/366
Otto Santa Ana, A. (1993). Chicano English and the nature of the Chicano language setting. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3-3.
Vlad Žegarac, and Billy Clark. “Phatic Interpretations and Phatic Communication.” Journal of Linguistics, vol. 35, no. 2, 1999, pp. 321–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176528. Accessed 1 Feb. 2024
Social media is the vehicle that carries much of our communication and culture across the internet nowadays. Unquestionably, its relevance to today’s society is irrefutable and its ability to be used across multiple languages is something to be studied. The focus of this article looks into whether social media influences Spanish speakers in their everyday use of Spanish like how popular trends across English social media does. This study observed popular trends in Spanish social media and slang often included in posts across popular platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter (X), and Instagram. Then, surveyed UCLA students and high school students discussed their use of social media and whether they use slang learned from social media in their everyday interactions. Respondents showed that while the slang and language they pick up does match what is often seen in social media, they instead stated that they primarily picked up new words from people they talk to often, like friends and family, not social media. Our findings suggest that while social media is a strongly influential phenomenon on individuals, for the Spanish speaker it is more so a reflection of changes in their language rather than being the influencer.
Our research examined the dynamic interactions that occur between Spanish-speaking people and the constantly changing social media environment. Our main goal was to investigate the complex linguistic trends and shifts in Spanish that are made possible by Internet communication. We aimed to investigate how Spanish-speaking users’ word choices and phrases have changed as a result of digital communication platforms by closely examining the impact of social media culture on language use.
Social media platforms are vibrant centers of language exchange in today’s digitally connected world, where users participate in a variety of communication activities, from chats to formal discourse. Our goal in conducting this research was to clarify how this digital world has affected the development of Spanish language usage. Determining if linguistic patterns seen in online encounters result in changes to people’s face-to-face conversational styles was one of the main goals of our research.
The various ways that social media culture affects language use in Spanish-speaking populations are clarified by our findings. As people crossed the digital environment using a combination of traditional language rules and modern terms, we saw fascinating patterns of language creation and adaptation. Additionally, our research demonstrated the close connection between language use in online contexts and physical communication styles, emphasizing the interdependence of virtual and real-world interactions.
Recognizing the subtle aspects of language change on social media platforms is essential for understanding bigger societal transformations and cultural dynamics in today’s digital world. Our research sheds light on the constantly changing nature of language and communication in modern society by exploring the linguistic changes caused by online engagement.
Methods
Our research project embarked on an in-depth exploration, delving into the dynamic evolution of the Spanish language facilitated by the pervasive influence of social media platforms. Targeting Spanish-speaking users, particularly high school and college students, our study aimed to comprehensively understand linguistic trends and shifts induced by internet culture. Specifically, we sought to discern whether users’ word choice on social media platforms diverged from their conversational language usage. Our methodology encompassed two primary approaches: social media analysis and surveys conducted among high school and college-aged Spanish speakers.
To dissect linguistic patterns prevalent on social media, we undertook a meticulous examination of word choice employed by Spanish-speaking users across platforms such as TikTok, X, and Instagram. This process involved deploying conversational analysis techniques to scrutinize the content and language structure evident in user-generated posts, comments, and interactions. Through this methodological approach, our aim was to unearth prevailing trends in language use, encompassing the prevalence of slang and informal speech styles within these digital spaces. Simultaneously, we administered surveys to high school and college students who self-identified as Spanish speakers. These surveys were thoughtfully designed to ascertain the vocabulary and language preferences of students in their online interactions. By comparing the linguistic behaviors observed on social media with those reported in the surveys, we sought to elucidate any disparities or consistencies across different communication mediums. Furthermore, qualitative interviews conducted with a subset of participants provided additional insights into how social media platforms influence language use among Spanish-speaking youth, thereby shedding light on potential shifts towards either more informal or formal speech patterns.
Overall, our research endeavors were dedicated to unraveling the intricate relationship between social media culture and language evolution within the Spanish-speaking community, with a particular focus on high school students as a pivotal demographic in this evolving digital landscape.
Results and Analysis
Our observational data showed that Spanish-speaking online users, such as influencers from top-liked posts, frequently used slang or informal words in Spanish when recording a video. The most common words throughout the posts were the following: “no mames” (no way), “bichota” (a female drug lord or female empowerment), and “de veras” (really). For example, thisline with “no mames” from a YouTube video with over a million views, has become a voiceover used by otherinfluencersacross social media platforms.
However, only 8 out of 22 participants from our survey data reported learning about “no mames” and “deveras” from social media, while more than half explained learning these and other Spanish words from their family and friends. No one reported learning about “bichota” and 3 participants reported learning about abbreviations, such as “que,” “porque,” and “te quiero mucho” from social media, which contrasted from our observational data.
Additionally, Figure 1 shows that about 60 % of participants reported “not at all” or “rarely” using Spanish words learned through social media compared to the 40 % who “sometimes” or “very often” use these Spanish words in everyday conversation.
Figure 1: Participants’ frequency of Spanish words or phrases (picked up through social media) in everyday conversations
Figure 2 illustrates the Spanish language proficiency of the participants to confirm that they were from Spanish-speaking communities when making our analysis.
Figure 3 summarizes the participants’ reasoning for using Spanish words from social media as “trendy/cool,” “funny,” and helpful when communicating with other Spanish speakers.
Figure 3: Reasons participants use Spanish words from social media
So, while an individual can use slang in social media and in everyday conversation, they will actively choose based on who they are talking to, which may not match what they encounter or see on social media.
Discussion and Conclusions
Our research ventured into the vibrant intersection of social media and the Spanish language, revealing intriguing insights about linguistic evolution in digital spaces. Despite the prevalent use of slang and informal expressions by Spanish-speaking influencers on platforms like TikTok, X, and Instagram, our findings suggest a nuanced relationship between online language trends and everyday speech. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, the majority of surveyed Spanish speakers did not attribute their linguistic repertoire to social media influences. Instead, personal interactions with friends and family emerged as the primary sources for acquiring new slang and expressions. This indicates a significant degree of linguistic autonomy among Spanish speakers, who navigate between the informal lexicon of digital spaces and the colloquial language of real-life conversations.
While social media undoubtedly shapes contemporary discourse, its role in directly influencing everyday Spanish language use appears limited. Our participants demonstrated a discerning approach to language adoption, selectively integrating social media slang into their conversations based on context and audience. This selective assimilation underscores the adaptive nature of language use, where individuals tailor their speech to suit specific social settings and relationships.
Our study sheds light on the complex dynamics of language evolution among Spanish speakers in the age of social media. While digital platforms offer a rich tapestry of linguistic innovation, the essence of language change remains deeply rooted in human interaction and social networks. Social media, therefore, serves more as a mirror reflecting ongoing linguistic shifts rather than the primary catalyst for change.
References
Alim, H. S. (2005). Hearing What’s Not Said and Missing What Is: Black Language in White Public Space
Cycyk, L. M., & De Anda, S. (2021). Media exposure and language experience: Examining associations from home observations in Mexican immigrant families in the US. Infant Behavior & Development, 63, 101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101554
Gonçalves, B., & Sánchez, D. (2016). Learning about Spanish dialects through Twitter. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 14(2 (28)), 65–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379776
Kircher, Ruth, and Ethan Kutlu. “Multilingual Realities, Monolingual Ideologies: Social Media Representations of Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States.” Applied Linguistics, vol. 44, no. 6, Jan. 2023, pp. 1077–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac076.
Li, C., & Liu, J. (2017). Effects of using social networking sites in different languages: Does Spanish or English make a difference? Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.031
Majors, A. L. (2017) Social Media and Discourse: A Comparative Study of English and Spanish Apologies. LSU Master’s Theses. 4425.
Ramirez, N. J., Hippe, D. S., & Lindekugel, K. (2022). Electronic media and social features of language input in bilingually-raised Latinx infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 68, 101740, ISSN 0163-6383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2022.101740.
Jasmin Lopez, Samantha Solowitz, Max Orroth, Esther Lin, anonymous author
Collegiate Greek life has been around for centuries, fraternities first being established in 1775 followed by sororities in 1851, giving both men and women the opportunity to become a member of an exclusive association promising brotherhood and sisterhood to all who join. The mysterious and vague identity of these fraternities and sororities became a tradition, with members specifically using terms and/or slang that make sense only to those involved. The purpose of our blog is to recognize the meaning behind Greek life slang, and how this particular lexicon represents a departure from formal language. We delve into the nuances of Greek life, from its rich history and recruitment process to understanding its cultural shift in linguistic trends and social dynamics. Through the use of online videos and fieldwork, we explored how Greek life slang terms develop a strong sense of social acquisition for those directly involved while simultaneously maintaining a form of mystery for those who are not.
Pictured: A faux wedding, strangers kissing, the crowd going crazy. Credit: Max Orroth
As I (Max) walked into the Phi Kappa Psi house on a Tuesday night for a frat wedding (a faux wedding, two fraternities/sororities come together to host their chosen couple), a brother greeted me: “Hey welcome bro, tonights gonna be so ferda.” I didn’t understand what he meant by this at all, specifically ferda, and when I asked what the word meant I never got a straight answer. It was clear at this moment, to me and the brothers of Phi Psi, that I was an outsider. I did not understand their secret slang, and for the rest of the night, I felt like a toddler asking what words everyone seemed to know meant.
The example above showcases an ingroup outgroup dynamic. Through this experience, we sought to understand the slang evoked in the Greek life college setting, towards a cultural shift in linguistic and social status. Through the use of online videos and fieldwork, we explored how Greek life slang acquisition is used to communicate valuable insight into fraternities and sororities. This project draws on two main questions; How does Greek slang separate members of Greek life from the broader collegiate community? And, How do Greek organizations undergo a socialization process through linguistic genres?
Introduction to Greek Life
The origins of Greek culture can be identified in the late 18th century when the initial Greek-letter societies were founded (Harding, 1972). Greek life is a conduit for lifelong friendships, countless parties to attend, and the opportunity to live in a mansion with 20-50 peers (Jones, 1976). However, the daily lives of some “brothers” and “sisters” are widely known to be exclusionary, insular, and with roots in the secretive masonic lodges (Dymchuk, 2020). The groups are segmented into fraternities for men and sororities for women. Like most groups, Greek life holds its own set of slang terms, and priori language is only understood within the community. Slang is not an official language, but is characterized by familiar coloring (Izmaylova et al., 2017). Familiar coloring refers to certain words being associated with a specific group, used to linguistically signal identity and ingroup status. More specific to the linguistic environment we studied, college slang amongst undergraduates pulls from both broad lexicons as well as university and context-specific slang (Hummon, 1994). We hypothesize that at its core, greek life slang represents a departure from formal language, often characterized by its genre. This departure of informality is developed through sociocultural language acquisition (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984). The social functions of slang are manifold. Firstly, it serves as a marker of group identity, fostering a sense of camaraderie among those who share a common slang lexicon (Bucholtz, 2012). The slang lexicons used by sorority members and fraternities alike use phrases, symbols, and handshakes only known to collegiate Greek members, differing from the common use of slang found by nonmembers.
Ready to embark on a Greek life journey?
We were not! This is why our methods are participant observation and visual anthropology. We examined how the words and phrases are used in context and how they deviate from mainstream slang through visual anthropology (Abasi & Taylor, 2007).
Methods
For our methods, we used TikTok and YouTube videos; which involve heavy use of acronyms, Greek letter symbols, and code language.
@makeupbymckenna’s TikTok videos titled “GRWM” (get ready with me) displayed a full day of the “Last rush week ever.” While @emmaortiz24 showcases a “GRWM” with Penn State recruitment trips. “Day in the Life” were mostly made by women in sororities representing “PNM”, “PIE PIE”, “DLAM”, “Olemiss”, etc. In the introduction to one of the TikTok videos, a girl is doing her makeup to get ready for sorority recruitment as a “TriDelt” and talking about the amount of “PNMs” that are going to be at their “house.” She advises those who will be participating in the recruitment process to make intentional relationships with other “PNMs” from their “pledge class” or “active number.” In a similar video, a girl advises her audience to let their “Pie Pie” know if they are going to be late to an event.
The YouTube videos we looked at were videos about “rushing” which is the recruitment process for joining a sorority. The picture above isLauren Norris, talking extensively about her experience of being “dropped” from sorority Pi Beta Phi. This was a contrast from the TikTok videos which seem to be an audience for sisters “in” the sorority. Whereas, Lauren talks about her experience of being “out” of the organization.
Although the videos were meant to be informative, the slang used in the videos made it difficult to understand the symbolic meaning of words such as rush, dropped, sisters, and acronyms. Our research results in a complex web of terminology that defines, unites, and separates members of Greek life from the broader collegiate community.
Results
Here is a compiled list of the common slang terms used in Greek culture:
New members of Greek organizations seem to undergo a rapid socialization process to become competent members of their respective communities. In videos such as “GRMW(Get Ready with me)” or “Day in the life,” the general public may recognize the language used within the videos but certain keywords would not be understood unless one had previous knowledge of them. These videos demonstrate that a majority of the slang used are English words or acronyms that may seem out of context to those unfamiliar with Greek life and possibly even completely change their meaning (Nardyuzhev et al, 2017), solidifying the barrier between those within the community and those outside it. Our analysis of Greek life slang reveals a rich and complex language system that serves multiple functions: it cements the bonds between members, upholds traditions, and sets the community apart from the broader campus, and society.
Conclusion
Throughout this study, we analyzed Greek life culture through their unique sociolinguistic and cultural acquisition. This research has provided a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted dynamics within Greek life, encompassing indexical slang, language social acquisition, online communities, and symbolic vocabulary. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the group was able to integrate sociolinguistics, visual anthropology, and analysis, to uncover the intricate interplay between language, identity, and rituals within Greek organizations. Through research into archetypes and codes that generate sense, our findings determine that symbols did not hold the ultimate meaning, but rather offered a vast array of interpretation possibilities; they served as a gnoseological key, a means of self-learning and learning about “philosophical knowledge,” and a medium for the development of the adept’s gnoseological qualities. To an outgroup member, this translates into a form of social acquisition during the initiation process, a crest or secret message is revealed as a rite of passage, only to be mentioned among the membership for exclusive purposes. Greek organizations separate ideology from each other by ascribing symbolic meaning to their group organization. Hence the various phrases, symbols, and handshakes are showcased in varied TikToks, YouTube, and the Greek wedding ritual. This socialization process is enacted by active members, who are assigned the task of formal recruitment. This process entails acts of initiation that signal the acquisition of the group’s values, pledges, and ultimately the group’s acceptance.
References
Bucholtz, M. (2012). Word Up: Social Meanings of Slang in California Youth Culture. eScholarship, University of California.
Harding, Thomas S. (1972), College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815–1876, New York, New York: privately published
Izmaylova, G.R., Zamaletdinova, G.R., & Zholshayeva, M.S. (2017). Linguistic and social features of slang. International Journal of Scientific Study, 5(6), 75-78.
Jones, B. M. (1976). The American fraternity. In Paper presented at the meeting of the National Interfraternity Conference, Williamsburg, VA.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. CUP, pp. 276-320.
Nardyuzhev, V. I., Nardyuzhev, I. V., Marfina, V. E., & Kurinin, I. N. (2017). AMERICAN SLANG: DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS. RUDN Journal Of Informatization In Education, 14(4), 399-405. doi: 10.22363/2312-8631-2017-14-4-399-405
Madison Atiabi, Araceli Valladares, Sean Freilich, Antoinette Alfaro, Brandon Elkington
Knowledge production in the global context has enabled an unprecedented ability to share information in the modern age. Because of this, International Universities like UCLA serve as a hotbed for intellectual progress over a backdrop of movements for inclusivity and representation in educational institutions. While recognizing elements of language associated with ethnicity such as accents is a sensitive topic, it is an undeniable element that comes into play when analyzing the perceptions that students hold of their professors. Even though we initially invested in how accents affect academic outcomes, this study has instead developed an understanding of subconscious biases and expectations within the academic setting that demonstrate a contradictory notion of judgment versus inclusivity. While clearly expressed to varying degrees of appreciation for different language practices, the individual word choice illustrates an intent to perform academically that is not only a standard to be upheld by professors, but to an extent to students as well.
The development and ability to share information in the modern world is faster than ever and there has been an emphasis on developing scholarship around the diverse perspectives that come together within the global context. While there are undeniable benefits towards the development of scholarship by including international perspectives, there are a number of challenges that arise when centered around communication between speakers with different linguistic backgrounds. In attempts to understand how students perceive different elements of language, a handful of studies and experiments have been conducted as a means to better understand what incites the most favorable repertoire between students and professors. As “language is an important and necessary medium of communication,” (Kuo 2011) differences in pronunciation, intonation, rhythm, and word choice may lead to miscommunications or misinterpretations of information which can have a devastating impact in an academic setting where clear communication is crucial to success. Since how people speak demonstrates many notions of group belonging, elements of language such as accents tend to elicit stereotypical perceptions that can influence the perceptions of professors as less credible (Alexandra 2015). Considering that a student’s perception of their professors as the ambassadors of the university can have an impact on a student’s learning outcomes (Gill 1994), it is important to understand the various ways that accents and language choices such as the use of slang affect students’ perceptions of their professors. Therefore, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as an international institute provides a diverse cultural background to deepen our understanding of how accents and slang shape communication dynamics, social interactions, and language attitudes between professors and students.
Methods
When initially proposing this study, we intended to collect a variety of qualitative and quantitative data through a series of interviews, observations, and a survey as means to gather in-depth insights into how language affected the relationship between professors and students. Our original hypotheses centered around the notion that a professor’s accent would be recognized as a challenge in a student’s ability to comprehend the course material and build connections with their professors. However, in the process of developing the proposal, we acknowledged the potential for biases in the responses to our questions considering the academic nature of the project. As such, we conducted five 20-minute interviews with other UCLA students (four undergraduate and one graduate) that we had less formal relationships with hopes of receiving more open and honest responses to our lines of questioning considering the sensitivity of acknowledging a difference in language typically associated with difference in culture. As such, the interview questions focused on concerns regarding accents and the use of slang in the classroom setting and how they affect student’s perceptions of their professors and whether or not they have an expectation of a “standard” language for their professors.
For consideration, below are the questions that were asked during the interview:
Have you ever had a professor with a strong accent?
How do you feel this has affected your ability to comprehend the course materials? Please elaborate.
How do you feel that this has affected your interactions with your professors?
How has it affected your sense of community in the classroom?
How has it affected your connectedness to the course materials?
What kind of language use do you expect from your professors in a classroom setting? Do you think there is a “standard” for how professors should speak to their students?
How do you feel when a professor uses slang or a younger language?
How does it affect the relationship with the professor?
Do these language choices affect your sense of immediacy with your professor?
Does the use of slang make your professor seem less credible?
Can you think of any other ways your professors build a sense of community or contribute to your education through their language?
Do any other positive or negative effects of a professor’s language choices come to mind?
Do the ways that your professor chooses to convey certain ideas affect your education?
What changes could professors make in their language choices to improve their interactions with students?
Results and Analysis
Accents and Academics
While our respective interviews yielded varied responses due to the intimate nature of the process, there were a few constants that emerged within them. For instance, as predicted, there was an almost universal recognition that accents contributed to certain challenges within the classroom. In some cases, students revealed they had trouble understanding the course material despite efforts of professors to ensure comprehension; one student, Angel, expressed disinterest with sentiments like “I just want this lecture to end faster,” or “I’ll talk to the TA.” This reveals insight beyond our initial hypothesis; the spirit of inclusivity that is present in universities may directly contribute to the disconnect between students and professors to a degree that impacts a student’s willingness to engage with a course. Similarly, despite appreciating the beauty of different cultures coming together, Evan noted in his interview that “it was awkward and a little embarrassing to have to keep asking the same question because their strong accent made it hard for me to understand what they were saying.” Consequently, in response, it was common for students to seek more time with their TA as a solution to address issues with comprehension in lectures.
Slang Use
On the other hand, in discussions about slang use and “standard” language practices of professors, there was a surface-level appreciation for professors’ attempts to connect through slang-use and a general positive reaction. However, what a few of our interviewees argued to be more important was the use of genuine language as opposed to language that caters to a professor’s perception of what students may want to hear. Similar to the study by Martin, Weber, and Burant, the students we interviewed appeared to be able to recognize the subtleties of slang use and distinguish them from the subtexts of their uses (1997). For example, Jessica expressed that it was “cringy” when professors end up “overdoing it while trying to be relatable” because it comes off as inauthentic and pandering. Nonetheless, our interviewees expressed a general support for the use of slang words and “younger” language in the classroom. But in doing so, the words that they used represented a potentially larger concern surrounding language use in academic settings.
Unconscious Biases
When asked about whether she had any expectations for a “standard” language from her professors, Anna responded, “I don’t think slang would come in the way of teaching. Professionalism could be… um… what I’m trying to say is I don’t think language really affects the way the material is taught, and I don’t think slang should be penalized or looked down upon in the classroom setting.” While her response initially shows an understanding and support for less restrictions on language, the expression of the contrary as professionalism followed by a subtle retraction indicates a subconscious level of decorum that is to be expected from professors and the university as a whole. While our interviews only represent a minute sample of students at UCLA, the results indicate a wide range of responses that demonstrate similar notions of underlying pressures to maintain certain values.
Figure 1: Common and uncommon words found throughout the five interviews
Discussion and Conclusions
Our study and its findings contribute valuable insight into our understanding of students’ perceptions and expectations of their professors within academic settings. By investigating whether students hold their professors to a certain standard and coupling our empirical findings with existing literature, our study allows for researchers to formulate testable predictions or hypotheses on the nature of student-professor relationships in the future.
Our findings not only revealed diversity in linguistic and academic standards amongst students, but also suggested a potential for underlying biases inherent within academic settings. Our research highlights the extensive influence of academic norms and expectations on linguistic practices, suggesting an unconscious pressure on both students and professors to conform to behaviors typically perceived as “professional.” Such findings emphasize the importance of working towards building inclusive learning environments that embrace linguistic diversity while also encouraging authenticity and cultural sensitivity.
This study ultimately enhances our understanding of the complex interplay between language and identity within the academic realm, inviting future discourse and exploration that would enhance student-professor relationships. By acknowledging the dynamic experiences uncovered through our research, students, professors, and institutions alike can begin to strive for an educational environment that yields successful outcomes for individuals from diverse backgrounds.
References
Gill, M. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(4), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889409365409
Kozlowski, Alexandra (2015). The Influence of Accents on Social Perception. Inkblot, 12-16.
Kuo, Ya-Hui. (2011). Language Challenges Faced by International Graduate Students in the United States. Journal of International Students. 1(2). ISSN: 2162-3104.
Martin, M. M., Weber, K., & Burant, P. A. (1997). Students’ Perceptions of a Teacher’s Use of Slang and Verbal Aggressiveness in a Lecture: An Experiment.
Have you ever wondered why participants of hook-up culture have a hard time communicating with one another? Whether it’s differences in intentions or the usage of different communication styles, it’s likely that they’re not on the same page. As a result of our extensive research, this paper will highlight the reality of hook-up culture and the big question that haunts the community: How do participants of hook-up culture communicate differently than the ingrained standards we see within long-term relationships? Our hypothesis specifically focused on the idea that communication within hook-up culture will differ between genders and communication styles, ultimately creating a larger gap between methods of communication in short-term and long-term relationships. With the help of our studies, we were able to identify the use of code-switching through emojis and slang, common communication themes (vernaculars and communicative traits), and overall motivations! Overall, we hope to help many be able to overcome communication barriers within hook-up culture in order to see some healthy change within our social dynamics and communication!
The goal of our paper was to research the intricacies of a prevalent communication topic in our generation: “hook-up culture”. More specifically, we chose to focus on the motivations behind each gender’s experiences or participation in hook-up culture, ultimately allowing us to analyze the different communication patterns exhibited as well. Hook-ups within “hook-up culture” are defined as, “… activities [that] may include a wide range of sexual behaviors, such as kissing, oral sex, and penetrative intercourse …. these encounters often transpire without any promise of, or desire for, a more traditional romantic relationship…” (Garcia/Merriwether, 2012). With this definition, the rise of hookup culture is then marked by the phenomenon of, “…increasingly normative among adolescents in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and uncommitted sex…” (Garcia/Merriwether, 2012). As a result, our research was conducted on the basis that hook-up culture is prevalent within our society. However, given the constraints of our research project, we had research gaps that prevented us from reaching further conclusions, including the short amount of time we had to conduct our research (given more time we would research a larger group). Another limitation was due to the lack of empirical research on hook-up culture due to the prominence of the topic only flourishing within this past decade.
Our last limitation came as a result of the demographic in which we focused on. Obviously, our demographic was catered to college students, but there may be different results if our demographic was different– so that most definitely should be noted. However, our research, as shown throughout this blog post, will illustrate that our hypothesis is mostly supported by our conducted research. Our research highlights different modes of communication, varying personal intentions, and the popularity of hook-up culture amongst college-aged students.
Methods
Within our method, we looked at different sources of information such as scholarly articles, scholarly speeches (TedTalk), and our own research conducted through the usage of Google Forms. Our scholarly references ranged from communicating commitment in a romantic relationship to communication in the modern hook-up culture, but we made sure to organize an array of valuable sources that would not only prove our hypothesis but also explain our results within our conducted survey. We distributed a survey (through GroupMe chats, Instagram stories, and professors showcasing it at the beginning of class) to our wide demographic of students at UCLA who have knowledge or a basic understanding of hook-up culture, ultimately granting us valuable responses that could help us with our research on how communication differs within hook-up culture through studying gender imbalances/differences in viewpoints and styles. Through our survey, we politely asked our respondents to share their experiences with hook-up culture and answer our specific questions to the best of their abilities. Additionally, there were no incentives and we made sure to inform them that their responses would be anonymous and removable at any point in time. We asked 10 specific questions in connection to our research and our own personal wonderings alongside an entry method for attachments of physical experiences with hook-up culture. Some examples of our questions were: check off boxes of emojis you’ve used when communicating with a prospective partner or how to communicate your intentions to a prospective partner, therefore giving us a deep understanding and a specific answer to the ideas that our research would mention but not specifically answer for us. Within our research, we analyzed communication styles such as emojis or slang, collective gender differences within communication patterns and beliefs, and overall values within personal communication styles and methods such as direct vs. passive communication. For more information on our exact survey, here is a direct link to it: https://forms.gle/cGUqi9sAmSsGQoNX8.
Results and Analysis
In summary, our hypothesis focused on how romantic communication differs between types of connections/relationships (hook-up partners vs long-term relationships), and how each gender engaged with each category differently. Through our extensive research methods, we found that there were factual differences between male and female ideologies. For example, there were similarities within our target audience such as age, education status, and lifestyles – which played a role in the situations these individuals would imagine and partake in throughout their experiences with or without hook-up culture. Our respondents were 50% male and 50% female, mostly aged at 21 to 23 years old by 87.5%. Now, the differences range from gender perceptions/mindset, communication styles, and personal values/needs.
Our survey questions were able to support our hypothesis. For further context, here are some of the most important pieces of information gained from our studies. When asked about hook-up culture in our generation and if they (respondents) participate in hook-up culture, 87.5% answered yes (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1: Do you believe hook-up culture is prevalent within this generation?Figure 2: Do you believe you participate in hookup culture?
With most of our respondents knowing about or experiencing hook-up culture, the results of our survey would most definitely help us understand the reality of hookup-culture whether it proved or disproved our hypothesis. Now, our questions became more specific in order to curate a representative sample of patterns within hook-up culture. Furthermore, these two questions below provided the most valuable information within our survey research.
Within our hypothesis, we predicted that there would be a difference between communication styles and methods. So, with our own experience with hook-up culture, and our learnings from Amanda N. Gesselmen’s research article on “Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication”, we were able to create our question about the influence of emojis on romantic communication and how different ones convey different meanings (casual hook-up vs long-term love). As can be seen, a majority of respondents affiliated with emojis were deemed to be used for “sexting” within hook-up culture communication (Figure 3). For further support, on our side, we can see that most of our respondents that used those emojis are also the same individuals who announced their participation in hook-up culture as well. Next, Figure 4 provided us with the different communication styles we noted through romantic communication in general, but we mentally sorted them into different categories that would analyze different perspectives. For example, those who answered that their communication style was direct and dishonest were usually men (remember: one can be directly dishonest– they are not mutually exclusive). On the other hand, those who answered that their communication style was more honest, considerate, and passive were women. Through these results, we were able to see that there IS a difference of communication styles between genders AND relationship/partner status (hook-up vs long-term). Furthermore, we were able to conclude that men’s expectations are more short-term and casual while female expectations are more long-term and exclusive, ultimately impacting their different communication styles that portray most men as direct, dishonest, dominant, selfish, and confident while portraying most women as passive, considerate, committed, and honest.
Figure 3: Emojis used when communicating with a prospective partnerFigure 4: Communication styles of survey respondents
Discussion and Conclusions
As discussed at the beginning of the paper, ‘hook-up culture’ has gained high levels of popularity, and more recently amongst younger generations. With influential communication-based platforms and media, such as TikTok, “…. popular culture is simultaneously representing aspects of actual contemporary sexual behavior and providing sexual scripts for emerging adults…”, which has potentially played a role in why we concluded the results from our research as we did (Garcia / Merriwether, 2012). Our results suggest a few common themes within the communication patterns of ‘hookup culture’. As seen in the data above, our results suggest that there is a correlation between men’s motivations for just wanting to participate in casual sexual intercourse, whereas women want to participate in sexual intercourse more so in the pursuit of a serious partner, thus suggesting genders do in fact have different motivations when participating in hookup culture. Additionally, our results show a form of ‘code-switching’ that occurs when individuals use emojis and slang to communicate within hook-up culture. Furthermore, code-switching is defined as, “…the practice of selecting or altering linguistic elements so as to contextualize talk in interaction…”, which we see has occurred when individuals interchanged emoji’s arbitrary meanings with more sexual notions only in the context of hook-up culture communication (Nilep, 2006). Additionally, we saw that the most popular ages amongst participants who take part in hookup culture range from 21-23. Given these results, and the inferences we’ve made from our research, our paper concludes that communication with hookup culture has a unique nature to it that involves various tactics in order to achieve that ‘hook-up goal’, and that there are many mechanical and analytical parts involved in the motivations behind hook up culture. However, depending on who you are, it’s highly likely that if you aren’t achieving that dream ‘hook up’ it really isn’t you, it’s them.
References
Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2009). Let’s get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e615882011-144
Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911
Gesselman, A. N., Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLOS ONE, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297
Nilep, C. (2006). “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19. https://doi.org/10.25810/hnq4-jv62
Pham, J. M. (2017). Beyond hookup culture: Current trends in the study of college student sex and where to next. Sociology Compass, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12499
Tom Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2010). Just say ‘‘no thanks’’: Romantic rejection in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510384895
Emerson Howard, Kaira Edwards, Kat Balchunas, Kylee Bourbon, Nicole Hernandez
“Ok storytime.” “Get ready with me to go to class.” “Doing my makeup for literally no reason.” We can’t get enough.
Why are “get ready with me” videos so captivating? Are the communicative methods used what contributes to flop or fame…. a like or dislike…a slay or a nay?
In recent years, a new wave of social media “influencing” has emerged. The phenomenon of self-branding, the continuous action of establishing an image or identity of oneself, is most relevant in such an industry. We sought to investigate how influencers’ slang and body language used in “Get Ready With Me (GRWM)” videos conveys or does not convey a sense of perceived authenticity from followers. Our study focuses on three popular lifestyle influencers and their GRWM videos on the platform TikTok. We sought to identify patterns of body language, speech, and audience perception within GRWM videos that allow our subjects to establish and maintain an authentic relationship with their audiences. We hypothesized the intimate and casual nature of GRWM videos allow creators to establish a more personal connection with their audience if accompanied by a positive tone of voice, use of inside slang, as well as high levels of engagement.
TikTok is a rapidly growing social media platform which revolves around the creation and sharing of short, user-generated videos (Montag et. al, 2021). The app launched in 2016 and since then has provided an outlet for social media influencers, who are users that obtain a large following through posts, engagement, and advertising (Abidin, 2015). Our study looks specifically at white, female lifestyle influencers aged 18-30 who are recognized for documenting seemingly inconsequential and mundane elements of everyday life such as putting on makeup, getting dressed, etc. These influencers communicate personal information about themselves to create a sense of intimacy between them and their followers, emphasizing their realness and relatability (Abidin, 2015). Like any other social media influencer, lifestyle influencers create a “brand” for themselves by developing a consistent theme and style for their account through patterns of language, images, and content in order to create a certain expectation for how people should perceive them (Marshall).
To provide a basis for our understanding of how TikTok influencers create a ‘brand’ for themselves, we applyErving Goffman’s dramaturgical approachto the digital media space to explain how influencers put on a performance through self-branding. Goffman’s dramaturgical theory proposes that everyday interactions are like a play in which humans put on a performance. This phenomenon is often displayed on social media in which influencers curate their posts and profiles to express an idealized presentation of self. Influencers employ impression management by being selective with what to post publicly, in order to preserve the identity they have curated for themselves—their “brand.” We feel that GRWM videos uniquely blur the line between Goffman’s concepts of backstage and frontstage, since these videos are predicated on providing followers with a sense of intimacy, seeing the ‘backstage’ of an influencer’s daily life. These videos commodify intimacy by providing the audience with the impression they are privy to intimate and generally inaccessible aspects of the influencer’s lives—this is what makes lifestyle influencer branding successful (Abidin, 2015).
Methods
For our data, we gathered and analyzed the three most recent “GRWM” videos from February 17th to March 1st, from the selected lifestyle influencers: Alix Earle, Darcy McQueeny, and Mikyla Nogueira, to investigate how they create a persona through language and behavior patterns. We gathered our data via the TikTok social media platform and the data was collected in two separate categories: video content and audience response. To observe video content, we looked at their patterns of communication including their body language, as well as their use of “inside slang.” We then observed audience response by focusing on the top seven comments to investigate whether there was a more positive or negative reception, as well as the number of likes per comment. This allowed us to measure each influencer’s level of audience engagement, level of influencer engagement, and engagement sentiment. We then took into account any differences and similarities that may exist amongst the influencers and how those aspects account for the way they’re perceived.
Screenshots of TikTok comments on influencer Alix Earle’s posts
Results and Analysis
Our research both confirmed and rejected aspects of our hypothesis that GRWM videos allow creators to establish a more personal connection with their audience if accompanied by a positive tone of voice, use of inside slang, as well as high levels of engagement. After measuring the creator response rates within their comment sections, we noticed that Mikayla Nogueira had the highest level of engagement with viewers (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Number of Responses to Top 7 Comments
She not only responded to comments more frequently than other creators but also in a variety of ways: liking, messaging, and video responding. However, Alix appeared to have more audience engagement (see Figures 3 and 5) of all influencers we investigated despite her not interacting with them as much as Mikayla.
Despite having greater creator engagement, followers (see Figures 1 and 2) and the most positive engagement sentiments (see Figure 4), Mikayla Nogueira received less likes per GRWM video (see Figure 5) and likes on the top 7 comments (see Figure 3) per GRWM video (236.4k / 1,506), than Alix Earle (400.9k / 3,996). Darcy McQueeny received the least likes per video and comments (61.8k / 227).
Figure 1: Follower Count (in Millions)Figure 2: Total Likes on All Videos (in Millions)Figure 3: Average Likes on Top 7 Comments (in Thousands)Figure 4: Connotations of Top 7 Comments on 3 Observed VideosFigure 5: Average Likes on 3 Observed Videos (in Thousands)
Through our analysis of this data we established that, as opposed to our hypothesis, it is a “laid-back” neutral tone of voice, use of inside slang, and moderate levels of engagement that is most popular within GRWM videos and most effective in garnering audience engagement.
We observed that Alix is a very good storyteller, creating a more laid-back demeanor and anecdotal style of GRWM videos that is more relatable amongst audiences. Mikayla can seem too enthusiastic, as if she is trying too hard to be liked and seen as a positive person (i.e. “Thank you!!! [exuding love face emoji]”); while Alix interacts just like a friend would on Facetime and responds to comments similar to how friends respond to texts; in a more neutral and moderate manner (i.e. “Hahahahah,” “No”). Mikayla expresses herself very openly and her outgoing personality may be a bit overwhelming for some. Additionally, her high level of engagement with her comment section may appear to some as trying too hard. Contrastingly, Alix exudes a more relaxed persona, talking about her friends as if the audience knows them personally, to solidify this ‘friend-like’ relationship, and utilizing slang such as “it’s not giving” throughout various videos and “losers,” which she notes is used by her own friend group, allowing the audience to feel included. We found that Darcy McQueeny utilizes a monotone/unengaging tone of voice and scarcely engages with comments, resulting in her low levels of likes, audience engagement, and negative engagement sentiments.
Discussion and Conclusions
In relevance to class, this course is centered around social communication and how our everyday speech and interactions are revealing of identity and character. We are able to better understand tone in internet gestures the more we partake in them. Additionally, verbal variation, in that influencers are distinguished on TikTok by speech variation. We also suspect that the successful influencers don’t switch from their normal and internet personality. If we had more time, we would be interested in conducting more research about this.
With self-branding on social media having an ever-growing prominence in modern social communication, especially among our age group, we thought this topic was relevant and crucial to study. Now when we navigate our social media presence, we are keener on how the language and the level of formality we use affects those viewing us.
The limitations in our research included the use of interpretive/qualitative data, restricted data (3 videos, 3 creators), and a narrow demographic (young, white, girls).
References
Abidin, C., (2015). Communicative Intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, & Technology, 8, 1-16: http://adanewmedia.org/2015/11/issue8-abidin/
BBC Radio 4. (2015, April 15). Erving Goffman and the Performed Self [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/6Z0XS-QLDWM
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Hogan, B. (2010). The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893
Montag, C., Yang, H., & Elhai, J. D. (2021). On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673
Pulse Advertising. (2021, September 1). What Is an Influencer? | Influencer Marketing Explained [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/JLiKXW82tjE
Aileen Dieu, Makenna Kumlue, Nicholas Litt, Jazmine Pineda, Rafael Santos
The social media community is truly that, a community. Groups of people gather based on common interests to share ideas, offer support, and even criticize opposing views, for better or worse. Millennials were the first generation to create an online community, and through that, a whole new array of lingo, trends, and even celebrities arose. Then, Gen Z entered social media and created their online community filled with their interpretations of millennial slang, as well as bringing a whole new batch of slang to the mix. However, the interactions between both groups yield confusion, amusement towards popular trends in either community, and even irritation due to a lack of comprehension of new terms. In our research, we observed the specific tokens and behavior displayed by both groups individually and in interactions with one another across varying social media platforms. We found varied sentence structure, emoji use, and critical attitudes of Millennials towards Gen Z slang. Yet, for the most part, Millennials and Gen Z communities interact fairly effectively across some parts of the internet.
Digital communication plays a crucial role daily. Regardless of occupation, race, gender, or class, social media is a form of communication with others and provides a place to express opinions to a targeted audience. Social media usage began around 1997 with a website called “Six Degrees” where people could communicate with close contacts. This was popular among the Millennial generation (1981-1996), and the emergence of another application called “MySpace” in 2004 was another big hit (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Fast forward a decade later, Generation Z (1997-2012) has evolved to also use multiple social media platforms at once (not as much as Millennials). Recent studies showed that Millennials use 5 to 6 social media platforms at once while Generation Z use around 2 to 3 social media platforms (Vacalares et al., 2023). The advancement of technology along with the comfort of being more expressive in an online setting was appealing to Generation Z, as we see them use more current social media apps than millennials today. As a result, they have created their forms of communication and language styles that are derived from digital trends (Jeresano et al., 2022).
The types of slang used are also motivated by a sense of social conformity. Depending on the app, the social norms differ greatly based on the demographics of users as well as the app’s intended purpose. If anyone were to talk outside the “social norms” of the app, it would lead to negative feedback, loss of followers, and a negative social media presence (Taber et al., 2023). Generation Z also utilizes social media apps for various purposes such as education, shopping, entertainment, and socializing (Mude, 2023). We hope to explore more on the types of linguistic features seen across various apps like TikTok, Instagram, X, and Facebook among Millennials and Generation Z individuals. How would these differences reflect evolving cultural and technological influences?
Methods
Data for this article was acquired through observation and analysis of different word usage on various social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X, and Facebook, based on usage and popularity. Observations were then assigned to team members by platform and instances of slang were captured as screenshots (See Figure 1) and then analyzed by individuals. Instances of slang, word choice, tone, and sentence structure were assigned a rating of Gen Z or Millennial based on prior perception and/or investigation of user age. Perceptions of Gen Z versus Millennial word usage and choice were based on a consensus around Gen Z’s abbreviation usage and knowledge of contemporary media culture (Jeresano et al., 2022), in comparison to the Millennial generation’s lower intelligibility for newer slang (Taber et al., 2023). The team then convened and analyzed for further patterns of linguistic choice and feature. Lack of or inaccurate user information was addressed to the best of our ability.
Figure 1. Sample posts with instances of slang usage.
Results and Analysis
There were some semantic communication barriers between those we identified as Millennials and Generation Z. Both generations demonstrated similar morphological features within their slang, namely, acronyms and euphemisms (Which may be due to the platform’s format, like character limits and censorship). However, the resemblances begin to deviate when examining specific slang words and phrases. Our data exhibits the referential and ironic nature of Generation Z’s coined words and phrases rapidly generated and circulated across each platform. These coined words and phrases, derived from internet culture and AAVE (African American Vernacular English), contain a level of specificity within them that, to use properly, one must know the original to some extent. Accordingly, our collected data suggests that Millennials tend to use outdated or misused slang or are entirely oblivious to the terms.
Therefore, there appears to be frustration and confusion between Millennial and Generation Z interactions, primarily exhibited on the Millennial side. In Generation Z-dominated media, like TikTok, the cross-generational interactions are question-oriented. Our data includes numerous accounts of deemed Millennials seeking meaning and context behind creators’ and commenters’ posts to better understand the jokes and discourse occurring (See Figure 2). However, apps containing older demographics tend to display rejection, ridicule, or misunderstanding of Generation Z’s communication style. Additionally, these apps depict Millennials attempting to increase their engagement and flaunt their relevance through overcompensation, i.e., frequently using slang and emojis. Thus, generating derision from members of Generation Z who come across their content.
Figure 2. A Millennial TikTok user obtaining an understanding of a popular culture reference from the video content and learning Generation Z coined slang through user-to-user engagement within the comment section.
However, it is essential to note that the gap between generational differences in slang is shortening due to high social media exposure and interactions across generations. With the growing demographics of Generation Z-dominated apps, there tends to be more exposure to viral content from which these terms are derived. Additionally, personal interactions between each generation further the understanding and adoption of coined words and phrases. While our data exhibits the semantic communication barriers between Millennials and Generation Z, we question whether this issue will remain prevalent in the foreseeable future.
Discussion
Our results provide insights into the linguistic differences and communication trends between Millennials and Generation Z individuals in social media. Through observation of various social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook, our research highlights distinct linguistic features and communication practices exhibited by each generation. Millennials tend to use “outdated” slang words and phrases, while Gen Z incorporates slang derived from abbreviations and references to other viral trends. This reflects the evolving cultural and technological influences on language use, with Gen Z being more influenced by internet culture and current trends. The demographics of each social media platform also play a role in the linguistic practices observed, which suggests that the linguistic features seen on these platforms may be influenced by the dominant generation using them.
TikTok demonstrates semantic barriers in communication between Millennials and Gen Z. Gen Z individuals on TikTok use coined words and phrases derived from internet culture and AAVE (African American Vernacular English), heavy acronym usage, and euphemisms. On Instagram, Gen Z users use informal slang with abbreviations and unique vocabulary from internet culture. At the same time, Millennials exhibit a more formal writing style with complete sentences, positive affirmations, and subtle humor. Both Millennials and Gen Z individuals use X, but there are some differences in their linguistic practices. Gen Z shows strong use of irony, informality, and word choice derived from current internet culture and technology. Millennials, on the other hand, use outdated terms and references, specific to their periodical upbringing, and have a more formal sentence structure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the linguistic differences and communication trends observed between Millennials and Generation Z in social media reflect the evolving cultural and technological influences on language use. Each generation exhibits distinct linguistic features and practices, influenced by their respective demographics and exposure to internet culture. The interactions between Millennials and Gen Z online highlight both generational differences and a willingness to engage in a compromised social bubble. Further research in this area can provide a deeper understanding of how language evolves in the digital age and its impact on intergenerational communication.
References
Taber, L., Dominguez, S., & Whittaker, S. (2023). Ignore the Affordances; It’s the Social Norms: How Millennials and Gen-Z Think About Where to Make a Post on Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–26. doi.org/10.1145/3610102.
Jeresano, E. M., & Carretero, M. D. (2022). Digital Culture and Social Media Slang of Gen Z. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 3(4), 11-25.
Vacalares, S. T., Salas, A. F. R., Babac, B. J. S., Cagalawan, A. L., & Calimpong, C. D. (2023, June 11). The Intelligibility of Internet Slangs Between Millennials and Gen Zers: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Science and Research Archive. doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.9.1.0456.
Mude, G., & Undale, S. (2023). Social Media Usage: A Comparison Between Generation Y and Generation Z in India. International Journal of E-Business Research, 19(1), 1–20. doi.org/10.4018/ijebr.317889.
We’ve all heard of the acronym lol, short for “laugh out loud”, and have used it in more than one context. Lol differs from other internet-born acronyms, like ROTFL, as it has become widespread across social platforms all over the world and has maintained a role in American English vernacular to this day. Some use it to “soften the blow” of a harsh statement. For others, it is tacked onto the end of a sentence to convey sarcasm or passive-aggressiveness, but does that mean its meaning has changed over time? Our study analyzed a series of tweets from Twitter to determine if the use of lol has increased in passive-aggressive contexts from 2008-2022. We also categorized where lol appeared in the tweet, such as the beginning of it, the middle, or the end to help determine the true meaning or intent of the tweet.
How does the three-letter acronym lol manage to make its way into so many of our online conversations, even those that aren’t inherently funny? Lol is one of the first internet terms to become popularized and has been in use for a while, thus the acronym finds itself in a myriad of situations, each with an abundance of meanings, making it somewhat of a linguistic chameleon. Is lol being used more commonly in a passive-aggressive sense than its original meaning? How does this .com-era defining acronym persist through the years, picking up new meanings and uses as it travels around the globe via our interconnected home, the internet? This is what we wanted to investigate– whether passive-aggressive uses of lol have risen in popularity in the past 15 years. Prior to our research, lol’s role as a lexical item has been studied from many different angles. Authors Tagliamonte and Denis (2008) identify the acronym as an interlocutor involvement signal, playing a similar role as “mmhmm” does in face-to-face conversation; denoting that the utterer is engaged in an exchange. Similarly, Varnhagen et al. (2010) found that lol is the pioneer of a new acronym-based lexicon arising from the internet. Markman (2017) also found lol to be a discourse marker, a lexical item that lets a conversation partner know when a statement is done over text. Schneebeli (2020) identifies how the acronym’s placement in a clause can shift its meaning and give statements a new meaning or mood when added. This prior research gives insight to the role lol plays in the syntax and flow of conversations, but, to our knowledge, no studies have chronicled the term’s evolution and shift in use over time. Given that both the internet and the acronym have evolved since its first use in 1989, we feel a current examination is missing from the literature on internet language. Looking at English speaking Twitter from 2008-2022, the salience of lol’s usage as a marker for passive aggression has increased, revealing a broader ability for internet slang to evolve much faster than in-person language due to an abundance of use, communication, the internet’s own growth, and humans finding more of a home online every day.
Methods
To test our hypothesis, we searched Twitter from 2008 to 2022 for tweets that used lol. We gathered 20 random tweets per year for a total of 300. To account for virality as a potential confounding variable, we grouped tweets by how many likes they received and made sure to select 5 tweets per group, per year. We had four engagement groups: Low (0-50 likes), Medium (50-300 likes), High (300-1000 likes), and Ultra-high (1000+ likes). After collecting data from Twitter, we then decided whether each tweet was passive-aggressive and whether lol was positioned clause-final, clause-initial, or somewhere else. To determine whether a tweet used lol to be passive-aggressive we looked at multiple criteria, including lol not signifying its original meaning (“laugh out loud”), whether the tweet conveyed a rude or negative sentiment, whether it targeted a person or situation, or if removing lol lessened the tweet’s attack. Sometimes, we could also look at replies or quote tweets to get more information about the context of each tweet to solidify our decision.
Results
We found that since 2008, English speaking Twitter users have been steadily increasing their use of lol to be passive-aggressive (Figure 1). Using Google-Sheets built-in capabilities, we calculated a Pearson’s r of 0.767, indicating a moderate-strong positive correlation between the frequency of passive-aggressive lols and the year it was tweeted. Our data showed that passive-aggressive lols peaked in 2016 (50%) and 2021 (55%).
Figure 1: Frequency of passive-aggressive tweets across each year studied (2008-2022)
On clause placement, we found that slightly more tweets had lol at clause-final (~41%) than clause-initial (~34%), with about 25% of tweets placing lol in a location indeterminable as final or initial (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Breakdown of clause placement of lol across all tweets gathered
Overall, out of the 300 tweets analyzed, 34.6% were determined to be passive-aggressive uses of lol (Figure 3). For all but one group, we did not find any significant deviation from this number when tweets were grouped in their engagement groups across all years. Among tweets in the Medium group (50-100 likes), 28.6% were determined to be passive-aggressive uses of lol.
Figure 3: Frequency of passive-aggressive tweets among engagement groups and all tweets
Discussion and Conclusion
Due to our data displaying a moderate-strong positive correlation, we concluded that the use of lol to convey passive-aggressiveness increased from 2008-2022. We observed peaks of passive-aggressive tweets during 2016 and 2021. While we are unsure why those peaks occurred during those years, we hypothesize that it was due to political and social turmoil in America. 2016 was when Donald Trump was elected president, and that divided our nation. 2021 was also when COVID evolved into Omicron, and America was again divided on whether wearing a mask was an infringement of our rights. Such factors could influence the use of passive-aggressive lols, and this trend might be an area for future research. We also analyzed the clause placement of passive-aggressive lols and found that the majority appeared clause-finally at 40.9%. Clause-initial lols appeared at 34.2%, and the rest were considered in the ‘other’ category in which the acronym was embedded in the clause. This supports previous research in which clause-initial lol tends to serve as a discourse structuring lexical item such as an immediate reaction whereas clause-finally typically suggests a more aggressive demeanor (Schneebeli, 2020). Finally, we analyzed the passive-aggressive lols per engagement level of the tweet to determine if one engagement group had significantly more or less passive-aggressive tweets, and we observed that there were significantly less tweets in the medium group. However, we do believe that that is an outlier since the rest of the cohorts are in the mid-30 % in regard to passive-aggressive tweets.
There were certainly limitations that should be considered alongside our findings. Due to the time constraints within which the research was conducted, only 20 tweets were found per year studied. Ideally, our findings would be derived from a broader sample, and even include other languages aside from English. Constraining the time frame even more, the advanced search feature on Twitter would only display tweets from September to December of each year, potentially creating a bias towards tensions and events during the Fall and Winter months such as elections, holidays, and harsh weather. Additionally, Twitter search would not allow us to filter tweets by the country of origin, only language. Though the site is most popular amongst American users, there is no way to know if the tweet authors were from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, or some other English-speaking individual. Lastly, our study was looking at passive aggression; though one can typically read tension through a screen, since we were not present for all the interactions or posts, we cannot say for certain if the tweet was delivered in an aggressive way. Despite our systematic approach to determining whether a tweet was aggressive, it is impossible to know the tweet authors’ true intentions behind their posts. We cannot say how these limitations affected our data and results but would be curious to have the study done on a larger scale, including multiple languages, and over a larger period.
Nevertheless, lol’s modality is an example of how the internet can accelerate language evolution. Since the term’s creation with the rest of Instant Messaging language, it’s since taken on countless other meanings in addition to signaling passive aggression. This process, which might normally take decades to accomplish, is now achieved in 20 years. This is partly due to the unprecedented availability of other people’s discourse on the internet and online platforms like Twitter. One could read hundreds of tweets every day and the same tweet could be seen by hundreds of thousands of people. This level of contact between speakers catalyzes the creation of slang words and evolution of other terms like lol. Additionally, Twitter’s characteristics as a social media platform encourages widespread adoption of new language forms. Given that it’s mainly discourse-based, users look to the language of other tweets to inform how they should adapt their own language. This emulation of linguistic behaviors can drive language evolution, like we’ve seen with passive-aggressive lols. Although we did not study other internet language acronyms (ROTFL, lmao, etc.), we noticed anecdotally that lol seems particularly susceptible to being adopted for other uses beyond its literal meaning. Perhaps the term’s shortness, broad meaning, and ease to type into a phone screen have allowed it to garner such an expedited evolution. Future research might investigate what makes lol such a linguistic chameleon and why it has remained relevant in cultural discourse to a greater extent than many other IM language creations that evolved at the same time.
Aside from the explicit findings, our study offers broader implications to the field of sociolinguistics. We were able to identify a few studies on lol, but not nearly as many as expected considering the popularity of the term. This study contributes to this burgeoning sector of the field. Lol’s breadth of uses offer a plethora of research topics — we could conduct this study with an entirely different meaning of the term and find something new and relevant to report. In general, there is a deficit in studies of online language use. Nowadays, a message can be sent from Japan to Canada in a matter of seconds, and on Twitter you can see hundreds of tweets from all around the world with a simple scroll of your thumb. As the world grows more dependent on the internet and humans increasingly engage in online communication, studies of this nature are of the utmost importance for the future of sociolinguistics. Lastly, this research topic came from phenomena we have noticed in our day to daytime spent on social media and engaging in digitally based conversations. Sociolinguistics as a field studies language use and the social implications behind it; this study gives validity to anecdotal experiences as a legitimate course of study and provides a deeper understanding of the terms we use daily.
References
Markman, K. M. (2017, October 30). Exploring the Pragmatic Functions of the Acronym LOL in Instant Messenger Conversations, doi: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3du86.
Sloan, L., Morgan, J., Burnap, P., & Williams, M. (2015). Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. PLoS One, 10(3), doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115545.
Schneebeli, C. (2020). Where lol is: function and position of lol used as a discourse marker in YouTube comments. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 27.
Tagliamonte, S. A. & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic Ruin? LOL! Instant Messaging and Teen Language. American Speech, 83(1), 3-34.
Varnhagen, C.K., McFall, G.P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H. & Kwong, T.E. (2010). lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing23, 719–733.
Isaac Verdugo, Riley Kwinn, Brendan Xiong, and Gustavo Gutierrez
NBA (National Basketball Association) slang is widely used by basketball fans all over the world. NBA slang is formed and developed with NBA history. It has unique features and functions that give NBA fans the opportunity to express their opinions about the game of basketball in creative ways. NBA slang reflects NBA culture. A sociolinguistic study of NBA slang helps people know more about NBA culture and fans of different teams. The following study discusses semantic change in NBA slang terminology within Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Clippers communities of practice through discourse analysis. First, we selected four common NBA slang terms that are used in this sports league and provide their generic definitions. We then analyzed online basketball discourses to look for ways in which fans from both teams use the NBA slang terms that we are examining. Third, we used a corpus analysis toolkit, AntConc, which helped us find patterns of concordance within our data. We concluded by making generalizations about the use of our selected terms by Lakers and Clippers fans and determined trends through analysis.
In this study we sought to understand why NBA slang is used in online communities of practice. This helps identify connections within communities of practice because basketball fans are tight-knit, have frequent interaction, develop shared goals and knowledge about basketball, and create new NBA slang. Because many basketball fans use NBA slang to refer to a particular team and/or player, the meaning will vary depending on who you ask; some use older meanings from previous eras of the NBA, whereas others use newer meanings that fit today’s NBA style of play. By analyzing the use of four NBA slang terms (foul, skill, superteam, flagrant foul), it will help us understand how they have changed in meaning over time. Next, we will compare and contrast the usage between Lakers-Clippers fans. We chose these two teams specifically because they are from the city of Los Angeles and have drastically different histories; the Lakers are the most famous NBA franchise of all-time with 17 championships, whereas the Clippers have none (Los Angeles Clippers vs. Los Angeles Lakers, n.d.).
That being said, we attempted to answer the following question:
(1) What sorts of semantic change has NBA slang experienced within Lakers and Clippers communities of practice?
Background
Previous research in semantic change shows that words or real world entities change over time. More specifically, words change semantically and this change is reflected in the way words are being used (Wijaya & Yeniterzi, 2011, “Introduction” section). This linguistic aspect of semantic change also applies to NBA slang. For example, in the 20th century of the NBA, the NBA slang term Greatest of All Time or GOAT, was used to describe how successful a player and/or team was based on the number of championships they won. However, NBA fans have added new layers onto its meaning over time, such that basketball IQ, skillset, defensive rating, and other basketball qualities are relevant in the discussion of “Who’s the GOAT?” While the NBA uses generic definitions for NBA slang terms, it does not necessarily mean that fans will use that particular definition in every basketball context. Because of this, NBA slang terms are extremely nuanced, which is why the word GOAT highlights one of our goals to lay out differing traits of the four terms we will examine.
Another frequently used NBA slang term is skill. Skill in the NBA during the 1960s meant being able to run down the court efficiently, shoot the ball from close range, and defend. However, in the 1970s, skill was about playmaking abilities, too. One paper addressing a similar topic discussed the importance of player impact, “Berri tried to determine if Karl Malone or Michael Jordan was more valuable, and he found that Dennis Rodman was most valuable because of his rebounding ability” (Whitmoyer, 2019, p. 4). The significance of this quote shows that many teams prefer having a player who impacts the game of basketball in more than one aspect. Many believe that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time, but Whitmoyer argues that Dennis Rodman is. This shows that there are different views about a player’s importance, which is part of what we will explore in our project.
Methodology
We analyzed the NBA slang terms on online basketball discourses such as Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram, where we collected 100 Lakers-Clippers samples relating to these terms for a total of 400 samples. Then, we used AntConc, a corpus analysis software that made it much easier to compare the surrounding environments of all the data samples for each term. Lastly, we made generalizations about the use of the NBA slang terms and determined trends in our data through analysis. This method allowed us to gather more samples and data from online discourses than we would have surveying/interviewing basketball fans with the amount of time we had for the project, and helped us address the question in our introduction by allowing us to identify common trends in a data set that would be far too large to analyze without the assistance of corpus linguistics software.
Results: Data Analysis
In Figure 1, we see a list of words that AntConc found that foul was commonly used within the same sentence, as flop appeared the most with a total of 73 samples.
Figure 1. Total frequency of words that AntConc found for the NBA slang term foul.
With this software, we were able to discover that foul has a new meaning added to it that can be used in more contexts than before with the use of flop. This concept is known as widening, which is a type of semantic change. Throughout the history of the NBA, the generic definition of foul has remained the same, referring to “illegal personal contact with an opponent and/or unsportsmanlike behavior” (How Fouling Works in Basketball: 6 Common Fouls Explained, 2020, para. 2), which can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Tim Duncan (#21) fouls Monta Ellis (#11) after bumping him in mid-air when scoring a lay-up.
However, the word foul has become too vague in today’s NBA that Lakers and Clippers fans have used a more specific word to describe the actions that opponents do to get the foul call in their favor — flop. A “flop” is an attempt to fool referees into calling undeserved fouls by exaggerating the effect of contact with an opposing player (Explanation of Anti-Flopping Rule, 2012, para. 2), which can be seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Mario Chalmers (#15) flops and sells the contact after Danny Green (#4) swipes through to create space.
The use of flop for a non-foul changes the meaning of foul because opponents fall to the ground when contact is drawn, whether minimal or not. The act of flopping is changing the way the game of basketball is played since referees must distinguish between what is and isn’t a foul, which they tend to struggle with.
Both Lakers and Clippers fans use flop as a way to express their anger when they believe there wasn’t any illegal contact by the opponent, but referees think otherwise. This finding shows how the meaning of foul has been expanded by these fans because flopping is more common today than it was before in the NBA. Instead of fans saying “That was not a foul,” fans can now say “That was a flop,” when there was little or no physical contact by the opponent. This semantic change of the word foul allowed these fans to be more specific and provide a reasonable judgment about a certain basketball play, instead of giving a biased opinion with no context. Because there was a high frequency of data where the slang term foul was used with flop in the same sentence than without it, it suggests that they both go hand-in-hand when fans debate a foul call.
The second word we examined was skill. Skill is “the ability to do something well; expertise” (Oxford University Press (OUP), n.d.). In the 20th century of the NBA, skill was synonymous with players who could run down the court efficiently and score more than 15+ points on a regular basis. However, in today’s game skill is used in many other ways such as passing, as observed in Figure 4.
Figure 4. LeBron James (#23) makes an incredible no-look pass to teammate Ante Zizic (#41) who dunks the ball.
There are different connotations as to what skill implicates. According to the data via AntConc in Figure 5 and 6, skill was used the most within members of the Lakers community when discussing Kobe Bryant, an all-time great with elite footwork, shooting, post-moves, and defense that contributes to what skill means. Clippers fans most used skill in reference to flopping, identifying it as a ‘skill’, or point guard ‘skills’ which implies a specific attribute derived by a select group of positioned players. In the online discourse data, Kobe [Bryant] was mentioned most to embody skill because of his scoring ability, footwork, shooting, defense, basketball IQ, work ethic, and athleticism. Other players like Kawhi Leonard, Patrick Beverly, and Ivica Zubac were mentioned a combined 7 times in the data set, a stark contrast to Kobe Bryant’s 22.
Figure 5. Total frequency of words that AntConc found for the NBA slang term skill.
Figure 6. Total frequency for Kawhi Leonard, Ivica Zubac, and Patrick Beverly via AntConc.
The data suggests that semantically, skill has changed from what it was once meant over the last few decades among these communities of practice. Skill in basketball does in fact include scoring ability, but it also incorporates many other factors that make up a player’s complete value on the court (Locklin, 2021, para. 3). Skill no longer identifies a player who can run down the court efficiently and score 15+ a game but instead, is the marker for players who embody proficient attributes in all areas of the game.
The third word we examined was superteam. This term can be defined as “already established All-Star players coming together to a team to form a super team” (Urban Dictionary: Superteam (NBA), 2018). Many of the fans’ conversations from the data involved debates about the exact definition of the term. It was more commonly used as one word, rather than as two separate words, though there was no significant difference in its intended meaning; fans often responded to one variation with the other. Superteam seems less rooted in one literal definition, and more tied to the emotional idea of a “team that is unfairly good,” as the meaning seems to change depending on the context it’s used in. The people using superteam seemed more intent on winning debates than using the word “correctly.” The term has therefore seemed to experience a significant semantic widening such that its meaning changes depending on a) the people using it, and b) the greater context of which teams are performing well in the NBA.
Most of the data samples were gathered from Lakers fans since there has never been a Clippers team that was considered so good that it was unfair. The only instance superteam was used to describe the Clippers was when a fan claimed Kawhi Leonard, a current player on the Clippers, had “tried to make a superteam,” with the implication being that he had failed. The primary topics discussed in the data we gathered for this term were: 1) whether or not LeBron [James] had actually deserved the championship titles he had won after forming multiple ”superteams,” and 2) whether or not this year’s Lakers roster had in fact been a “superteam” despite not winning a championship nor making the playoffs in 2022, as can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Lakers 2021-22 roster with 3 All-Stars: Anthony Davis (#3), LeBron James (#6), & Russell Westbrook (#0)
Figure 8. A tweet about LeBron’s critics who are downplaying his past successes for forming ‘superteams.’
Figure 9. Another tweet where a fan chastised the 2021-22 Lakers for not making the playoffs, despite qualifying as a ‘superteam.’
Unsurprisingly, the teams most commonly associated with superteam were either current or retired All-Star players from teams such as the Cavaliers, Warriors, Heat, Nets, and Lakers, as observed in Figure 10. The high frequency of Lakers relative to the other teams is due to the fact that most of these data are from Lakers’ fans’ discourse.
Figure 10. Total frequency of words that AntConc found for the NBA slang term superteam (focus on the column second from the left and the corresponding term on the far right)
According to the official NBA website, a flagrant foul is excessive contact beyond a regular foul. There are two types, a Flagrant 1 is unnecessary contact against a player committed by an opponent, whereas a Flagrant 2 is unnecessary and excessive contact against a player (Flagrant Fouls, n.d.).
The main semantic change we found from Lakers and Clippers fans regarding this word is elevation, where one uplifts an utterance, and degeneration, where negative light is shone on a statement. Tweets by Lakers fans are uplifting, with one of them proclaiming that the Lakers are equals to every other team. The tweet from the Clippers fan is degenerated through its angry intonation. The Lakers tweet also has more likes, and popularity equates to less negativity as “fearful and negative tweets [have]…low virality” (Cheung‐Blunden et al., 2021, p. 19). The less popular Clippers fan tweet uses strong word choice through swearing.
The primary cause for this difference is team status. The Lakers fan sounded less angry because of the history of his team, as he is comfortable with the prestige and numerous championship titles of the Lakers. The Clippers are not as well-known as the Lakers. Less prestigious teams have fewer fans because their teams are not as competitive as others. Therefore, the fans of such teams are very committed and passionate to be able to stick through team struggles. Furthermore, “high levels of identification with a sports team are positively related to fan display and verbal response” (Rocca & Vogl-Bauer, 1999, p. 244). The intense feeling for one’s team drives Clippers fans to use strong language.
Discussion
According to new research about American slang, there are unique features that influence it based on its originality (Zhou & Fan, 2013). Similarly, we learned that NBA slang is used because of its originality. NBA fans were creative with how they turned generic definitions of the NBA slang terms to more catchy and specific meanings. In addition, these new words and meanings are commonly used by NBA fans for the pleasure of being in fashion and appear to have a deep understanding about the game of basketball. When these fans use NBA slang terminology, it tends to validate their opinion about basketball because it is solely used by basketball fans.
One social factor that influences the use of NBA slang terms is social media. Social media has allowed NBA fans to discuss and share their opinions about basketball that reach millions of people, as can be seen in some figures above. A second social factor is basketball commentators because they enjoy commenting on live-basketball games using descriptive language, and find that NBA slang is more direct and simpler to use than the generic definitions.
An individual factor that influences NBA slang are peoples’ knowledge and skills about the game of basketball. Their knowledge and skills about the game of basketball lets them feel entitled to have a valid opinion about a particular team and/or player.
These findings support our thesis statement that both Lakers and Clippers fans would experience semantic change to NBA slang because of how much the NBA has evolved. More specifically, many NBA slang terms have been outdated, and it was expected that these fans would use different meanings to these slang terms to fit today’s NBA style of play.
Conclusion
Linguists can benefit from our research because they are interested in real world phenomena. As such, they are descriptive and study how people actually talk, where some use NBA slang as part of their everyday speech, and not prescriptive regarding how people “should” talk. Because linguists study semantics, our research allows for linguists to study more in-depth the role that NBA slang has for basketball fans to know what certain words mean, what makes them have more than one meaning, why those meanings exist, and others.
A possible future direction of our research would be for researchers to replicate this study on a much larger scale through ethnographic research to ensure that there is enough data gathered from both groups. Ethnographic research can improve this study because it involves observing a particular group and site over a long period of time, which could gather a large amount of data about the use of NBA slang at basketball games.
References
Cheung‐Blunden, V., Sonar, K. U., Zhou, E. A., & Tan, C. (2021). Foreign disinformation operation’s affective engagement: Valence versus discrete emotions as drivers of tweet popularity. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12262
Locklin, W. (2021, July 15). What is “Skill” in NBA Basketball. The Wright Way Network. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://twsn.net/2021/07/what-is-skill-in-nba-basketball
Los Angeles Clippers vs. Los Angeles Lakers. (n.d.). Diffen. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://www.diffen.com/difference/Los_Angeles_Clippers_vs_Los_Angeles_Lakers
Oxford University Press (OUP). (n.d.). Skill. Lexico.Com. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/skill
Rocca, K. A., & Vogl‐Bauer, S. (1999). Trait verbal aggression, sports fan identification, and perceptions of appropriate sports fan communication. Communication Research Reports, 16(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099909388723
Urban Dictionary: Superteam (NBA). (2018, May 28). Urban Dictionary. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Superteam%20%28NBA%29
Whitmoyer, E. (2019). Measuring Greatness in the NBA. Scholars Crossing. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/845/
Wijaya, D. T., & Yeniterzi, R. (2011). Understanding semantic change of words over centuries. Proceedings of the 2011 International Workshop on DETecting and Exploiting Cultural diversiTy on the Social Web – DETECT ’11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2064448.2064475
Zhou, Y., & Fan, Y. (2013). A Sociolinguistic Study of American Slang. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.12.2209-2213
Methods
