Sociolinguistics

Introduction and Background

Ballroom culture in itself houses predominantly African American and Latino LGBTQ+ demographics and revolves around chosen kinship structures, therefore absorbing members expelled from biological families. Drag performances staged as balls treat topics of race, class, and gender as live material rather than simple background conditions due to the aggressive attempts of erasure from general society. Ball culture in essence fuses African American English with elements of queer subcultural inventions to establish as an infrastructure for solidarity and as a protective barrier against hostile antagonizers (Barrett, 1998). For example, drag has originally used “camp” as a tool to make political statements and influence change (Hellmuth, 2024). “Camp” is a performance style that is very exaggerated and incorporates so much irony and humor that it’s considered absurd. Historically, drag has utilized “camp” throughout drag performances and many of them are used to combat gender norms. However, this absurd aspect of the culture has been extremely controversial with some people criticizing drag performances as a “threat to children”. Therefore, many more mainstream drag performances have been “sanitized” to avoid pushback by staying away from certain highly politicized topics or not being as “radical” as they have historically been (Hellmuth, 2024). Some recent performers might choose less controversial themes or less confrontational comments.

Reading, one aspect of drag culture, originates in the ballroom tradition that values indirection and the wittiness; a successful read in its original form does not state the insult directly but rather it implies and embeds the attack in presupposition, implication or wordplay that rewards insiders capable of decoding it. Within Brown, it is classified as an off-record-face-threatening act, which means the insult is delivered without being technically stated, leaving the speaker with plausible deniability and allowing audience members to perform some investigative work (Brown, 1987). The craft lives within that gap between what is said and what is meant. 

Direct reads, however, state the insult in explicit terms. They are immediately accessible to any demographic regardless of community knowledge; this is more favorable to mainstream television viewers but comes at the cost of appearing as low-hanging fruit within the originating drag culture tradition. The directness variable essentially operates both as a linguistic measure and a social one. It indexes whether the speaker is performing for an insider community or a general audience. 

While scholars have studied the structural commercialization of drag aesthetics, they haven’t studied how this mainstreaming process changes micro-level linguistic practices, such as reading in drag. This study seeks to understand the relationship, if any, between viewership of RuPaul’s Drag Race and proportion of direct reads. As the viewership of RPDR expanded, we assert that direct reads became increasingly rewarded because they performed for an audience no longer exclusive to drag culture insiders. 

Methods

To answer whether drag reading changed as RuPaul’s Drag Race went mainstream, we needed a way to get inside the language itself. It was not just whether a read was funny; it was more about what linguistic work the queen was actually doing to construct it. To get a better understanding we built a four criterion composite scoring scale, with each criterion grounded in linguistic literature. The scale was from 0-5, with 0 to 1 being community impolite, 2-3 being ambiguous, and 4-5 being community polite. Each targeted one specific dimension of what separates a skilled community read from a generic insult. We found it was more effective to back our judgement of politeness of reads through linguistic analysis than a simple binary determiner of if it was polite or impolite. 

The first criterion is the semantic field, which was worth two points. Lehrer (1974) claimed that vocabulary clusters into meaning domains, or simply put, a group of words that belong together based on what they refer to. So essentially a read that borrows from one domain to create an attack through another, requires audiences to hold both and connect them to recover the insult. Cross domain reads follow ballroom culture because this feature is really dependent on subcultural knowledge to decode the read. On the other hand, single domain reads that stay in the same category as the target does not require as much work. This portion is the most complex and the most community specific, so we thought it was justified to weigh it more heavily at 2 points. 

The second criterion was the register, which was worth one point. According to Halliday (1978), moving between formal and colloquial vocabulary within a single utterance is a skilled social performance and it signals the speaker can control multiple speech varieties all together and use them strategically. Any detected movement is considered crafty, and reads that just maintain constant colloquial vocabulary throughout show no fluency between registers and scores zero. 

The third criterion is specificity, one point. The main source Brown and Levinson (1987) states that off-record-face-threatening acts which are insults delivered through implication rather than a direct statement, needs a specific target to function. In this case, a generic flaw is not something that you can build an inference around. A read that targets something unique to a queen or individual like her specific presentation, her identity, her documented history on the show would score a point. In contrast, a read that can be copy pasted on anyone in the lineup is a zero. 

The last criterion were address terms, which is worth one point. Barrett (1998) documented that terms like honey, girl, mama, miss, etc signal community membership, and as indexicals in drag speech specifically. The existence of those terms in a read shows that the speaker is performing for an insider room, and this would be one point. If there is absence of it, then it signals more mainstream audience orientation, so this would be zero. 

Figure 1: Summary of Methodology Criteria (Semantic Field, Register, Specificity, Address Term)

Results and Analysis

To illustrate how we applied our methodology to our sample, the following section will analyze two reads in detail, then display the data as a whole. 

In Season 2, one of the reads said “And miss Tatianna, miss honey you think you’re so soft, not by the hairs of your chinny chin chin.” Contestant Jujubee delivered this read, combining the Three Little Pigs fairy tale with a directed jab at Tatianna’s demeanor. We categorized the semantic field of this read as “multiple” as it draws from the fairy tale reference and the drag specific context of the word “soft” to target Tatianna’s demeanor. This gives the read 2 points. Next, as explained above, we gave this read another point for mixed register, as it uses both elevated language and colloquial language. Third, the use of Tatianna, the target’s, name in the read makes the statement high in specificity, earning the read another point. The use of the address words “honey” and “miss” give this read a final point, totaling the maximum 5 points on our scale. 

Figure 2: Jujubee directing a read to Tatianna in RuPaul’s Drag Race Season 2

In Season 3, one read from Shangela to Raja was the following, “Raja, I know you call yourself top model, but I think Tyra Banks and I would agree you’re just fashion roadkill.” We gave this read two points for multiple semantic fields as it references the show “America’s Next Top Model” to address the target’s appearance. The read also utilizes mixed register by moving between the language of the fashion industry (“top model” and the reference to Tyra Banks) and the highly colloquial insult fashion roadkill, resulting in a third point. Directing the read to Raja specifically and what she allegedly calls herself results in a point for specificity. Finally, as there is no address marker, this read would total 4 points.

Figure 3: Shangela giving a read on RuPaul’s Drag Race Season 3

After we assigned a point value to all the reads, we examined the proportions of reads categorized as impolite, polite, or ambiguous across the different seasons. This analysis revealed notable variation between seasons. Season 2 contained the highest proportion of polite reads, with approximately 80% of all reads being classified as polite. In contrast, Season 5 showed no reads that were categorized as polite. Instead, 70% of the reads in Season 5 were classified as ambiguous, while the remaining 30% were categorized as impolite. These findings suggest a shift in the nature of the reads over time, with later seasons displaying fewer clearly polite instances. By using the point values outlined in the methodology, we displayed our categorizations in the following bar graph.

Figure 4: Bar graph measuring number of ambiguous, impolite and polite reads by season number, with season number on the x-axis and number of reads on the y-axis.

We also looked at the data separately from the final categorical labels to examine the seasons in relation to one another. To do this, we analyzed the politeness score based on the linguistic features we focused on. As a reminder, higher politeness scores indicate greater use of semantic fields associated with politeness, a more formal register, increased use of addresses, and greater specificity. Again, the scale was from 0-5, with 0 to 1 being community impolite, 2-3 being ambiguous, and 4-5 being community polite. The bar graph displays the average politeness score for each season. The results show a clear downward trend across the series: as the seasons progress, the average politeness score steadily decreases. This suggests that the linguistic features associated with politeness become less prominent over time, supporting the pattern observed in the categorical analysis and indicating an overall decline in politeness markers in later seasons.

Figure 5: Bar graph measuring average community-politeness score by season number, with season number on the x-axis and score on the y-axis

Discussion & Conclusions

While we cannot claim any causal relationships, our data is conclusive in depicting a general trend of a shift towards community impoliteness over time. This pattern demonstrates a broader notion that RuPaul’s Drag Race has become the largest source of drag art globally, replacing other popular sources such as ballroom. But what will become of ballroom language? Will Drag Race’s fame make ballroom culture vulnerable to mainstream judgment? One argument holds that the commodification of drag is negative in that it utilizes stereotypes to create images for consumption (Cranon 2024). Once drag is seen as a popular “product”, there is a risk of cultural and linguistic appropriation. However, on the other hand, there is a positive effect of sharing stories of marginalized communities in mainstream media. The popularity of the show has increased awareness around drag performance, and its audience has grown. Groups of all backgrounds report to feel positive effects on mental health and lowered feelings of anxiety and depression since attending drag events (Leer 2021). Historically, groups that benefited from drag art were LGBTQ+, but now with a more diverse audience, straight women share this comfort. So while our data shows trends of linguistic change in the Drag Race reading challenge, this is generally a positive signal of acceptance and diversification.

Bibliography

Barrett, R. (1998) ‘Markedness and Styleswitching in Performances by African American Drag Queens’, in Carol Myers-Scotton (ed.), Stylistic Choices in Spoken English, in Carol Myers-Scotton (ed.), Codes and Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115222.003.0008 

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 

https://archive.org/details/politenesssomeun00brow

Calder, J. (2019), From Sissy to Sickening: The Indexical Landscape of /s/ in SoMa, San Francisco. J Linguist Anthropol, 29: 332-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12218  

Cranon, Ryn. “The Real Realness: Commodifying Culture from the Ballroom to Rupaul’s Drag Race.” Saint Lunita Magazine, 16 May 2024 https://saintlunita.com/2024/05/10/the-real-realness-commodifying-culture-from-the-ballroom-to-rupauls-drag-race/ 

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. 31-35, 142-145 https://archive.org/details/languageassocial0000hall

Hellmuth, L. (2024). The Politics of Camp: Drag between Cultural Mainstream and Reactionary Politics. Amerikastudien / American Studies, 69(4), 425–444. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48846923 

Holmes, A. (2025, May 14). The Underground Art of the Insult. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/the-underground-art-of-the-insult.html  

Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. North-Holland. pp. 1-45 https://books.google.com/books/about/Semantic_Fields_and_Lexical_Structure.html?id=L8BrAAAAIAAJ

Leer, Clair. (2021) “Research Shows Drag Life Is Good for You: UON.” University of Northampton, www.northampton.ac.uk/news/research-shows-drag-life-is-good-for-you/. 

Mann, S. L. (2011). Drag Queens’ Use of Language and the Performance of Blurred Gendered and Racial Identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(6–7), 793–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.581923 

Moore, Ramey (2013), “Everything Else Is Drag: Linguistic Drag and Gender Parody on Rupaul’s Drag Race,” Journal of Research in Gender Studies 3(2): 15–26 

[RuPaul’s Drag Race]. (2018, December 15). Every Reading Challenge (Compilation Part 1) | The Library is Open | RuPaul’s Drag Race [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFn_AzQuJWQ&t=277s 

[RuPaul’s Drag Race]. (2018, December 16). Every Reading Challenge (Compilation Part 2) | The Library is Open | RuPaul’s Drag Race [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFn_AzQuJWQ&t=277s 

Taylor, V., & Rupp, L. J. (2004). Drag Queens and Kings. In M. Stein (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History in America (Vol. 1, pp. 316-320). Charles Scribner’s Sons. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3403600152/GVRL?u=uclosangeles&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=90ae12f8

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The focus of this project is the loss of the Igbo language, particularly among the Gen Z generation within the Igbo community. We aimed to examine how young members of the community engage with—or distance themselves from—the language, and how fluency, comprehension, and everyday usage differ from previous generations. In addition to overall language loss, the study will explore variation in language styles and dialects within Igbo, recognizing that even small differences in pronunciation, tone, and vocabulary can signal regional identity and cultural belonging. Special attention will be given to the distinction between village dialects and Central (Standard) Igbo, and how these differences affect understanding and usage among young people.

This study will investigate language use and identity among youth of Igbo descent. The Igbo constitute one of the largest ethnolinguistic groups in West Africa, with a strong historical tradition of linguistic and cultural transmission. Traditionally, the Igbo language has been a medium for socialization, culture, and intergenerational communication within families. Proficiency in Igbo has historically been associated with cultural knowledge and social belonging. In modern settings, however, language practices among Igbo youth have been reshaped by urbanization, formal education, migration, and globalization. English, as Nigeria’s official language and main medium of instruction, occupies a position of high socioeconomic prestige in comparison to Igbo. Social structures also influence language transmission. While elders traditionally function as custodians of linguistic and cultural knowledge, changing family dynamics and generational distance have weakened intergenerational transfer. Furthermore, negative attitudes about language and perceptions of limited economic value may discourage active Igbo use. Linguistically, reduced fluency among youth is often reflected in increased code-switching and simplified structures, illustrating the broader relationship between language choice, identity, and social mobility

METHODS

Our study focused on examining language use and sense of identity among Igbo youth. We examined two different participant groups: heritage Igbo youth who retained spoken fluency in the language and culturally Igbo youth who struggled with maintaining fluency. Our participants were selected using a convenience sampling method, drawing from one of our researcher’s existing social circles. Our participant target was Gen Z individuals that navigate both Igbo and more English-dominant social environments.

Our data was collected through semi-structured interviews that we conducted over the online communication platform Zoom. Our interviews were designed and scripted to prompt participants to recount personal narratives around language learning, everyday usage of the language, and how they feel about their cultural identity. The conversational format we utilized allowed our participants to speak openly about their experiences with Igbo in their home and school environment as well as within their broader communities. These interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and later transcribed for analysis.

Our analysis focused mainly on the participants’ reported frequency of Igbo usage in different social contexts (such as their immediate family, peers, or elders). We also surveyed their comfort level with village dialects such as Ika in comparison to standard Igbo. We gave much attention to the analysis of code-switching and faltering language retention pointing towards language shift. Most importantly, our study also examined how participants described their relationship to their Igbo identity, such as whether limited fluency was associated with feelings of cultural distance or any pressure to assimilate. Our purpose for this was mainly to try to analyze whether participants’ feelings about their social belonging and intergenerational dynamics contributed to Igbo’s language shift and/or language eradication.

RESULTS

Our study identified several factors related to Igbo language use and transmission among participants. In one interview, Chikezie described learning the language from his grandmother. He stated, “my grandmother often spoke to me because that was the only way she could communicate which was how I learned igbo. However, I feel that because I had to learn the primary language, English, to be able to attend school, my proficiency in Igbo has decreased, especially in pronunciation and tone.” In contrast, another interviewee, Chifunranya, lived in Nigeria his entire life and only moved abroad for college but reported that he never learned his parents’ language. He said, “I lived in port harcourt for school but would go home often during holidays and obviously they would speak the language to me but I never spoke back but rather responded. “I didn’t have the foundation from either my parents or grandparents”.

Two of the four participants stated that Igbo is mainly used at home or when speaking with relatives, indicating that it is primarily used as a private heritage language in those contexts. Three out of four participants reported that they understand Igbo better than they can speak it. Differences in fluency among participants were associated with variations in childhood exposure and family language practices. In addition, two out of four participants said they primarily learned Igbo from their grandparents.

Participants also reported that younger speakers often use Central Igbo rather than village dialects when communicating with other Igbo speakers from different communities.

Based on the data collected, the study examined patterns of Igbo language use, differences in proficiency, and the role of family members in language transmission across participants’ experiences.

DISCUSSION

Studying specifically the Igbo language helps us understand the larger phenomenon of language loss, especially between generations in immigrant households. Our results illustrate how the older generation has been responsible for raising their children and grandchildren around Igbo, whereas the individuals feel more responsible with keeping their language and culture alive. This can help illustrate phenomena around immigrant children at large. Many do not speak their language, but their parents and grandparents do, which can cause differences in perspectives on their culture. Some of our participants expressed they felt more comfortable speaking with their peers rather than older adults. Many expressed losing aspects of Igbo such as tone and specific pronunciations. These can help show how language and culture shift over time, together. Our participants also emphasized this, how their language is intertwined with their culture. This gives us more examples of how language helps shape how we interact with the world and ourselves. Our results can show how certain ethnic communities are created and interact with the world in countries other than their native one, and how their accents are a product of their community and environment.

References

1. Nwike, C. C., & Nnaka, C. V. (2023). The effect of migration on Igbo language survival:
   Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Communication and African Studies, 5(2),
   33-42.
2. Nelson, D., Nhenety Kariri-Xocó, Idiane Kariri-Xocó, & Pitman, T. (2023). “We Most
   Certainly Do Have a Language.” Environmental Humanities, 15(1), 187–207.
   https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-10216239
3. James, N., James, M., Aghanya, I., Ihechu, I. P., Duru, I., Chukwuma, O., Godson, N. S.,
   Ezeonwumelu, V. U., Ukaegbu, E. K., Aruah, E. K., & Onyebuchi, V. (2024, August 1).
   Limits of language in Nigeria: The hatred on Igbo language.
4. Hinton, L. (1999). Involuntary Language Loss among Immigrants: Asian-American
   Linguistic Autobiographies [Review of Involuntary Language Loss among Immigrants:
   Asian-American Linguistic Autobiographies]. ERIC Digest, ED436982.
   https://permanent.fdlp.gov/websites/files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED436982.pdf
5. James, N., James, M., Aghanya, I., Ihechu, I. P., Duru, I., Chukwuma, O., Godson, N.
   S., Ezeonwumelu, V. U., Ukaegbu, E. K., Aruah, E. K., & Onyebuchi, V. (2024, August 1).
   Limits of language in Nigeria: The hatred on Igbo language.
   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4946190

Crash Course on Intraspeaker Variation 

The Big Picture 

Language use is a social choice where individuals can negotiate their social relationships and identities. The foundation of this negotiation is intraspeaker variation which specifically focuses on how people change the way they talk on a situational basis (Grieser, “Locating Style”). We wanted to explore how gen Z girls utilize this variation to navigate friendship and new relationships through university as it can be a period of high stress and unfamiliar circumstances. 

What We Do and Don’t Know 

We conducted all interviews online through a singular platform as it has been proven that the medium of communication also causes intraspeaker variation (Bleaman, I. L., Cugno, K., & Helms, A.). Existing sociolinguistic research records establish that “socialness” of vocabulary is a fundamental principle of language. On a more pragmatic and phonological level, Savitsky et al. discusses “closeness-communication bias” among friends, along with the use of vocal fry as a linguistic register among young women. However, much of the existing research pertains to broader social categories leading to a gap in understanding of exactly how interpersonal familiarity alone acts as a primary factor in linguistic shifts, specifically among female university students. 

What did We Want to Learn? 

Our project contributes to the field of linguistic anthropology by focusing on the variable of familiarity in observing language use among female GenZ students. Ultimately, our research argues that perceived interpersonal familiarity does dynamically affect the linguistic choices of female university students. Demonstrating that speakers systematically shift pragmatic, phonological, and semantic features when addressing friends versus strangers.

Who? 

The target participant population for this study were female undergraduate students at the University of California, Los Angeles. Participants were recruited through personal networks within the group. Each participant took part in two separate interviews: one conducted by a researcher they were already familiar with (her friend) and the other conducted by a researcher they had not previously met (a stranger). 

How? 

Both interviews (with a friend and a stranger) were conducted on the virtual video conferencing platform, Zoom, with both the camera and microphone active to observe not only vocal and conversational differences but also body language. This was to mitigate potential effects of communication medium on linguistic behavior. Interviewers maintained a neutral tone while asking the questions to avoid influencing participants’ level of comfort or speaking style. However, natural and conversational interaction was allowed during responses so that the interviews resembled everyday communication rather than a strictly controlled survey format. During the interview, participants were asked a standardized set of six questions that were related to their academic experiences, careers, and their personal lives. Ranging from baseline questions (yellow) to more personal, feelings based questions (purple). 

Baseline questions helped us note phonological and contextual differences in participant’s answers while the later questions allowed observation of the ways in which participant familiarity with the interviewer would affect what personal information they would share. 

What Actually Happened? 

There are several distinct findings within the course of the conducted interviews: we found that participants used constant vocal features (vocal fry, dropped endings, and vowel elongation) with both friends and strangers albeit with differing frequency, conversely we found differences in information shared and eye contact maintained throughout. With friends, participants were likely to use high frequencies of dropped endings, vocal fry, and filler words, the most commonly noted of which was ‘like’. With strangers, participants used the same language features just with far less frequency, however the concentration of where in the interview these features occurred stayed consistent. The figure below demonstrates this phenomena as it was observed, also illustrating that the ‘more personal’ questions (Q4 + Q5) elicited the use of significantly more filler words. 

We also observed participants were much more likely to provide scaffolding information to strangers than their friends. Several varied examples of this appeared throughout the interviews, one of the most clear instances of this in each interview was the context behind what a major entailed. 

Interestingly, we noted that eye contact was more likely to be avoided with friends throughout the interview, with the exception of the ‘most personal’ question that asked the participant to recount a recent important event in their life where eye contact was avoided altogether. Furthermore, when answering this question, participants had a higher likelihood of revealing information about their personal lives to their friends whereas they were more likely to convey academic or professional success with strangers as demonstrated in the figure below. 

So what? Why does this Matter? 

Contrasting our initial hypothesis, our findings show a much higher degree of nuance in undergraduate communication between girls. While we initially expected a stark difference between the interviews in not only topics of conversation but also manner of speaking, the participants demonstrated that female college-aged students tend to exhibit similar behavioral characteristics with friends and strangers in order to establish some level of positive rapport with unfamiliar people. Though they don’t know the interviewer, they use behaviors that demonstrate ‘familiarity’ and ‘friendliness’ to simulate a level of closeness in order to mitigate the feelings of awkwardness that can manifest when discussing yourself with strangers. The implications of our findings suggest that in the context of our target demographic casual speech in an unfamiliar setting illustrates attempts to build connections and acquaintances. Further, it is apparent that rather than being a conscious choice to please a stranger, this ‘warmth’ may be a way for college aged girls to make themselves more comfortable in potentially uncomfortable situations. Consistent with this, the hesitancy our participants showed to reveal personal details shows that despite displaying a front of openness and friendship, most participants had clear boundaries of their own comfort. Altogether, these results suggest that female university students employ linguistic and conversational variability in a very clear manner to craft situations of potential discomfort into conversations where they create their own comfort while maintaining clear and distinct lines between what they feel appropriate to share or not. 

References 

Bleaman, I. L., Cugno, K., & Helms, A. (2023). Medium-shifting and intraspeaker variation in conversational interviews. Language Variation and Change, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394522000151 

Grieser, J. (2013). Locating Style: Style-shifting to Characterize Community at the Border of Washington, D.C. University of Pennsylvania, Working Papers in Linguistics, 19(2). 

Savitsky, K., Keysar, B., Epley, N., Carter, T., & Swanson, A. (2011). The closeness-communication bias: Increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.005 

Introduction and background 

Code-switching, the practice of alternating between two or more languages within a conversation, is a common communicative strategy among bilingual speakers. Rather than being random or accidental, patterns of code-switching are often shaped by social context, relationships between speakers, and the meanings speakers wish to convey (Liu, 2018). In multilingual environments such as universities, students frequently shift between languages when interacting with different audiences, including classmates, friends, family members, or coworkers. These shifts can serve multiple purposes, from expressing cultural identity to signaling social belonging or navigating different social expectations. This research focuses on bilingual and heritage speakers at UCLA, a campus characterized by significant linguistic and cultural diversity. Many students at UCLA grow up speaking multiple languages or dialects and regularly move between them in everyday interactions. As a result, the university provides a valuable setting for examining how code-switching operates within multilingual communities and how language choices reflect broader social dynamics. Our research asks: What social, situational, and linguistic factors lead bilingual students at UCLA to code-switch, and how do they use code-switching to manage social identity across different contexts? 

Within many communities, however, code-switching is often frowned upon. Heritage speakers – individuals raised in households where a non-dominant language is spoken but educated primarily in an English dominant environment – are frequently told that mixing languages reflects the lack of fluency. These attitudes reflect broader language ideologies that privilege monolingual norms and treat bilingual language practices as deviations from a standard (Ali, 2023). Yet empirical research suggests that code-switching serves important communicative and social functions. For instance, speakers may switch languages to fill lexical gaps, quote others, emphasize emotional expression, or signal group membership. Ali’s (2023) study of heritage Spanish speakers found that participants engaged in codeswitching frequently across social contexts, even when they personally expressed negative attitudes toward the practice. This disconnect shines light on the tension between language ideologies and actual linguistic behavior. 

Other research has explored the cognitive and interactional dimensions of code-switching. Hofweber, Marinis, and Treffers-Daller (2020) propose that different types of code-switching engage distinct cognitive control mechanisms. Their dual-control framework draws a line between alternational switching, in which speakers move clearly between languages, and dense code-switching, where languages are heavily mixed within the same utterance. These distinctions suggest that code-switching patterns are not only socially meaningful but also cognitively structured. 

In everyday interactions, code-switching isn’t just about managing two linguistic systems but also about responding to social cues and relationships as well. The same speaker could possibly shift differently depending on the space they are in or the people they are interacting with, implicating that these patterns are shaped as much by social awareness as they are by cognitive processes. This makes it pretty important to look beyond structure and consider how code-switching is experienced by speakers themselves, particularly in environments where identity and belonging are constantly being negotiated. 

Building on this literature, our research investigates how code-switching relates to identity among bilingual and heritage speakers at UCLA. Specifically, we explore whether speakers who code-switch more often report a stronger connection between language use and identity, and whether social environments, like friend groups, classrooms, or professional settings, shape speakers’ comfort levels when they’re switching languages. By comparing patterns across bilingual and heritage speakers, this research strives to better understand how multilingual students use language as an outlet for expressing belonging, navigating social expectations, and negotiating identity in university settings. 

Methods 

To go into how code-switching relates to identity and social context, we collected survey data from bilingual and heritage speakers at UCLA. UCLA provides a particularly relevant setting for this research because of its diversity, where many students are regularly navigating multiple languages across different environments. Participants were recruited from the UCLA student community and self-identified as either bilingual speakers or heritage speakers of a language besides English. 

Data were collected through a structured online questionnaire designed to capture both language background and patterns of language use across different contexts. The survey included questions about participants’ linguistic backgrounds, including the languages they speak, their self-identified language status (bilingual or heritage speaker), and their perceived proficiency in each language. Participants were also asked about how frequently they engage in code-switching and the types of situations in which switching occurs, such as conversations with friends, family members, or classmates. 

To better understand the relationship between language use and identity, the questionnaire also measured participants’ comfort levels when code-switching across different environments. Respondents rated their comfort levels in various contexts using Likert-scale responses (e.g., from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable”). Additional questions asked participants whether they perceived social judgement when mixing languages and whether they felt that their language use was connected to their personal or cultural identity. 

The survey therefore focused on several observable elements of communication: the frequency of code-switching, the social contexts in which switching occurs, participants’ perceived comfort levels, and their perceptions of identity and social evaluation. These variables allowed us to examine how linguistic behavior and social experience interact in multilingual environments. 

After data collection, responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis. We examined correlations between code-switching frequency, comfort levels, and identity-related responses, and compared patterns across bilingual and heritage speakers. By identifying similarities and differences across these groups, the analysis strived to reveal how social context and linguistic background influence when and why students code-switch. 

Results/analysis 

To explore and analyze the relationship between code-switching and cultural identity among bilingual and heritage speakers, these charts were created to assist visualizing the correlations across four key components. 

Figure 1 shows how often participants switch between languages. Most answered “sometimes” regardless of whether they identified as heritage and bilingual speakers. This suggests that code-switching is best understood as a situational social strategy. The distribution hints that frequency of the second language usage is higher among bilingual speakers compared to heritage speakers, although the overall pattern remains similar across both groups. 

<Figure 1. Code Switching Frequency> 

The relationship between identity and communication is shown in Figure 2 – Identity expression vs. Comfort level. This graph is to examine whether participants who see code-switching as part of their identity also feel comfortable using it. Each point represents a participant’s response, the overall pattern suggests that stronger identity alignment tends to be associated with higher level of comfort, especially in bilingual speakers. 

<Figure 2. Identity expression vs Comfort level> 

A similar correlation is observed in Figure 3. Frequency vs. Identity graph, which compares how often participants code-switch and how strongly they associate it with their identity. Participants who reported higher frequency of code-switching generally showed moderate to high identity scores. The relationship between frequency and identity suggests that individuals who code-switch more frequently may also view it as a meaningful part of their identity but further investigation is needed as the spread suggests that frequency is not the sole thing that determines the identity. 

<Figure 3. Frequency vs. Identity> 

Figure 4 – Identity vs Feeling Judged is to explore the correlation between identity and experiences in social judgment. The y-axis is the scale of perceived judgement: 0 = not judged, 0.5 = sometimes, and 1 = yes. Bilingual and heritage speakers show different distributions. Bilingual speakers largely cluster around “not judged”, while heritage speakers show a more dispersed pattern. The difference suggests that linguistic background may shape social experience, likely due to differing expectations on their language ability in addition to how code-switching relates to cultural identity and the role of language ideology and social attitudes. 

<Figure 4 & 5. Identity vs. Feeling judged – Bilingual and Heritage speakers> 

These results and analysis point to a broader conclusion that code-switching operates at the intersection of linguistic ability, identity, communication, and social perception. Code-switching is beyond linguistic behavior, but a more complex social practice shaped by community, context, and the speaker’s relationship to their languages and identity. The findings demonstrate how code-switching and identity are deeply interconnected, and further influenced by other factors such as comfort and how speakers are perceived by others. 

Discussion and conclusions 

Our findings show that code-switching among bilingual and heritage speakers at UCLA is a socially meaningful and context-dependent practice, challenging the idea that it is a reflection of language ability. 

Based on our data, participants who viewed code-switching as part of their identity also reported high comfort levels, especially in familiar group settings such as with friends and family. Our results demonstrate a strong association among code-switching, identity, and comfort levels. As languages provide unique mediums for expression and communication, code-switching can serve as a way to express belonging and shared cultural identity. However, most participants also reported that they code-switch only “sometimes.” Depending on their comfort level in a given circumstance, code-switching is not always freely expressed. Instead, individuals may adjust their language use based on their comfort level to the audience and perceived environment. 

We also found that the relationship between code-switching frequency and identity was not consistent for all participants. Although higher frequency in code-switching was associated with stronger alignment with identity, other factors such as personal experience and social environment played an important role. The differences in perceived judgement experienced by bilingual and heritage speakers suggest that language ideologies influence how comfortable individuals feel when using multiple languages. For some participants, particularly those in multilingual environments, code-switching tends to be a more comfortable and natural way of speaking, due to individuals’ exposure to changing speech patterns across languages. On the other hand, predominantly monolingual environments may be less familiar with how each language presents different ways of communicating identity and meanings—an ability inherent to code-switching. As a result, these speakers may experience more resistance, including judgement and negative attitudes towards the practice of code-switching. 

Overall, our findings support the idea that code-switching is a communicative strategy for conveying social identity and navigating between different social contexts. However, it is important to note that these conclusions are based on self reported data. While our study primarily reflects participants’ perceptions and investigates their correlation between code-switching frequency and environment, these findings are specific to our study’s participants and do not fully capture how code-switching happens or how it is used in real world interactions. Future research can incorporate observational or conversational data to better capture how code-switching occurs in practice. 

Recognizing code-switching as a strategic and expressive form of communication also has significant implications beyond this study. In educational settings, this suggests that encouraging multilingualism, rather than prioritizing the use of a single language, can strengthen students’ communication skills and sense of identity. By respecting individuals for who they are, recognizing code-switching allows educators to better support students through more inclusive learning environments. For the broader public, this recognition can deepen awareness of how social relationships and identity are closely linked to an individual’s language use. Therefore, reframing code-switching as a skill, rather than a deficiency, can promote inclusive attitudes toward linguistic diversity. Ultimately, our study shows that code-switching is a useful communication tool that reflects identity, relationships, and linguistic adaptability. 

Bibliography 

Ali, F., (2023) “Code-Switching Among Heritage Spanish Speakers: Attitudes, Practices, and Pedagogical Implications”, Critical Multilingualism Studies 10(1), 1-35. 

Hofweber, J., Marinis, T., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2020). How different code-switching types modulate bilinguals’ executive functions: A dual control mode perspective. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 23(4), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000804 

Liu, H. (2018). Intra-speaker variation in Chinese–English code-switching: The interaction between cognitive and contextual factors. The International Journal of Bilingualism : Cross-Disciplinary, Cross-Linguistic Studies of Language Behavior, 22(6), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917698586

Olson, D.J. (2024). Bilingual Language Dominance and Code-switching Patterns. Heritage Language Journal. 

Sharma, Devyani, and John R. Rickford. 2009. AAVE/Creole Copula Absence: A Critique of the Imperfect Learning Hypothesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24(1): 53–90. Accessed July 9, 2025. 

Introduction and background

Slang is informal phrases, usually adopted by the youth (Wirasasti et al., 2025). For Generation Alpha, their access to the newest forms of technology and algorithm-driven social media extrapolates the reach of slang (Fatmasari et al., 2025). However, this raises the question of whether people adopt slang as quickly as they are exposed to it. 

Technology has been a revolutionary tool in how we communicate, hence we took the generation who grew up with social media and new technology, and compared it with the generation who grew up without social media and older technology. Technology during the time of Generation X consisted of TV and radio, whereas Generation Alpha has technology connected to the global internet via social media (I. Hyderabad & M. Hyderabad, 2025). Some articles also mentioned that shorter, condensed video formats on social media, as well as their algorithms, tended to propagate slang rapidly (I. Hyderabad & M. Hyderabad, 2025; Fatmasari et al., 2025). Additionally, Generation Alpha’s slang derives from visual aspects, creativity, body/facial involvement, and informality compared to Generation X’s slang (Putri et al., 2025). Another study observed that, unlike Generation Z’s slang, Generation Alpha’s slang typically does not enhance daily conversation (Paoleti & Mujahidah, 2025). Though there are studies on Generation Alpha’s slang globally, very few have studied Generation X’s slang terms. 

Our project aims to address these research gaps by expanding the information around the relationship between social media and Generation Alpha’s slang terms and usage trends, while adding a new dimension: a comparison to Generation X’s slang trends during their teenage years. This was done through comparing slang terms and spread between English-speaking Generation Alpha (born between 2010-2024) and Generation X (born between 1965-1980) in the United States. Since Generation X did not have social media during their teenage years, we hypothesize a slower spread of their process in slang learning and usage. We also expect to see Generation Alpha’s slang being more random and lacking meaning, since it’s supposedly not used to enhance daily conversation. 

Methods

Data was collected in two ways: responses from participants and online video observations, consisting of eight participants representing Generation Alpha (n = 4) or Generation X (n = 4). From the Generation Alpha participants, one participant was an adult who worked closely with Generation Alpha. Interviews were conducted with participants, and their answers were recorded by our team through Google Form surveys. The questions for Gen X participants were asked in the context of their slang experience in their teenage years to ensure consistency and reduce the potential confounding variable of age-related effects on slang usage. Participants were asked about four types of questions: 

1. The types of media they used to learn their slang. 

2. The average time it took them to understand the slang after first hearing it.* 

3. The average time it took them to start using the slang after first exposure to it.* 

4. Examples of the slang they used/use. 

*Questions 2 and 3 were asked to quantify the spread of slang, and they were created based on Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which explains the adoption of slang and its spread in communities through different sequential stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation (Wirasasti et al., 2025). Our questions focus on the knowledge and decision stages. The former refers to when an individual learns about the slang term, while the latter stage refers to when the individual decides whether or not they will use the slang term (Wirasasti et al., 2025). For these questions, a few participants reported a time-range answer (containing multiple times, such as days to weeks) when it came to understanding and acquiring slang, so we used an average of the time range for data analysis.  

Results/Analysis

Fig. 1: Graph depicting the sources where both generations first heard of slang terms. The X-axis shows reported sources for slang, while the Y-axis depicts participants’ responses, with the blue bars corresponding to Generation X and the red to Generation Alpha. 

Fig. 2: Graph depicting how fast each generation understood slang after first hearing it. The X-axis corresponds to the time that it took, and the Y-axis corresponds to participant response frequency. 

Fig. 3: Graph depicting how fast participants used slang after hearing it for the first time. The X-axis corresponds to a unit of time, and the Y-axis records the participant response frequency. 

Figure 1 shows that slang acquisition primarily came from social media for Generation Alpha, and traditional media for Generation X. Previous literature affirms this and the significant impact of social media on Generation Alpha’s slang terms (I. Hyderabad & M. Hyderabad, 2025). According to Figure 3, on average, our Generation Alpha participants used slang faster than Generation X, with a positive correlation to social media. This also aligns with previous literature, possibly indicating that the faster slang spreads, the faster it will be used (Wirasasti et al. 2025). In the interview, one Generation Alpha participant mentioned that slang trends can vary week to week, and new terms can arise weekly or monthly. 

Surprisingly, Figure 2 shows a weaker correlation between social media use and the time it took for an individual to understand slang, as Generation Alpha participants reported differing time ranges that it took for them to understand slang. However, Generation X reported that they understood slang within a day. This trend may be explained by analyzing the linguistic differences in examples of slang from both generations presented in Figures 4 and 5. Through our participants’ responses and video observations, we observed that the meaning (semantics) behind Generation X’s slang terms tends to be more direct. Focusing on the morphology of the slang, we noticed Generation X’s slang derived from similar-meaning non-slang words, facilitating the understanding of the slang’s definition. Examples from Figure 4 include “rad” (derived from radical) and “dudette” (derived from dude). On the other hand, Gen Alpha’s slang terms (Figure 5) are more creative and abstract, such as “67,” “sigma,” and “ohio.” It appears as if their slang was more structured randomly, with a random combination of numbers or letters, rather than logically-formed words, since a good amount of Generation Alpha slang, according to our participants, is from online memes. Their slang seemed to focus more on the positive and negative connotations of the term rather than having a definite meaning. One Generation Alpha participant mentioned Italian brainrot terms that “don’t normally make sense but are funny” as an example. In fact, the participant working with Generation Alpha claimed in the interview that individuals of Generation Alpha sometimes start using slang without really understanding it. Despite the linguistic differences, we noticed that some of our slang examples from both generations were acronym-based (“IYKYK” and “PK”). 

Fig. 4: Slang examples for Generation X from interviews and video observations 

Fig. 5: Slang examples for Generation Alpha from interviews and video observations 

Discussions/Conclusions

Due to time and availability constraints, our research had some limitations: 

1. Because of our small sample size, we cannot conclusively draw a relationship between cause and effect in research conclusions. 

2. The responses from our adult participant working with Generation Alpha were based on personal observations rather than in-group knowledge of slang use within the generation. 

3. The surveys limit our ability to follow up on Generation Alpha’s answers, which may also cause discrepancies. 

Despite the research limitations, our study contributes to sociolinguistic research as it opens the door to further research into exploring how these linguistic and slang patterns may be representative of larger cultural phenomena created by modern globalized media. Our research also collected data on Generation X, their slang, and its connection to technology, which was missing in our literature review, thus suggesting a large gap when it comes to the study of sociolinguistics in older generations. Additionally, through our findings of patterns in the link between technology and slang, it is possible that our findings could also aid the prediction of future slang trends, as technology will continue to advance and change along a trajectory that may reflect on slang. 

References/Citations

Fatmasari, A. P., Wardhani, T., Roronias, N. a. A., Oemara, R. P., & Nasywan, F. A. (2025). The influence of TikTok social media on the emergence of Slang language used by Gen Alpha. Kirana., 2(3), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.61579/kirana.v2i3.318 

Hyderabad, I., & Hyderabad, R. M. (n.d.). Aclanthology. The Evolution of Gen Alpha Slang: Linguistic Patterns and AI Translation Challenges. https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-srw.43.pdf 

MGM. (2021, August 12). Valley Girl (1983) | “What a hunk” beach scene [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX-ccJlvEPU 

Paoleti, V. D., & Mujahidah, N. F. Z. (2025). Youth Language Uncovered: Meta-synthetic Insights Into Gen Z and Gen Alpha Slang. English Review: Journal of English Education,13(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.11425 

Putri, B. K. B. P., Soraya, N., & Rosalinah, Y. (2025). Sociolinguistic Perspective on Digital Communication: Understanding Gen Alpha language use in TikTok. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 5(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v5i1.886 

Sqwuade. (2014, September 21). Jeff Spicoli – Fast Times at Ridgemont High – Gnarly [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW0mi0L83Ek 

Wirasasti, S. V., Al Husna, G. T., Alfariz, M. F., Satrio, M., Febriyana, R., & Bangun, S. Z. (2025). The influence of social media on the use of ‘slang words’ among alpha generation. Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(SI2), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v6si2.991 

Introduction and Background

In present-day society, increased social media usage has completely transformed language. Through digital platforms, language spreads rapidly and develops new meanings due to a shared online culture. On social media apps, especially TikTok, memes and short phrases are integrated into videos and comment sections, becoming a means of communication for users. Although outsiders may find it difficult to understand this online culture, those who understand it significantly value it. As TikTok has tremendously expanded with the number of individuals utilizing the platform daily, the purpose of the comment sections has changed. Comment sections have become spaces where users bond with one another, as users share reaction images and humorous phrases that are regularly circulated in the app. The comment sections act as an inside joke, allowing strangers to connect with one another and form communities through a shared understanding of modern-day language and references. 

Indexical meaning, the idea that language can indicate identity, shared knowledge, and social affiliation beyond its literal meaning, explains this phenomenon. For example, phrases such as “It’s giving…” or “Wait, I’m actually cooking” typically originate in a specific context. However, as they spread across TikTok, they take on a broader social meaning. When a user sees the phrase outside of the original content and understands the meaning, it signifies that they belong to the shared online cultural community. Zappavigna (2011) finds this concept to be true in his research. In his article, he illustrates how a shared understanding of language leads to the formation of loose online communities. Moreover, further research on Gen-Z language underscores the idea that shared language on TikTok establishes social bonds and a common digital identity. This process is strengthened by TikTok’s algorithm, as personalized feeds are created based on each user. 

Our project focuses on the intersection of TikTok comments and the formation of online communities among strangers. In particular, we examine whether different comments, such as relatable sayings, popular phrases, or reaction photos, lead to more engagement than others. From this research, we hope to understand how “instant inside jokes” function in digital spaces and what they reveal about users and language as a whole.

Method

We explored which comment types seem to outperform others in increasing engagement and strengthening online communities. Our study investigates how certain types of TikTok comments generate engagement and function as “instant inside jokes” among users who do not know each other. By analyzing 100 TikTok videos and their top comments, our research categorizes comments into types such as funny/witty statements, relatable observations, reaction photos, and popular phrases. Engagement was measured through the combined like and reply count of the comment (its “engagement ratio”) to the total number of comments and likes the video received. Our findings suggest that TikTok comment sections rely on quick, culturally recognizable linguistic signals that allow users to participate in shared humor and identity expression, constructing fleeting but meaningful online connections, or “instant inside jokes.”

A look into our data spreadsheet of 100 Tik Tok videos’ top comments 

Results and Analysis

Level of engagement was determined by average likes per category and average reply ratio per category. To calculate these variables, comments were separated by category or category combination (e.g. “Reaction Photo” and “Funny/Witty”). For the average likes per category variable, an Excel function summed the total likes across top comments within each category and divided by the total number of TikToks in that category. Higher averages indicated higher engagement with the category. To compute the average reply ratio per category variable, an Excel function summed the total number of replies to the top comment for TikToks in each category and divided by the average of total comments per TikTok in that category. Higher reply ratios signified that a larger percentage of the comment section engaged in the respective category.    

Figure 1. Category Reply Ratios

These analyses were applied to 100 TikTok videos (see Figure 1), and the results demonstrated that content categorized as Funny/Witty and Relatable generated the most engagement. On average, 3.2% of the comment section replied to the most popular comment. Popular phrases also generated a significant amount of engagement, with an average of 2.2% of the comment section replying to the most popular comment. When used to supplement text, reaction photos also generated a high number of replies. Specifically, this occurred when used in conjunction with text referencing videos made by the same creator (1.77%), popular phrases (1.4%), and relatable statements (1.29%). For example, the comment “I turn into her when a man raises his voice in the slightest,” a funny/witty and relatable statement responding to a video about internet star Bhad Bhabie as the creator’s “alter ego,” which generated replies from 7.7% of the comment section. 

Figure 2. Category Like Counts

General trends concerning like count included higher average for relatable TikTok comments that referenced the creator posting the video (691.7k likes), as well as comments that paired a funny/witty statement along with a reaction photo (488k likes). In one example, the relatable comment “THE SMARTEST MOVE EVER WHAT,” posted in response to a couple playing a game, generated 1.3 million likes. Reaction photos were also shown to generate engagement, with the one image of Vlad from Hotel Transylvania generating 1.1 million likes, likely due to the character’s widespread recognition and its use in explaining complex emotions or opinions. 

Discussion

The findings from our analysis highlight how TikTok comment sections function as dynamic spaces for rapid community formation, challenging the common stereotype that social media primarily alienates or isolates individuals. Instead, our results suggest that TikTok fosters a unique kind of social interaction rooted in shared language practices, where users feel an immediate sense of belonging through “instant inside jokes”. The high engagement levels associated with funny/witty and relatable comments, which saw 3.2% of the comment section replying to the top comment, show that humor and shared experiences are central to this connection. These comments act as signals of cultural awareness, allowing strangers to recognize each other as part of the same digital in-group.

This phenomenon connects closely to the concept of indexical meaning, where language indicates social affiliation beyond its literal definition. When users engage with phrases, formats, or reaction images widely recognized on the app, they are not just responding to content; they are performing their membership within a broader digital community. For example, the highest average like counts (691.7k) were tied to relatable comments referencing the creator. This suggests that engagement increases significantly when users feel included in something familiar, whether a recurring joke, a known personality, or a recognizable pattern. In this way, TikTok comments become a space where meaning is actively created and negotiated rather than simply consumed.

The strong performance of combined comment types, such as reaction photos paired with witty or relatable text, highlights the multimodal nature of communication on the platform. Users draw from both visual and linguistic tools to strengthen emotional impact. Reaction images, such as the widely recognized character Vlad from Hotel Transylvania (which generated 1.1 million likes), function as a shorthand for complex emotions. By supplementing text with these culturally recognizable images, users make it easier for others to understand and respond, contributing to the “engagement ratio” and the rapid spread of shared jokes.

At the same time, these “instant” communities are often short-lived. The fast pace of TikTok means that trends and phrases change quickly, requiring users to stay constantly engaged to remain “in the know”. While those who understand the culture significantly value it, this creates a potential downside where outsiders may find it difficult to navigate the references. Consequently, the same linguistic signals that build community also create boundaries between those who possess the shared knowledge and those who do not. Our study demonstrates that TikTok comment sections are active environments where culture and connection are constantly being generated. Through humor, relatability, and shared references, users form fleeting but meaningful online connections that reflect a new era of community building in the digital age.

References

Eghtesadi, M., & Florea, A. (2021). Examining TikTok’s potential for community-engaged digital knowledge mobilization with equity-seeking groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research.

Jose, A. I., Yuyun Nurulaen, & Toneng Listiani. (2025). Exploring Slang Words on Social Media TikTok in 2024. Linguistics and Elt Journal, 13(1), 208. https://doi.org/10.31764/leltj.v13i1.31704 

Maddox, Jessica, and Fiona Gill. Assembling “Sides” of TikTok: Examining Community, Culture, and Interface through a BookTok Case Study. Social Media + Society, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231213565

Nurhayati, Iis Kurnia, and Aliyya Rahma Putri. Exploring Cyberculture: A Virtual Ethnographic Perspective on Generation Z Slang on TikTok. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, vol. 23, no. 3, 2024, pp. 400–415, https://doi.org/10.5614/sostek.itbj.2024.23.3.8 

Situmorang, Johana Tri Lovely, et al. “The Influence Of Slang Use On Teenagers’ Communication Patterns On Social Media.” Journal of Learning and Teaching, Sept. 2024, pp. 61–65. ejournal.reysha.org, https://doi.org/10.70692/jmkzty54.

Ugoala, Bibian. Generation Z’s Lingos on TikTok: Analysis of Emerging Linguistic Structures. Journal of Language and Communication, vol. 11, no. 2, Sept. 2024, pp. 211–224. https://doi.org/10.47836/jlc.11.02.08 

Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13(5), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097

WHAT WAS OUR IMPETUS? WHAT DID WE ALREADY KNOW?

Thanks to specific linguistic cues, many people can easily identify sponsored content on social media long before a product or service is even mentioned.To examine this phenomenon, our project serves as a partial speech analysis of female American social media influencers, using the modulation of pitch as our key variable. Rodero et al.’s 2017 study titled “Pitch Range Variations Improve Cognitive Processing of Audio Messages” examined the effects of different pitch patterns on the processing of verbal information by listeners. The study’s 30 female participants were shown 16 commercials, each with a different pitch range and pattern. They found that high-low pitch patterns (e.g. a sentence where a speaker moves from high to low pitch) resulted in the highest levels of immediate recall, recognition memory, sympathetic nervous system activation, and self-reported “effectiveness.” Low-high pitch patterns were the second most effective. The study concluded that having either one of the high-low or low-high was much more effective than when they remained high in pitch or low in pitch throughout. Their findings laid the groundwork for our study.

HOW DID WE APPROACH THIS STUDY?

To explore whether influencers use pitch strategically, we conducted a small-scale speech analysis inspired by prior experimental work on pitch perception (Rodero et al., 2017), but we focused on how pitch is actually utilized by influencers in a real-world social media context. We selected a sample of eight short-form videos from TikTok created by female influencers. To make a meaningful comparison, we divided the videos into two groups: four sponsored posts (identified through hashtags such as #ad) and four unsponsored posts, including common formats like “get ready with me” and “day in the life”. These categories allowed us to examine whether pitch use differs when influencers are explicitly promoting a product versus when they are engaging more casually with their audience.

Using the speech analysis software Praat, we measured the average pitch (in Hz) of each video. This provided a general sense of whether sponsored content is spoken at a higher or lower overall pitch. However, average pitch alone does not capture the dynamic nature of speech, so we also analyzed pitch patterns within utterances. To do this, we focused on the first utterance of each video. We divided each first utterance into two parts and compared their average pitch values (e.g. subject and predicate, dependent and independent clause, etc.). Based on this comparison, we categorized each utterance into one of two pitch patterns: High-Low (HL), Low-High (LH). If the pitch difference between the two parts was minimal (less than 20 Hz), we labeled the pattern as indiscernible, since it did not show a clear directional shift.

 By combining these two approaches (overall pitch measurement and first utterance pattern classification), we were able to identify both subtle differences in pitch level and broader trends in how influencers structure their speech. This method allowed us to connect quantitative acoustic data and larger questions about communication strategies and social media as a linguistic community.

Figure 4:  Ex. of Unsponsored HL Pattern    Figure 5:  Ex. of Sponsored HL Pattern 

WHAT DID WE FIND?

There were small discrepancies between the pitch data from the sponsored group of videos and the pitch data from the unsponsored group of videos. Overall, we found that the average pitch of all the sponsored videos was 228.28 Hz, while the average pitch of all the unsponsored content was 216.38 Hz (See Figure 5). This means that the average pitch of the sponsored content creators was approximately 5.4% higher than that of the sponsored creators. In our analysis of first utterance pitch patterns, we found that the sponsored group used one low-high (LH) pattern, two high-low (HL) patterns, and one indiscernible pattern (where the increase or decrease in pitch was smaller than 20Hz) (See Figure 3). Our unsponsored group was slightly less variable, exhibiting two high-low (HL) patterns and two indiscernible patterns (See Figure 4). This being said, the sponsored group was 25% more likely to use an attention-grabbing pitch pattern than the unsponsored content creators. Being that our sample size was so small, (only eight videos total), it is hard to establish whether or not this data is truly representative of the linguistic habits of these groups of influencers. Despite this, the data we collected could point to the possibility of influencers utilizing affective pitch patterns to elicit a particular feeling towards their sponsored content.

Figure 3: # of First Utterance Pitch Patterns     Figure 4: # of First Utterance Pitch Patterns 

Figure 5: Average Pitch of Videos by Group (**rounded to nearest hundredth)

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

Whether they know it or not, female influencers tend to use the same high-low and low-high pitch patterns that have already been suggested to increase advertisement effectiveness. The moderate increase of 5.4% in the average sponsored influencer pitch compared to the average unsponsored influencer pitch communicates to us that higher pitch may be being used by influencers in order to contribute to both the recognizability and effectiveness of their advertisements. Ki & Kim 2019 evaluate social media influencers on the basis of relative taste leadership, which refers to an influencer’s propagation of their aesthetic preferences, product-related or otherwise, and opinion leadership, which refers to an influencer’s propagation of their general preferences, frequently those that resonate with their audience or induce a mimicry response (Ki & Kim, 2019). When present in different proportions, these criteria can be mapped directly onto our sponsored and unsponsored groups, with taste leadership primarily utilized in the former and opinion leadership primarily utilized in the latter. Taste leadership builds upon, and is therefore reliant on, an audience’s existing preferences and perspective on what constitutes “sophisticated taste” (Ki & Kim, 2019). Apart from just a moderate increase in pitch and/or inclusion of HL or LH pitch patterns, variables such as key lexical choices, nonverbal gestures, prosody, embedded captions, carefully curated visuals, and sometimes even the tone established by background music, or a lack thereof, characterize the complex interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic features that contribute to effective taste leadership. 

When assessing the variance within our sponsored and unsponsored groups, we believe that outliers in average pitch and pitch pattern use can be attributed to the specific strategies used when fostering their individual positions as taste and opinion leaders. In our sponsored group, one influencer’s advertisement for Canva stands out as having the lowest average pitch (202.58 Hz), as well as being the only advertisement which does not utilize a discernible pitch pattern in its first utterance (See Figures 5 and 3). This advertisement is brief, visually sleek, and the influencer is curiously out of frame for most of the clip’s duration. Low pitch is often interpreted as a sign of emotional stability (Scherer, 2003), and in conjunction with the aforementioned aesthetic choices, this influencer exhibits feelings of assurance and clarity. These feelings are likely related to the sort of “elevated” taste a potential Canva user would deem necessary in a visual development software, thereby increasing their chances of paying for the service. As such, we believe our findings suggest that pitch, as a linguistic feature, is modulated in influencer-specific ways in order to reinforce an established form of taste and opinion leadership.

References

Alasal, M. S. (2025). Investigating the role of social media language in Formation Digital Identity: The mediating effect of social influence. E-Learning and Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530251391105

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7–5, 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 

Campaner, L. R., & Adriano, T. (2025). A rhetorical analysis on the language of social media influencers relative to the behavior of their followers. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 48(6), 883-914. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.480604 

Eckert, P. (2000). The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Linguistic variation as social Practice, 2-5, 46-138 https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/eckertchap252000.pdf

Ki, C.-W. ‘Chloe,’ & Kim, Y.-K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21244

Rodero, E., Potter, R. F., & Prieto, P. (2017). Pitch Range Variations Improve Cognitive Processing of Audio Messages. Human Communication Research, 43(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12109

Scherer, K. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication, 40(1), 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00084-5

Sikandar, Z. (2025). The Impact of Social Media on English Language Use Among Young Adults: Linguistic Transformations, Challenges and Implications for Formal Writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 8(1)

Introduction and Background 

Terms of endearment are an extensive category of socially meaningful linguistic resources. These everyday expressions may seem simple, but they play a key role in how people construct and interpret social relationships through language. However, despite their social and interpersonal importance of what we might affectionately call each other, there has not been extensive research into how ToE are used and which identities distinct patterns of usage might index. This gap is especially important with linguistic anthropology, which emphasizes that meaning is shaped not just by words themselves, but by context, interaction and cultural norms. Previous research on terms of address in online communication highlights several motivations behind word choice, including trendiness, humor, and intimacy building (Febrianti & Muhammad, 2021). This research focuses not on affectionate terms but rather platonic and familial situations, leaving room to explore the extension of this reasoning to romantic contexts. Studies have also found that, outside of romantic contexts, common ToE can reinforce sexist attitudes (Hildebrand et al., 2022); however, it is crucial to note that this perception within intimate relationships is less understood. Moreover, it is known that ToE typically evolve from semantic domains that are associated with “sweetness” (Grząśko, 2015), but whether preferences for semantic origin exist among different identity groups is an area yet to be critically examined. In light of this, this study examines generational differences in ToE, finding that usage reflects multiple layers of meaning and context-dependent factors, such as prosodic features and conversational partners. These patterns reflect broader cultural shifts in how intimacy is performed, with younger speakers favoring more creative and stylized language, while older speakers maintain consistent and clearly defined associations between language and emotion. 

Methods

To examine generational variation in the use of “terms of endearment” (ToE), this study employed a mixed-methods ethnographic design integrating surveys, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation. Surveys were used to identify broad patterns of ToE usage across age cohorts, allowing for a comparative assessment of lexical preferences among Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X participants. These data were complemented by qualitative interviews, which probed speakers’ perceptions of such terms, particularly whether they were interpreted as affectionate, ironic, or patronizing. Interviews also focused on the pragmatic distinctions of usage between romantic and platonic contexts, as well as how relationship length influences transitions from one semantic domain to another.

Participant observation was conducted in informal, public-facing contexts in order to capture the spontaneous deployment of endearments in naturally occurring speech. Observational attention was guided by three primary variables: the identity of the interlocutor, the situational context of interaction, and the perceived communicative purpose of the exchange (Nartey, 2013). Analytically, each recorded instance of ToE was categorized according to semantic domain (e.g., food-based, animal-based, conventional romantic terms) and subsequently coded for pragmatic function, including expressions of affection, teasing, irony, or condescension (Grząśko, 2015). Particular attention was given to observable prosodic features, such as pitch variation, pacing, and intonation, which were treated as integral components of meaning-making rather than peripheral stylistic elements. By combining quantitative trends with qualitative and interactional data, the study aims to account for both the distribution and the situated interpretation of endearment usage across generational groups.

Results and Analysis

The findings indicate a clear generational divergence in both the selection and deployment of terms of endearment, with Figure 1 illustrating distinct patterns of lexical preference across cohorts. Survey data suggest that Gen X and Millennial participants rely predominantly on conventionalized sweetness or emotion-based forms, such as “honey” and “love,” whereas Gen Z participants demonstrate comparatively lower usage of these terms and instead exhibit a marked preference for individualized or “other” categories of endearment. Notably, Gen Z respondents were the only cohort to consistently report the use of highly personalized or unconventional forms. As illustrated in Figure 1, Gen Z has moved away from traditional terms, instead favoring kinship terms like “Babe” and becoming the only generation to adopt “Unique/Other” innovative endearments. 

However, interview and observational data complicate a purely lexical interpretation of these trends. While older cohorts tend to associate traditional terms with sincerity and stable relational meanings, Gen Z participants frequently characterize such expressions as outdated or potentially patronizing when used by strangers. In their place, Gen Z speakers employ internet-derived and animal-based nicknames (e.g., “pookie,” “rat,” “gremlin”), which, when considered in isolation, might appear incongruous with affectionate intent. Our interviews also revealed a boundary between romantic and platonic vocabularies, while Gen Z may use animal-based metaphors or “pookie” platonically as an ironic joke, emotion-based terms like “my love” are strictly reserved for romantic partners to avoid “confusing” or overly intimate social signals. Pragmatic functions of unconventional terms also evolve as relationships mature, as speakers shift prosody and categorical usage toward highly personalized animal-based metaphors and/or inside jokes to further reindex relational intimacy.

Crucially, observational evidence suggests that the meaning of these terms is not primarily encoded in their lexical content but emerges through prosodic modulation and interactional context. Gen Z speakers were observed to use comparatively flattened intonation, slowed pacing, and exaggerated pitch shifts when deploying such terms, thereby signaling irony and playful self-awareness. These prosodic features function as “metapragmatic cues,” reframing ostensibly abrasive or nonsensical labels as markers of intimacy, often within explicitly non-romantic or platonic interactions, consistent with prior accounts of “pragmatic meaning-making” in discourse (Nartey, 2013; Grząśko, 2015). Millennial participants, however, appear to occupy an intermediate position, dynamically modulating both lexical choice and prosody in accordance with relational context, thus moving along a continuum between sincerity and irony. By contrast, Gen X speakers demonstrate more stable prosodic patterns and rely on conventional terms that reinforce clearer distinctions between romantic and platonic address.

Across all cohorts, respondents reported little attention to the literal semantic content of endearments, further supporting the claim that ToE operate primarily as pragmatic and relational tools in a process referred to as “semantic bleaching” (Grząśko, 2015). Thus, the exact interpretation, whether conveying intimacy or condescension, depends on various contextual variables like the nature of the relationship, interlocutor, vocal delivery, and level of familiarity. Taken together, these findings suggest that generational differences in ToE usage are best understood not as shifts in vocabulary alone, but as broader transformations in how social meaning is negotiated through prosody, context, and interactional intent.

Discussion and Conclusion

These patterns highlight broader implications for how language expresses intimacy and social relationships. Our research suggests that ToE function as socially sensitive linguistic resources that speakers adjust depending on contextual cues such as tone, audience, and relational boundaries. While the respective sample was limited and skewed to have an overrepresentation of Gen Z, our findings indicate that generational differences also reflect broader cultural influences, particularly the circulation of playful or “meme-based” language among younger speakers in digital spaces. This suggests that expressions of affection are not fixed meanings within words themselves, but flexible linguistic practices that speakers use to negotiate intimacy, identity, and social expectations in everyday interaction. In this sense, the use of ToE reflects broader cultural expectations about how affection is expressed, while also demonstrating how these expectations shift across generations. More broadly, these patterns raise questions about what is socially and emotionally activated when individuals are referenced by something other than their given name. Overall, terms of endearment reveal how everyday language actively constructs and reflects our social relationships, a process shaped and guided by identity categories such as generational belonging, which influence how affection, intimacy and social norms are expressed in interaction.  

References

Febrianti, Y., & Muhammad Ridha Al Auwal, T. (n.d.). Millennials’ use of terms of endearment in casual conversation in Digital Communication | Atlantis press. Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icstms-20/125960712 

Grząśko, A. (2015). On the semantic history of selected terms of endearment. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 1, 104–118.

Hildebrand, L. K., et al. (2022). Honey, sweetie, dear: Terms of endearment communicate, reflect, and reinforce sexism toward adult women. Sex Roles, 87(3), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01311-3

Nartey, M. (2013). A speech act analysis of status updates on Facebook: The case of Ghanaian university students. UWE Bristol Repository. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/8539224/a-speech-act-analysis-of-status-updates-on-facebook-the-case-of-ghanaian-university-students

Who Gets to Speak on the Walls of Los Angeles? 

If you don’t know how to read graffiti, it can all look the same, like layers of overlapping tags, stylized letters, and symbols that seem chaotic or illegible. But for those inside the culture, these markings are anything but random. They are readable, recognizable, and meaningful. In linguistic anthropology, public space is often understood as a “linguistic landscape,” where language appears in forms like graffiti. Still, most conversations about graffiti focus on whether it is art or vandalism, leaving a gap in how we understand it as a system of communication. This blog builds on that gap by exploring graffiti in Los Angeles as a form of visual language. By comparing Venice and Downtown LA and drawing on an interview with an active graffiti writer, we argue that graffiti communicates identity and belonging and that its meaning shifts depending on neighborhood context and control over public space. 

How Did We Do It?

We built our project using several methods so that we were not relying on only one kind of evidence. A large part of our research came from a 30-minute interview with an active graffiti writer, which one group member conducted as part of the project. That interview gave us a strong starting point for thinking about graffiti from the perspective of someone with direct knowledge of how it is made, read, and understood. We also included a walking interview through Downtown Los Angeles so that the conversation could continue alongside actual examples in the neighborhood. During that walk, the interviewee pointed out details that would have been difficult for outsiders to notice on their own, including how certain pieces were made, what kinds of styles were recognizable, and how many people may have been involved in creating particular works. Using both a formal interview and a more informal walking conversation allowed us to gather information in different settings and build a fuller picture of how graffiti is understood on the ground.

Figure 1 – Downtown LA graffiti towers  

Figure 2 – Second Street Tunnel Downtown LA

Alongside the interview, we carried out a comparative analysis of graffiti and mural practices in Downtown LA and Venice. We collected photographs from both neighborhoods and paid attention to repeated features such as tags, typography, abbreviations, symbols, placement, and the layering of different markings over time. We also turned to our academic sources throughout the project, as it was not based on observation alone. These sources helped us think about graffiti as a literacy practice, a linguistic landscape, and a social form that takes on different meanings depending on where it appears.

What Did We See?

Our findings suggest that graffiti operates as a learned communicative system that requires cultural knowledge to interpret. For example, we learned from our interview that graffiti literacy develops over time. The artist explained: “When I first started, I couldn’t read anything. Once you learn how to paint and read tags, it becomes easier to read other graffiti… It’s practice and understanding different styles.” This proved just how non-random graffiti is. We learned that it is a specialized writing system that insiders can actually recognize and interpret. We also learned that graffiti functions as a way to mark presence and social networks. The artist describes how writers recognize each other’s tags across cities, saying, “You’ll see something and be like, ‘Oh, so-and-so’s in the city right now,’ because you know the tag.” This ultimately proved to us how graffiti indexes identity and belonging and signals who is part of the local community and who is visiting from elsewhere. One of the most important and insightful observations we made was how institutional approval shapes the way graffiti is perceived. 

In areas like Venice, there are large murals that are commissioned by the city and celebrated as public art. However, tagging styles seen in downtown areas are very often viewed negatively. The artist explained this in a great way by saying, “They think there’s good graffiti and bad graffiti. I’ve asked random people what they think of something, and they’ll say it looks bad or messy, but then they’ll like some mural in Venice, which was commissioned.” This distinction shows just how important public attitudes are with graffiti and how they aren’t just based on aesthetics but also on whether the work had institutional approval. Expanding on that, we learned the ways graffiti reflects broader changes in different neighborhoods. The artist touched on how the disappearance of graffiti can signal a sort of shift in urban culture. “Neighbors that are getting gentrified, you see messages in LA all the time from people from that area, putting something political out there, like “f*ck ICE. Graffiti goes with the times that it’s in, history, whatever is going on in the world, and the neighborhood is changing. If there’s less graffiti in a neighborhood, I don’t think that necessarily makes it safer. I think it just means things are getting more corporate.” This allowed us some insight into how graffiti is, in many ways, an indicator of cultural presence and how removal of it leads to gentrification or increased regulation of public space.

Figure 3 — Freeway Overpass Graffiti DTLA

Figure 4 — Abbot Kinney Street Mural

So, What Do the Walls of Los Angeles Really Say?

Our findings suggest that graffiti in Los Angeles is much more than just paint on the walls, rather, it’s a localized linguistic system that communicates identity and signals community belonging. We’ve seen that graffiti works as a visual language shared among insiders, where meaning is learned over time, much like a language. Through features like tags and lettering styles, this visual language indexes identity, allowing artists to express individuality and recognize presence within a space. By comparing Venice and Downtown LA, we’ve seen that what changes across neighborhoods is not whether graffiti communicates, but how that communication is interpreted and valued. In Venice, murals are often recognized as legitimate art, while in Downtown LA, tagging is more likely to be erased or dismissed. This contrast highlights how institutional control over public space shapes which forms of expression are accepted and which are marginalized. What this points to more broadly is that language in public space isn’t just about what is written, but about who is allowed to be seen and heard. In this way, graffiti reminds us that public space isn’t neutral – it’s shaped by who gets to leave a mark and whose voices are erased, pushing us to rethink what counts as language in the city. 

Figure 5 — Venice Beach Firefighter Mural

Figure 6 — South Central LA Kobe Mural

References

Aguilar, J. A. (2000). Chicano Street Signs: Graffiti as Public Literacy Practice. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441891.pdf 

Bloch, S. (2012). The illegal face of wall space: Graffiti-murals on the Sunset Boulevard retaining walls. Radical History Review, 2012(113), 111-126. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279413323_The_Illegal_Face_of_Wall_Space_Graffiti-Murals_on_the_Sunset_Boulevard_Retaining_Walls.

Gasparyan, G. (2020). Graffiti as a Linguistic Phenomenon: Different Theoretical Approaches. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 24(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.46991/FLHE/2020.24.1.039

Latorre, G. (2008). Graffiti and murals: Urban culture and indigenist glyphs. In Walls of empowerment: Chicana/o indigenist murals of California (pp. 100–139). University of Texas Press.

Montenegro, A. (2025). Muralism, Graffiti, and Gentrification in Los Angeles: Nuances of a Radical Imagination. Visual Arts Research 51(1), 78-91. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/960237.

Valladares, M., & Rodriguez, J. (2024, February 21). Uncovering the history and impact of graffiti writing in Los Angeles. LAist. https://laist.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/la-graffiti-writing-art-politics.