Projects – Languaged Life

That’s Not How You Say It: Examining Sociolinguistic Identities on the Pronunciation of Loanwords in English-dominant Bilinguals

Lauren Jung, Grace Lee, Sharii Liang, Felicity Ryan, Christina Tan

In an increasingly global society, the presence of loanwords, also known as words adopted from a foreign language, is more common than not. However, these words often lose their original pronunciation in the process due to incompatible phonemic inventories. But what if a person is bilingual in both the origin language and the adoptive language? Which pronunciation should be elicited? We see bilinguals answer this question daily, picking and choosing between the native and adapted pronunciations of loanwords in conversation. In this article, we analyze the reasons behind their decisions to code-mix versus phonologically adapt through the lens of group identity. Specifically, we investigate the potential role shared ethnic identity has on English-dominant L1 speakers and heritage speakers of Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Utilizing a structured double interview format, our work simultaneously corroborates and revises an existing theory about the purpose of code-switching with larger implications about perceived belonging in today’s society.

Keywords: group identity, code-switching, community, bilingualism

Introduction

The ways in which speakers structure their speech is very much linked to their conversational environment. Driven by social factors like linguistic identity, ethnicity, and societal perceptions of status or education, interlocutors alter aspects like phonology or prosody to improve communication or address societal expectations. For example, in a room full of children, we might speak in a higher pitch and with significantly less expressive (read: expletive) speech. This extremely common phenomenon is known as linguistic adaptation. When it comes to bilinguals, this can manifest as phonological adaptation in even the most basic of interactions:

Unfortunately, as seen in the above images, such adaptations are not always well-received. So how do bilinguals decide the most fitting pronunciation for any given situation? In this project, we notice that it is often not a choice by the interlocutor but a reaction to the listener.

Background

Code-switching (CS) is a phenomenon observed in multilingual speakers defined as “the process of mixing two or more languages within a discourse, or even within a single utterance” (Wintner et al., 2023). From a phonological perspective, CS has the potential to evoke certain attitudes toward the speaker as it is correlated with lesser perceptions of possible education level, income, citizenship status, etc. depending on the demographic of the interlocutor (Carr, 2014). For these reasons, people may or may not choose to code switch and instead opt for phonological adaptation (PA). Defined as the alteration of a loanword’s phonemes to fit into the existing sounds of the recipient language, it is often more than a simple response to phonemic inventory limitations; PA can also be in response to pressures like social context and the need for more efficient communication (Lubyan and Dale, 2016).

At UCLA, some of the most spoken non-English languages are Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Of the 6,300+ undergraduate international students alone, 52% speak Mandarin Chinese while only 9% speak Korean. These students not only make up a large proportion of the international student population but the domestic population as well. Thus, despite the English-dominant setting of an American college campus, it is not rare to hear Mandarin Chinese or Korean spoken between classes. Yet, within the classroom, Mandarin Chinese and Korean bilinguals resort to PA more than CS even when discussing personal topics like their hometown.

Despite increasing research on bilingualism and code-switching, the majority of the work has centered around the effects of code-switching. One of the proposed functions of CS is to mark “speakers with others in specific situations (e.g., defining oneself as a member of an ethnic group)” (Johnson, 2000, p. 184, as cited in Gudykunst, 2004). Our project aims to address the other side of the conversation: the causes of code-switching. Considering the sociopolitical relationships between the U.S. and China, which is generally negative, and the U.S. and Korea, which is generally positive,bilinguals may actually be influenced towards CS or PA based on their perception of rapport with the listener. More specifically, how does the social and linguistic identity of the listener modulate the interlocutor’s rate of code-switching? In this project, we argue that CS is more likely when the interlocutor perceives the target as being a part of their ethnic identity, showing that CS is more of a reaction than an action.

Methods

Our work discussed personal topics such as food, place, and cultural identity with 17 English-dominant bilingual UCLA students. Group members asked questions such as “What city are you or your family from?” and “Do you have any cultural foods you miss/enjoy?” 9 spoke Mandarin as the other language, and 8 spoke Korean. Each participant underwent two identical, 5-10 minute virtual interviews in English but with different interviewers. Conducting the interviews with cameras off allowed our interlocutors to use aliases. After each interview, we sent a survey discussing which language was most dominant in their daily lives and their perception of the interviewer’s approachability. Because of the lack of video, this perception would be based solely on the alias.

This design allowed us to focus on the differences in CS frequency within participants (i.e. a single participant’s elicitations between interviewers) and between groups (i.e. the average elicitations of Chinese bilinguals compared to Korean bilinguals). As a part of our focus was beyond purely linguistic research, we also looked to tie our results into sociopolitical tensions and societal feelings about certain nationalities. Our participants consisted of both heritage speakers and L1 speakers of Chinese or Korean. The diversity of our participants provided multifaceted insights into the factors driving CS by also noting the impact lifelong language dominance has and how that ties into the interplay between linguistic and social identity.

Results and Analysis

Our results were quite explicit about the positive correlation between increased societal standing and frequency of CS. We observed a clear difference between Chinese and Korean bilinguals in their rates of CS in the monolingual condition as reflected in the two interview snippets below:

Bolded = CS

Chinese Bilingual

| PARTICIPANT: My family is from Hunan.

| INTERLOCUTOR 1: Hunan? Ooh, okay.

Korean Bilingual

| PARTICIPANT: Um, I believe they were born in Seoul, the capital.

| INTERLOCUTOR : Seoul. I see.

When speaking to a monolingual, Korean bilinguals had a tendency to code-switch and then translate or explain the word. In comparison, Chinese bilinguals favored phonological adaptation. When that would not work, often seen with naming their favorite cultural dishes, they resorted to direct translation and had to be prompted by the interviewer for the Chinese name:

Chinese Bilingual

| PARTICIPANT: I really like… uhm, sweet and sour pork.

| INTERLOCUTOR 1: Sweet and sour pork? Is there a word or specific name for it in Chinese?

| PARTICIPANT: Yea, it’s called tang cu pai gu.

In the bilingual interviewer conditions, we saw increased amounts of CS for L1 and heritage speakers of all groups. However, the largest change could be seen in the L1 Chinese speakers with an average 33% increase in code-switching. Using a paired t-test, we identified if these differences in the frequency of CS between the monolingual interviewer and the bilingual interviewer conditions per language group were significant.

Because of the higher tendency to CS in Korean bilinguals, there was no significant difference found between the first interviewer and the second interviewer for both heritage and L1 speakers (p = 0.085):

However, Chinese bilinguals were significantly different between interviewers (p = 0.029):

Due to our post-interview survey, we could isolate linguistic and social identity factors to see if there was any correlation. In terms of linguistic identity, participants rated their daily use of the non-English language on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being daily and 1 being almost never. They also rated their own fluency on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being fluent or native. Korean bilinguals averaged higher on both usage and fluency (4.625 and 3.75, respectively) compared to Chinese bilinguals (4.14 and 3.28, respectively), illustrating a trend where more frequent usage and higher fluency contributed positively to the utilization of code-switching. These are important factors that play a role in an individual’s perception of their own linguistic identity.

Socially, we asked participants to vote on the approachability of their interviewer and provide a brief rationale for their answer. The following word clouds revealed trends about factors that matter the most to Chinese and Korean bilingual speakers that may have modulated, whether consciously or unconsciously, their pronunciations:

English Monolingual Interviewer

Chinese Bilingual Interviewer

Korean Bilingual Interviewer

For the monolingual English interlocutor, mentions of an understanding of the participant’s ‘culture’ were equal to mentions about disposition. 7/14 voted ‘YES’ to the interviewer being approachable. For the Chinese interlocutor, there was a heavier focus on disposition. 6/6 that voted ‘YES’ mentioned how ‘nice’ the interviewer was. For the Korean interlocutor, there was a heavy focus on cultural understanding. 7/8 voted ‘YES’ to the interviewer being approachable.

These patterns and the sharp uptick in approachability rating for the bilingual interlocutors, solely through a name change, signal that the social identity, specifically the ethnic identity, of the listener seems to play a larger role in code-switching than previously thought.

Discussion and Conclusion

By changing the interlocutor’s alias to align more with the participant’s social identity, we found that code-switching did occur to mark group membership, as previous literature has theorized, but that it occurs as a reaction to a fellow group member who has already come out rather than as an action to identity oneself and find similar members. This may be why Mandarin Chinese and Korean are heard so abundantly outside of the classroom. Students establish friend groups with similar social identities and revert back to the language that marks them as a member of said group and excludes most outsiders.

While the results observed in our research thus far have been promising, there are still several considerations to be made. One limitation arose in the fact that we failed to anticipate other ways participants may respond to questions. We framed them in a way that would most likely evoke a response in a non-English language, but interviewees would sometimes directly translate answers or use cognates. In the below example, the participant opted to use colloquial terms to describe the food, and only referenced the term in Korean when prompted.

BOLDED: Code Switching

Korean Bilingual

| INTERLOCUTOR: Do you have any cultural food you miss or enjoy besides Sundubu?

| PARTICIPANT : I would probably say, when I am craving it, it would probably be kimchi stew
that my mom makes, yeah.

| INTERLOCUTOR: And what’s the, what would be the name of that in Korean?

| PARTICIPANT: Kimchijiggae

Additionally, the hope would be to represent the population of Mandarin Chinese- or Korean-speaking bilinguals at the University of California, Los Angeles, but we must take into account the low external validity of our study. We did not randomly sample the 17 participants; we instead relied on direct connections and snowball sampling. Apart from the sampling method, this sample size represents only a fraction of the total number of students that speak Mandarin Chinese or Korean at UCLA. Reasons for this include the smaller number of Korean speakers on campus with only 9% of 6,300+ undergraduate international students speaking the language, even when not accounting for non-international undergraduate students, and the narrow framework we used to define L1 speakers. We did not consider those who had learned Chinese or Korean as their L1 but lost the language growing up to be L1 speakers for the purposes of our analysis. A future study can make note of and address these limitations in a variety of ways such as implementing a different sampling method with more discretion given to the participants’ complex language background and potentially narrowing the participant parameters so as to be able to draw clear correlations. Furthermore, we would want to ensure that there is an even balance between participants in each condition with random assortment of ages and gender to prevent any confounding.

It is important to note that our research, while on the surface an introductory envoy into the world of codeswitching and sociolinguistic research, seeks to begin to tackle the real world impacts on communication that have been foisted upon non-English speaking individuals and communities as a result of xenophobia and racism. It builds upon the work of researchers like Dr. Okim Kang and Dr. Donald L. Rubin who investigated the presence of reverse linguistic stereotyping in environments where the only factors at play were the speaker’s ethnicity – as surmised by their given name and visual appearance (Okim & Rubin, 2009). Unlike linguistic stereotyping which is based on the observed differences in one’s speech, RLS is the assumption of perceived linguistic deficiencies based solely on the speaker’s ethnicity, name, and/or appearance.

Dr. Kang and Dr. Rubin’s research was a more formal version of what Dr. Baugh from Emory was trying to investigate in his informal research into linguistics stereotyping, in his case in the context of acquiring housing (Baugh, 2019, 08:28). See his TedxEmory Talk for real world impacts. While our own research participants were in a relatively low-stakes environment, speaking with someone of similar age, they still chose to make phonological adaptations in order to be better understood or perhaps to not risk the occurrence of any manner of linguistic stereotyping. Without further research, we are not able to draw any direct conclusions but the correlations do begin to emerge which makes us wonder what can be done to inhibit such stereotyping and ensure that people of all levels of language proficiency are not discriminated against?

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the intersection of culture and language. Language choices can be used to mark membership of a group via both inclusion and omission. Although people often reference culture, language, and race in a way that seems interchangeable, all three are facets of individual identities. Even well-meaning individuals can appreciate one or two while not acknowledging another. This is the importance of both social and linguistic justice.

Our work demonstrates that even as minority cultures become more mainstream, bilinguals still require a sense of community and safety before fully expressing themselves in their non-English language. For more on the importance of linguistic justice and representation, see this TedX talk by Malaka Grant: Why language shapes identity (more than race).

Ultimately, our findings stress the importance of diverse representation on English-dominant campuses and environments in general, particularly for groups whose ethnic and national identities are sociopolitically at odds with one another, so that we may all live in a more linguistically and socially just society.

References

Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2011). Inter-language interference in VOT production by L2-dominant bilinguals: Asymmetries in phonetic code-switching. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.001

Baugh, J. (2019, February). TEDxEmory: The Significance of Linguistic Profiling [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/john_baugh_the_significance_of_linguistic_profiling

Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.007

Charisse, R. (2017). One margarita, please! Language attitudes regarding pronunciation in the language of origin. Voices, 2(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jk6z6tt

Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences : effective intergroup communication. Sage Publications.

Hwang, J., Brennan, S. E., & Huffman, M. K. (2015). Phonetic adaptation in non-native spoken dialogue: Effects of priming and audience design. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.01.001

Kang, O & Rubin, D. (2009). Reverse Linguistic Stereotyping: Measuring the Effect of Listener Expectations on Speech Evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 28. 441-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09341950

Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016) “Why Are There Different Languages? The Role of Adaptation in Linguistic Diversity.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 20, no. 9, Sept. 2016, pp. 649–660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.005

Shore, P. (2026, January 22). Authenticity of pronunciation. Language Log. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72656

Shore, P. (2026, January 19). A better pronunciation of “Davos”. Language Log. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72643

Stollznow, K. (2026, February 26). It’s never too late to learn a language – adults and kids bring different strengths to the task. TheConversation.https://doi.org/10.64628/AAI.d4nryq5fw

TEDx Talks. “Why Language Shapes Identity (More than Race) | Malaka Grant | TEDxGeorge.” YouTube, 22 Dec. 2024, www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nKPLdZx8RY.

Wintner, S., Shehadi, S., Yuli Zeira, Osmelak, D., & Nov, Y. (2023). Shared lexical items as triggers of code switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11, 1471–1484. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00613

The Paradox of Language

Learning Hub

Jennifer Montes

We all explore the identity of language in some capacity, whether we are conscious of it or not. There seems to be a human yearning for a universal language, to feel connected, unified, and understood. Yet in the pursuit of universality, we often become more aware of our differences and the plural nature of human experience. This tension appears throughout mythology, theology, philosophy, and history. Many systems claim to bridge the gap between people and meaning, some being more accepted than others. Language exists in a strange paradox. It is seemingly both universal and subjective at once. All humans possess language, and across many philosophical traditions, speech is understood as one of the defining features of human existence: the ability to contemplate, interpret, and share our inner world with others. Yet language is never fixed. It changes across cultures, generations, and histories. Meaning is constantly being revised, adapted, forgotten, and rediscovered. What appears universal may instead reflect social agreements shaped by historical conditions and systems of power. At the same time, subjectivity continuously reshapes how language is understood and lived. Perhaps this is why language feels so contradictory. We seek certainty through it, yet remain limited by interpretation. In this sense, language reflects something fundamental about human nature itself: our desire for connection alongside our inability to escape ambiguity.

Universality, Subjectivity, or Both

When examining competing theories in linguistics, it can be helpful to consider a fundamental question: What is meaning? The answer is dependent on each person’s interpretation of language and how it functions as a tool for discovering objective truths about the world. These debates about meaning shape our understanding of the relationship between language and truth. Objectivity and subjectivity are the two ends of the spectrum in this conversation about how meaning is socially constructed.

On the one hand, the globalization of media appears to demonstrate that some degree of universal communication exists. Images, emojis, corporate logos, and common phrases can cross linguistic and cultural boundaries. Their success suggests that human beings share certain cognitive capacities and perceptual tendencies that make communication possible across diverse communities. Yet reducing language to a collection of universal signals overlooks much of what makes language meaningful. Language carries identity, memory, and social experience in ways that cannot be fully reduced to universal codes. Another argument for objectivity in language is Logical positivism, which is a movement that asserts that a statement is only meaningful if it can be verified through empirical observation or is logically true by definition. The irony is that, by its own standards, the verification principle itself cannot be empirically verified and is therefore meaningless (Hwang, p.1).

At the opposite extreme are theories of linguistic relativity. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that language influences how individuals perceive and organize reality. In its strongest deterministic form, linguistic relativity suggests that speakers are constrained by the conceptual boundaries of their language, limiting their ability to think beyond the categories provided by their linguistic system (Lee,1997, pp.180–182). Taken to its logical conclusion, however, this position creates its own difficulties. If meaning is entirely relative to particular languages then communication across social worlds becomes difficult to explain. Shared understanding would appear to dissolve into a collection of isolated perspectives.

Constructivist approaches offer a middle ground between these extremes. Rather than viewing meanings as either objectively fixed or wholly subjective, it argues that meaning emerges through social interaction. Categories such as language, identity, culture, and knowledge are continually produced and revised through collective human activity. Meaning is therefore historically situated while remaining socially shared (Bryman, 2021, pp. 28–29). However, explaining how meanings are socially constructed does not fully explain how communication remains possible. If meanings are continually negotiated and revised, then what allows individuals to understand one another across different contexts and communities? One answer is that meaning is fundamentally intersubjective. While meanings may be socially constructed, they become intelligible through shared practices. Individuals learn to participate in common systems of agreement that make words and actions recognizable to others. Language, therefore, derives its stability from the repeated ways communities interpret and respond to one another. Meaning emerges through forms of social participation that create enough continuity for communication while remaining open to reinterpretation and change (Lee, 1997, pp. 226–243).

Viewed in this way, human beings may share broad communicative capacities and recognizable patterns of interaction, yet particular social contexts always shape the meanings that emerge from those capacities. Diversity emerges through the ways individuals and communities work within shared systems of meaning.

Shared Expectations and Linguistic Diversity

The dynamics of universality becoming diverse become clearer when examined through a series of linguistic research. A recent study, “Sit on Someone Else’s Face, I’m Busy!”: How Drag Queens Use Language to Perform Camp on RuPaul’s Drag Race explores how linguistic creativity depends on recognizable social resources. Camp refers to an aesthetic and communicative practice that derives humor and meaning through exaggeration, irony, theatricality, and the playful reinterpretation of familiar cultural symbols. Researchers found that performers relied on shared cultural references, celebrity personas, sexual innuendo, and character subversion to generate humor and affirm queer identity. These performances worked because audiences already recognized the cultural meanings attached to figures such as Shirley Temple, Adele, or Cher. Camp emerged not from inventing entirely new meanings, but from exaggerating, distorting, and recombining familiar ones. The study demonstrates that linguistic innovation depends upon shared systems of recognition. Speakers create novel meanings by creatively reworking symbols that audiences already understand.

A related study, “From Craft to Clarity: Community Politeness and Lexical Shift in Drag Reading,” reached a different conclusion. The researchers examined the practice of drag “reading,” a tradition originating in ballroom culture in which performers deliver witty, crafted insults through layered cultural references rather than direct attacks. Successful reads rely on shared community knowledge and the audience’s ability to recognize implied meanings rather than explicitly stated ones. The study found that earlier reads often depended on this indirectness and insider knowledge, whereas later reads became increasingly direct and broadly accessible. As audiences expanded beyond the communities in which these practices originated, linguistic strategies shifted to accommodate new listeners. The goal was no longer to produce clever wordplay for insiders but to ensure that the intended meaning remained recognizable to wider audiences. Like translation, this process involved adapting recognizable linguistic resources to new social contexts while attempting to preserve their communicative effect. The study suggests that a linguistic practice’s effectiveness depends on shared expectations, yet those expectations must continually be adjusted as language moves between communities.

This same tension appears in a study of translation: “The Muffin Man Doesn’t Travel Well: How dubbing adapts cultural references across languages”. Researchers examining the dubbing of animated films across Polish, Arabic, and Japanese contexts found that translators frequently altered culture-bound references according to the expectations of local audiences. References such as the “Muffin Man” were often localized, transformed, or omitted altogether. Yet despite these changes, translators sought to preserve the social function of the original joke rather than its exact wording. Suggesting that communication doesn’t solely depend on universals or subjectivity. Meaning remains possible because people share recognizable cultural resources, yet those resources must continually be adapted as they move across communities and contexts.

These contexts are valuable because they make visible processes that are usually taken for granted. While not everyone consciously challenges gender norms, all people navigate social expectations. Individuals continually adapt their speech, appearance, and behavior to different audiences and situations, whether in professional settings, family relationships, friendships, or intimate partnerships. Rather than representing unusual forms of communication, these examples make visible processes that occur throughout everyday language use.

Universality in Mythology

The tension between shared expectations and linguistic diversity is not unique to contemporary linguistic anthropology. Long before modern theories of language emerged, cultures developed myths and philosophical narratives to explain how human beings could simultaneously share a capacity for language while speaking in radically different ways. The biblical story of the Tower of Babel says that humanity once shared a single language and common vocabulary. United by this linguistic cohesion, people sought to build a great city and tower that would secure their collective identity and prevent their dispersion across the earth. In response, God confounded their language, making mutual understanding impossible and scattering them across the globe (New Revised Standard Version, 1989, Genesis 11:1–9).

The story reflects a recurring human desire for a universal language, while also showcasing the multifaceted epistemology of language. Medieval thinkers such as Dante viewed Babel as the moment when an original linguistic unity fractured into a diversity of languages. Yet Dante did not see this diversity as evidence that communication was impossible. Rather, he argued that all languages share a common human capacity for speech, what he called the forma locutionis, while remaining historically and culturally distinct (Nichols, 2012, p.93). This distinction is significant because it suggests that universality and diversity are not opposites. Human beings may share the capacity for language, but meaning is always expressed through particular communities, histories, and forms of life. Traditionally, Babel has been interpreted as divine punishment; it can also be understood as a challenge to centralized authority over meaning. Disrupting linguistic uniformity, the story introduces plurality into human communication and prevents any single community from claiming absolute control over interpretation. As Stephen Nichols argues, debates surrounding Babel raise fundamental questions about the relationship between language and humanity (Nichols, 2012, p.77).

Babel also highlights the relationship between language and power. A universal language promises mutual understanding, but it can also become a mechanism of assimilation when linked to political, religious, or cultural authority. The pursuit of a single linguistic standard often presents itself as neutral or universal while marginalizing alternative ways of speaking and interpreting the world. In this sense, Babel can be read as a cautionary tale about the dangers of conflating linguistic unity with social or moral uniformity. Rather than revealing a flaw in language, Babel illustrates its tension: language must be shared enough to make communication possible, yet diverse enough to accommodate the plurality of human experience. The paradoxical nature of language, therefore, is but a condition of human communication itself.

Perhaps language endures because it never fully belongs to either universality or subjectivity. We inherit words, categories, and expectations from the communities around us, yet each generation reshapes them through lived experience. Meaning is never completely fixed, but neither is it wholly private. It emerges in the fragile space between ourselves and others, where understanding is always partial and always unfinished. The human desire for a universal language may ultimately be a desire for certainty: to be fully understood and to understand in return. Yet the diversity of language reminds us that meaning is never exhausted by a single interpretation. Language persists not because it resolves ambiguity, but because it allows us to navigate it together.

Refrences

Allen, T., Edwards, L., & Phan, G. (2026, June 2). “Sit on someone else’s face, I’m busy!”: How drag queens use language to perform camp on RuPaul’s Drag Race. Languaged Life. https://languagedlife.ucla.edu/sociolinguistics/sit-on-someone-elses-face-im-busy-how-drag-queens-use-language-to-perform-camp-on-rupauls-drag-race/

Bryman, A. (2021). Social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Das, C., Liang, E., Matos, M., Shih, A. (2026, June 22). From Craft to Clarity: Community Politeness and Lexical Shift in Drag Reading. Languaged Life. https://languagedlife.ucla.edu/sociolinguistics/from-craft-to-clarity-community-politeness-and-lexical-shift-in-drag-reading/

Hwang, J. W. (n.d.). Problems with Ayer’s verificationism.

Lee, B. (1997). Talking heads: Language, metalanguage, and the semiotics of subjectivity. Duke University Press.

Nichols, S. G. (2012). Global language or universal language? From Babel to the illustrious vernacular. Digital Philology, 1(1), 73–109.

Rodier, P., Tawadros, P. & Qian, P. (2026, June 2). The Muffin Man doesn’t travel well: How dubbing adapts cultural references across languages. Languaged Life. https://languagedlife.ucla.edu/sociolinguistics/the-muffin-man-dosent-travel-well-how-dubbing-adapts-cultural-references-across-languages/

The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. (1989). National Council of Churches. (Original work published in Genesis 11:1–9)

Transfer Errors in Bilinguals: A Study on Heritage and L2 Mandarin Speakers

Bilingualism

Charlotte Dow, Rachel Lee, Ellery Yu, Olivia Salazar, Yennie Song

In this study, we compared qualitatively and quantitatively transfer errors among bilingual speakers. We targeted classifiers and aspect markers zai and le in Mandarin, examining differences between heritage and L2 speakers. We predicted that heritage speakers would experience significantly fewer errors with aspect markers than L2 learners but experience more errors with classifiers. Data was collected from 11 heritage speakers and 11 second language learners of Mandarin, as well as 2 balanced bilinguals who served as the baseline for comparison. Our results showed that L2 learners significantly outperformed heritage speakers in classifier accuracy, while there was no significant difference in the performance between the two groups in aspect marker usage. These findings suggest that specific classifiers are more difficult to acquire or maintain, particularly for heritage speakers who have limited formal input. Moreover, the results show that L2 learners can sometimes perform better in certain scenarios compared to heritage speakers, challenging commonly-held assumptions about the heritage speaker advantage.

Keywords: Bilingualism, Mandarin Transfer Errors, Classifiers, Aspect Markers Bilingualism, Mandarin, Transfer Errors, Classifiers, Aspect Markers

Introduction and Background:

We know that second language (L2) learners and heritage speakers (HS) follow vastly different paths to proficiency (Paradis, 2023). Given that L2 speakers learn in a classroom environment and heritage speakers develop language in a less formal, home-based environment, how do these distinct journeys affect how they maintain a language and the specific mistakes they make?

This led to our proposed research question: Do heritage speakers and late L2 learners experience different morphosyntactic transfer errors?

We hypothesized that heritage speakers would commit significantly fewer errors with aspect markers than L2 learners, but experience more errors with classifiers. Conversely, we predicted that L2 learners would demonstrate a higher grammatical awareness and make significantly fewer errors with classifiers, but not with aspect markers.

In order to conduct this research, we sorted our participants into 3 groups based on their acquisition trajectory: Heritage speakers (HS) are those who naturally acquire their heritage language (Hao et al., 2025). Second language learners (L2) are cognitively mature learners who pursue learning of a second language after the critical period (Eyring, 2014). Balanced bilinguals are speakers who have proficiency in two languages such that their skills in each language match those of a native speaker of the same age (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2023).

A classifier is a morpheme used between a numeral or demonstrative and a noun. The general classifier, ge, is most common, while there are specific classifiers when counting certain nouns. Children use the general classifier ge with many nouns, though adults may use more specific classifiers with certain nouns (Chien et al., 2003).

Aspect markers are bound morphemes used to indicate the event state of an action. The two aspect markers we looked at were le and zai. Le is a perfective aspect marker that describes event completion and zai is a progressive aspect marker that describes an ongoing event.

Our contribution to this research involves the analysis of a speech generation task and usage of these grammatical targets by L2 learners and HSs.

Methods:
– Participants, Procedure, Methods, Controls –

We recruited 11 HS and 11 L2 learners of Mandarin Chinese. There were also 2 balanced Mandarin-English bilinguals. We omitted two speakers’ data because the samples either had too much English or there was background noise that prevented us from properly transcribing the data.
Participants self-reported their proficiency using a Language Background Questionnaire (LBQ) adapted from Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi, & Bialystok (2017), with additional questions modelled off of suggestions from Hao et al. (2025). We used the questionnaire to better understand participants’ individual differences and types of exposure to the target language to classify them as HS, L2 learners, or balanced bilinguals for the purposes of the experiment.

For the experiment, participants were given written instructions and a recorded file of instructions in either English or Mandarin; half listened to the English version first, and half to the Mandarin version first, to account for practice effects via counterbalancing. Giving instructions in both languages between tasks may leave a priming effect on the language, but not on the targeted variables. Participants were presented with a silent clip from the 1988 film The Hill Farm, between 3:58 and 4:40. For the first language, they watched the video twice and were asked to describe the video in either English or Mandarin, depending on the language of the directions they listened to. Participants were then asked to describe the video. To elicit naturalistic speech, participants were not informed of a time limit, but a two-minute maximum was established for data collection purposes. Next, participants watched the video again and were asked to describe it in the other language. Experiments were conducted via Zoom and participants were audio recorded while describing the video in each language.

We looked at whether the general classifier ge is used in place of specific classifiers and how the aspect markers le and zai are used, to analyze for errors or misuse. Data was analyzed by counting the number of errors and categorizing them by type of error (incorrect aspect, generalized classifier, omission). The proportion of correct classifiers and correct aspect markers was also recorded per speaker, and compared between HSs, L2 learners, and balanced bilinguals. Classifier errors were further categorized by recording with which word they appeared in highest frequency by, and aspect errors were split between the progressive marker zai and the perfective marker le. These errors in both groups were then compared to each other to determine the variance between heritage and L2 speakers. The percentage of correct classifiers and the percentage of correct aspect markers used per speaker was also compared to speakers’ self-reported reading, writing, speaking and understanding proficiencies in Mandarin, also taking into account whether participants did any self-studying or if they spoke any other classifier languages. Fisher’s exact test was performed to observe the total number of classifiers and aspect markers used by HSs and L2 learners.

Results and Analysis:

Table 1 and 2: Fisher Exact Tests for Aspect and Classifier Correctness, Respectively

By totaling the group outcomes and performing Fisher’s exact test, we found that there was no significant difference in aspect between the groups (p = 0.735). Therefore, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between L2 learners and heritage speakers’ aspect proficiencies. However, the results for classifiers were much different, with a p value of 0.0056, suggesting there is a very strong statistical difference between the two groups.

Additionally, based on the odds ratio of .38, L2 learners had nearly 2.6 times higher odds of being correct when it comes to classifiers.

Figure 1: Average Classifier Use in HS, L2, and BB Speakers
Classifiers Figure 2: Average Aspect Use in HS, L2, and BB Speakers
Aspect Markers
This graph shows the significant difference we discussed previously in that there is a significant accuracy divide. HSs, on average, used the highest volume of classifiers, but struggled with precision, resulting in more incorrect uses than correct ones. In contrast, L2 learners were more conservative in their total usage, but maintained a higher accuracy rate. Unlike the classifier analysis seen in Figure 1, aspect markers were used with higher precision across all three groups. HSs and L2 learners performed very similarly, with average correct uses of 2.36 and 2.45, respectively. While balanced bilinguals demonstrated a higher volume of aspect use, the error rates remained consistently low (<0.60) across all three participant types.

Balanced bilinguals performed much better than the HS and L2 groups. L2 learners also significantly outperformed HSs in classifier accuracy. Contrastingly, as confirmed by statistical analysis there was no significant difference between L2 learners’ and HS’ performance in terms of aspect marker usage (p=.0735).

Discussion and Conclusion

Balanced bilinguals significantly out-performed the other groups in this study. This indicates stronger grammatical competence or more stable representations of these structures. Aspect scores were generally higher than classifier scores. This suggests classifiers are harder to acquire or maintain than aspect marking. To further analyze these results, we looked at several factors, including speakers’ self-rating tendencies, speakers’ self-studying tendencies, cross-linguistic influence, and target language input.

When comparing speakers’ self-rating tendencies to their performance, we saw that HSs tended to rate themselves with lower reading and writing proficiencies than L2 learners, and that HSs who rated themselves with higher proficiencies had generally higher correct percentages of aspect marker usage. The correlation between HS’ self-rated reading and writing scores and their aspect marker proficiencies adds to previous research about how levels of literacy are a factor for mediated results in HSs (Hao et al., 2025) and supports existing research on how increased literacy in the target language is correlated with “target-like” production (in this scenario, our target markers were the balanced bilinguals, as we were unable to access a population of monolingual Mandarin speakers), or greater accuracy in usage (Bayram et. al, 2019). Overall, these findings further add to the larger body of research highlighting the importance of the role of literacy, or reading and writing, in language development and maintenance (Goldenberg, 2020; Biber & Hared, 1991; Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Eisenchlas et al., 2013).

While we did record data based on participants’ reports of self-study, to further analyze the differences between HS and L2 learner performances, we were unable to carry out much analysis beyond further clarifying how future research might approach the effects of informal literacy on heritage language maintenance as there was no apparent difference between the participants who did self-study and those who did not in terms of classifier and aspect accuracy. Previous research has posited bilinguals who don’t receive formal literacy training have difficulties maintaining their non-dominant language over time, and studies on mobile-assisted language learning have discussed enhancements in primarily speaking and listening skills, although they have typically focused on the app Duolingo and learning English (Shortt et al., 2023; Shadiev et al., 2020; Eisenchlas et al., 2013). Because of our lacking understanding of the specificities of each participant’s self-study, we were unable to draw many conclusions from the comparison of the participants who reported self-study to those who did not and any comparisons within the group of self-studying participants. However, future research might consider a more specific categorization of self-study methods in the LBQ, such as separating mobile-assisted language learning implements from informal practice with target language interlocutors for a clearer understanding of how self-study affects speaker performance. Further categorization of the types of mobile learning implements, such as text-based conversation compared to flashcards, would also be helpful for comparisons of the effects of specific self-study methods.

The following portion of our analysis focused on the role of cross-linguistic interference in aspect and classifier proficiency. Our results did note that L2 learners who spoke another classifier language tended to record classifier accuracy percentages significantly larger than the average for L2 learners overall. However the extent to which participants’ other languages affected their Mandarin classifier proficiency was unable to be determined. It is possible that if we collected additional data on participants’ proficiency in their other languages, such as their self-rated proficiencies in reading, writing, speaking, and listening of the other language, then we might have been able to draw additional conclusions, however our questionnaire only asked whether participants spoke any other language beside Mandarin and English, and what their self-rated proficiency was in the other language according to CEFR scale. Bayram et al. (2019) suggest that increased literacy in HSs protects against cross-linguistic interference, however, as our research could not find any trends regarding classifier proficiencies for speakers of non-classifier languages, we are unable to provide any additional support for this claim. Additionally, the speakers of another classifier language had widely differing self-rated reading and writing proficiencies, thus it is difficult to gauge the effects of literacy on positive transfer errors, which is a type of cross-linguistic interference where influence from another language leads to faster acquisition or use of the target language (Bardovi-Harlig & Sprouse, 2024), such as that which we have observed in classifiers.

Regarding our analysis of participants’ exposure, AoA and current usage of Mandarin on their performance: it is well established that exposure and frequency of usage are prominent factors in both heritage language maintenance and language development and L2 learning (Thordardottir, 2011; Polinsky & Scontras, 2020; Sopata & Długosz, 2021; Sánchez et al., 2023; Du, 2022), so why did these factors not correlate with any of our measures? We found that one of the major limitations of our study was the lack of specificity in the LBQ. Although we modeled the LBQ off of one used by Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi, & Bialystok (2017), with additional modifications suggested by Hao et al. (2025), we cut down the length significantly to improve participant recruitment. In doing so, we missed a significant portion of the LBQ that would have clarified questions surrounding many participants’ levels of prior and current exposure to the target language. In sum, our questions could have been further refined, as there was some confusion in participants’ responses regarding the kind of content their answers were intended to contain, which also led to difficulties processing the data.

Additionally, while we did end up analyzing the differences in speaker performance caused by cross-linguistic interference, the original intention of our study was to examine the differences in performance mediated by differences in manner of acquisition in Mandarin-English bilinguals (as opposed to multilinguals). We thus acknowledge that the results of our research may have been skewed as a result of too many mediating language background variables, especially with regard to cross-linguistic influence, as some of our participants reported speaking or having learned up to three additional languages aside from Mandarin and English, and it is possible that each additional language exerted its own, different kind of influence on speakers’ Mandarin learning and production. In future research studies, stricter recruitment processes on participants’ language background, such as limiting participants to those who only speak or have learned Mandarin and English, or limiting speakers of additional languages to those speaking only one other language at below the B1 level on CEFR, might improve the clarity of results.

Ethics Declaration:
All participants prior to the experiment signed consent and were given a debrief afterwards describing the main focus of the study.

References:

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological
Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/balanced-bilingual

Anderson, J.A.E., Mak, L., Keyvani Chahi, A. et al. The language and social background
questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behav Res 50,
250–263 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9

Baker, M. (1988). The Hill Farm. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYCOw95Rr_k

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Sprouse, R. A. (2026). Negative versus positive transfer. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0084.pub2

Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Kupisch, T., Miller, D., Puig-Mayenco, E., & Westergaard, M. (2019). Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(8), 919–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1324403

Biber, D., & Hared, M. (1991). Literacy in Somali: Linguistic Consequences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 260–282. doi:10.1017/S0267190500002269

Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The Role of Literacy Level in Second Language Acquisition: Doesn’t Who We Study Determine What We Know? TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588285

Chang-Smith, M. (2010). Developmental pathways for first language acquisition of Mandarin nominal expressions: Comparing monolingual with simultaneous Mandarin—English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909356645

Chien, YC., Lust, B. & Chiang, CP. Chinese Children’s Comprehension of Count-Classifiers and Mass-Classifiers. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 91–120 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022401006521

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press.

Deng, X. & Mai, Z. (2024). Input effects and unidirectional transfer in Mandarin–English heritage bilingual children: The case of spatial prepositional zai-phrases. International Journal of Bilingualism, 29(3), 651-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069241229392

Du, H. (2022). Grammatical and lexical development during study abroad: Research on a corpus of spoken L2 Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 55(4), 985–1005.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12631

Eisenchlas, S. A., Schalley, A. C., & Guillemin, D. (2013). The Importance of Literacy in the Home Language: The View From Australia: The View From Australia. Sage Open, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013507270

Eyring, J. L. (2014). Adult Learners in English as a Second/Foreign Language Settings. In Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language, Third Edition: A Self-Development and Methodology Guide (4th ed., pp. 571–572). essay, Cengage Learning.

Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading Wars, Reading Science, and English Learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340

Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical Measures for Usage-Based Linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119

Hao, J., Kubota, M., Bayram, F., González Alonso, J., Grüter, T., Li, M., & Rothman, J. (2025). Schooling and language usage matter in heritage bilingual processing: Sortal classifiers in Mandarin. Second Language Research, 41(4), 649–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583241270900

Jia, R., & Paradis, J. (2015). The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000728

Klein, W., Li, P. & Hendriks, H. Aspect and Assertion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 723–770 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006411825993

Li, J., & Bayley, R. (2008). The (re)acquisition of perfective aspect marking by Chinese heritage language learners. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 205-221). National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Montrul, S., & Silva-Corvalán, C. (2019). The Social Context Contributes to the Incomplete Acquisition of Aspects of Heritage Languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000354

Paradis, J. (2023). Sources of individual differences in the dual language development of heritage bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 50(4), 793-817. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000708

Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2020). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20. doi:10.1017/S1366728919000245

Sánchez, L., Goldin, M., Hur, E., Jimenez, A., López Otero, J. C., Thane, P., Austin, J., & Markovits

Rojas, J. (2023). Dominance, Language Experience, and Increased Interaction Effects on the Development of Pragmatic Knowledge in Heritage Bilingual Children: Acceptance of Null and Overt Subjects in Spanish and English. Heritage Language Journal, 20(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1163/15507076-bja10012

Shadiev, R., Liu, T., & Hwang, W. (2020). Review of research on mobile‐assisted language learning in familiar, authentic environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12839

Shortt, M., Tilak, S., Kuznetcova, I., Martens, B., & Akinkuolie, B. (2023). Gamification in mobile-assisted language learning: a systematic review of Duolingo literature from public release of 2012 to early 2020. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(3), 517–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1933540

Sopata, A., & Długosz, K. (2022). The effects of language input on word order in German as a heritage and majority language. Language Acquisition, 29(2), 198–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2021.1992409

Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 426-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202

Tong, X. & Shirai, Y. (2016). L2 acquisition of Mandarin zai and -le. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 5(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2016-0001

Appendix:

Video: The Hill Farm (Baker, 1988)

Presentation shown to participants

How Fluent Is Fluent? A Proficiency Spectrum Among Spanish-English Latino/a Celebrities

Bilingualism

Diana Cordova, Priscilla Hernandez, Sarai Ordonez Orquidea

Spanish-English bilingual celebrities frequently shift across languages in public interviews, but these shifts are not random. In this blog, we examine how three Latino/a celebrities with different dominance backgrounds manage language choice and display proficiency in English-dominant and Spanish-dominant media contexts. We analyze interview data from Jennifer Lopez, Bad Bunny, and Shakira to explore how patterns in language distribution, discourse stability, grammatical control, and lexical range position speakers along a bilingual fluency spectrum. Using CEFR descriptors as a comparative framework, we show that fluency consistently aligns with language dominance rather than balanced bilingualism. We also consider how these patterns may shape audience perceptions of bilingual legitimacy, even though audience reactions are not directly measured in this study. By focusing on observable fluency in real-time speech, this project highlights how bilingual performance operates in public media spaces and why perceptions of credibility continue to matter in discussions of Latino/a bilingualism.

Keywords: bilingualism, language dominance, fluency spectrum, Latino/a celebrities, CEFR

Introduction and Background

Spanish-English bilingual celebrities frequently alternate between languages in public interviews and media appearances. However, these shifts are not random, nor are they uniform across contexts. In both English-dominant and Spanish-dominant media settings, patterns of language use reflect underlying differences in language dominance and proficiency, raising broader questions about how bilingual ability is expressed in public speech. While bilingualism is often treated as a stable or balanced skill, actual language performance may vary significantly depending on context, topic, and the speaker’s dominant language. Research in bilingualism has consistently shown that language competence is rarely balanced across languages and is instead shaped by dominance. Prior work has also demonstrated that observable features of speech production, such as fluency, grammatical control, and lexical range, provide measurable indicators of proficiency. In addition, sociolinguistic research has shown that listeners often evaluate bilingual speakers based on these same features, with pronunciation, code-switching, and grammatical accuracy influencing how speech is interpreted (Mata, 2023). Frameworks such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) provide a standardized way to assess these features of oral proficiency, including discourse stability, grammatical control, and lexical range across different levels of fluency. However, despite this body of research, there remains limited work that systematically examines how these measurable indicators of fluency manifest in real-time speech across media contexts, especially among public figures whose language use is highly visible and widely circulated. To address this gap, this study examines how three Spanish-English bilingual Latino/a celebrities manage language choice and display proficiency across both English-dominant and Spanish-dominant interview settings. Specifically, we ask how differences in fluency position speakers along a bilingual proficiency spectrum. We hypothesize that speakers with distinct dominance backgrounds will exhibit measurable variation in language distribution, discourse stability, and grammatical control, with fluency aligning more closely with dominance than with balanced bilingualism. By analyzing interview data from Jennifer Lopez, Bad Bunny, and Shakira and applying CEFR-based descriptors of oral proficiency, this study demonstrates that bilingual performance reflects structured variation in proficiency, revealing a continuum of fluency rather than a binary distinction between languages.

Methods

Data Selection

This study analyzed publicly available interview data from three Spanish–English bilingual Latino/a celebrities representing distinct bilingual acquisition and dominance backgrounds: Jennifer Lopez, Bad Bunny, and Shakira. These speakers were selected because they represent different bilingual trajectories commonly discussed in bilingualism research. Jennifer Lopez was born and raised in the United States to Puerto Rican parents and represents a heritage Spanish speaker who developed primarily in an English-dominant educational environment. Bad Bunny was born and raised in Puerto Rico, where Spanish is the dominant language, and therefore represents a Spanish-dominant bilingual speaker. Shakira was born and raised in Colombia and acquired English after establishing Spanish as her first and dominant language, representing a late bilingual who learned English in adulthood. To ensure comparability across speakers, the study selected one interview conducted in an English-dominant and one in a Spanish-dominant U.S. media context. Four-minute segments of speech were extracted and transcribed from each interview, producing a dataset of 12 minutes of analyzed discourse. Segments were selected from portions of the interviews in which the celebrity spoke continuously rather than responding with short answers, allowing for analysis of extended discourse and fluency patterns.

Fluency Coding Framework

Interview segments were transcribed using digital transcription tools and then manually reviewed for accuracy. Each transcript was coded for language distribution, defined as the percentage of English and Spanish words produced within each sample. Words were counted and categorized by language to determine how frequently speakers used Spanish versus English within English-dominant interview settings. Transcripts were coded for key indicators of oral fluency, including grammatical control, lexical range, fluency and hesitation patterns, sustained discourse, and code-switching use.

Table 1. CEFR-based rubric for evaluating oral fluency in interview discourse

Feature

Feature	B1/B2 (Intermediate)	C1/C2 (Advanced)
Grammatical Control	Occasional errors in agreement, tense, or sentence structure Inconsistencies in complex constructions	Consistent grammatical accuracy stable control across complex structures
Lexical Range	Adequate vocabulary for communication but limited flexibility Occasional word retrieval difficulty	Wide and flexible vocabulary Precise word choice with minimal retrieval difficulty
Fluency & Hesitation	Noticeable pauses, fillers, or reformulations that interrupt flow	Minimal hesitation Smooth, continuous speech with natural pacing
Sustained Discourse	Difficulty maintaining extended speech without breakdown or switching	Able to sustain multi-sentence discourse with coherence and stability
Code-switching Use	May reflect lexical gaps or retrieval difficulty	Used strategically or minimally without disrupting discourse

CEFR-Based Proficiency Evaluation Framework

To provide a systematic method for comparing speakers, the analysis applied descriptors from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The CEFR organizes language proficiency into six levels (A1–C2), which are grouped into three broader categories: Basic User (A1–A2), Independent User (B1–B2), and Proficient User (C1–C2). These levels are defined through “can-do” descriptors that capture what speakers are able to accomplish in real communicative contexts (Council of Europe, 2001). At the higher end of the scale, C-level speakers can sustain extended, coherent discourse with strong grammatical control, minimal hesitation, and a wide lexical range. In contrast, B-level speakers demonstrate effective communication but may show noticeable pauses, lexical retrieval difficulty, and occasional grammatical inconsistencies, particularly in more complex or extended speech. In this study, these descriptors were used to operationalize fluency by focusing on discourse stability, grammatical accuracy, and the ability to maintain continuous speech without breakdown. Although the CEFR is typically used in formal assessment contexts, it provides a consistent and transferable framework for evaluating observable features of speech across speakers with different dominance backgrounds. By applying CEFR descriptors to interview data, this study approximates relative proficiency levels based on real-time language production rather than self-reported ability. Each segment was evaluated according to these CEFR descriptors for spoken production, with particular attention to how long each speaker could sustain discourse in Spanish or English without prolonged hesitation, as well as whether grammatical stability was maintained throughout the segment. These descriptors allowed the study to approximate relative proficiency levels across speakers without relying solely on subjective judgments.

Figure 1: CEFR proficiency levels and sub-levels used as a framework to evaluate speakers’ oral fluency.

Analytical Approach

The study used a comparative discourse analytic approach to examine patterns across speakers. After coding language distribution and fluency indicators, results were compared across the three speakers to determine whether language dominance background predicted differences in sustain discourse and grammatical control. By combining quantitative measures with qualitative observations of fluency markers, the analysis aimed to identify systematic differences in bilingual performance during real time interview speech. This methodological approach allowed the study to examine how bilingual celebrities display fluency in public media contexts and how these observable patterns position speakers along a broader bilingual proficiency spectrum.

Results

Table 2 provides an overview of language distribution and fluency patterns across speakers and interview contexts. Percentages reflect language use within each interview.

Speaker	Context	% Spanish	% English	Fluency	Fluency Notes	CEFR
JLo	Spanish- dominant interview	~85%	~15%	Intermediate	Sustains discourse, intrasentential code-switching, minor grammatical inconsistencies, occasional hesitation/reformulation	B2
JLo	English- dominant interview	~5%	~95%	High	Fully fluent and grammatically stable, emotional pauses	C2
Bad Bunny	Spanish-dominant interview	~98%	~2%	High	Sustained discourse, Spanish accent influence	C2
Bad Bunny	English-dominant interview	~1%	~99%	Intermediate	Minor hesitations, minor inflectional morphology errors	B2
Shakira	Spanish-dominant interview	~94%	~6%	High	Sustains rapid discourse, strong grammatical control	C2
Shakira	English-dominant interview	~10%	~90%	High	Minor pauses, stable structure, slight accent influence	C2

Table 2. Language distribution and CEFR-based fluency across speakers and contexts.

For Jennifer Lopez, we examined her Despierta América interview where she speaks primarily in Spanish, about 85–90% of the segment. However, she frequently inserts English words such as “microbudget” and “my partner.” These switches are mostly intrasentential, meaning they occur within a sentence rather than between sentences. While she sustains extended discourse in Spanish, there are occasional grammatical inconsistencies, such as gender agreement errors like “un película” instead of “una película”. She also shows moments of hesitation and reformulation. Overall, she demonstrates strong Spanish fluency, but her speech reflects influence from English dominance.

In contrast, during her American Music Awards acceptance speech, Lopez speaks almost entirely in English, about 95%. Her English is fully fluent and grammatically stable, with only emotional pauses typical of award speeches. She includes the Spanish phrase, “Mi gente Latino,” which contains a grammatical mismatch, attracting public scrutiny. In this context, Spanish is used symbolically rather than as sustained discourse. Spanish becomes a resource for identity and solidarity, while English remains the dominant language for extended, stable discourse.

When analyzing Bad Bunny’s Vogue interview, conducted in Spanish, the language distribution was approximately 98% Spanish. His Spanish shows no hesitations and strong grammatical stability. There are three cases of intra-sentential switches: “un jacket,” “un outfit,” and “5 o 6 horas o whatever.” In one sentence, he also started his statement with, “Bro”. His pronunciation is shaped by the vowels and consonants that Spanish speakers typically use, which are not present in English. For example, when he says “bro,” he uses the “rolling r.” These switches appear natural part of his own mental dictionary and were placed in his sentences due to convenience, he remained stable and consistent. These patterns show that Spanish, being his dominant language, is the one he is most comfortable with, yet his English can still be used effectively and has even become part of his speech in Spanish-contexts.

In his recent Grammy acceptance speech, conducted in English and addressed a predominantly English-speaking audience. He delivered this speech with approximately 99% English, with only one case of language switch when he stated, “Sometime we get…contaminados.” The word contaminados sounds similar to the English word contaminated, making it relatively transparent for audiences to infer his intended meaning despite a language shift. While he sustained an extended English discourse, he briefly switched to Spanish after being unable to retrieve the English word he was attempting to use. This moment of initial hesitation led to his resorting to his dominant language, which reflects a moment of lexical retrieval difficulty that comes with navigating two grammatical systems simultaneously. There are also errors in his English production, such as verbs not matching the subject correctly and inconsistencies with verb tenses, indicative of a B2- level proficiency. Despite this, he articulated an engaging speech with effective communication to his audiences.

In the Spanish-dominant interview, Shakira speaks 94% Spanish with only minimal code-switching into English. She sustains extended discourse with little hesitation, demonstrating strong grammatical control and a wide lexical range. She maintains a consistent pace and is able to elaborate on responses without breakdown. For example, in the Por el Mundo interview, she produces long, multi-clause responses while narrating experiences, maintaining coherence across extended turns without loss of structure. Even when engaging in more spontaneous moments, such as repetition (“es igual es igual”) or the use of discourse markers (“osea”), these features function as natural elements of spoken discourse rather than signs of hesitation. Occasional English insertions, such as references to titles like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (12:26), do not disrupt discourse flow. It reflects natural lexical access tied to culturally specific terms. Additionally, her production shows strong agreement patterns and syntactic control, with no noticeable errors that interrupt comprehension. Even when shifting topics, she maintains coherence and continuity across sentences, further supporting her ability to sustain extended discourse. Her Spanish production remains stable, rapid, and highly controlled, based on the rubric in Table 2, these features align with C2-level proficiency.

In English-dominant interview, Shakira speaks 90% English with only minimal code-switching into Spanish. She is able to sustain extended discourse with strong grammatical control and only minor processing pauses. For example, brief hesitation before retrieving target words suggests momentary lexical search rather than breakdown in proficiency. Her speech maintains overall stability, with only slight accent influence and occasional phonological transfer. One notable example is the pronunciation of “puntería” using English phonological patterns. This phonological shift reflects cross-linguistic influence, where English sound patterns become more activated in an English-dominant context. This transfer suggests that both language systems remain active and interact during real-time production. In this case, the use of English phonology for a Spanish word highlights how language dominance can shape lexical choice and pronunciation patterns. Despite these features, her discourse remains coherent, fluent, and structurally stable throughout the segment. Based on the same rubric, this level of performance is consistent with C2-level proficiency, as she sustains discourse across contexts without significant grammatical instability. Together, these findings position Shakira at the highest end of the bilingual proficiency spectrum in this study, demonstrating consistent control across both Spanish- and English-dominant settings while reflecting subtle effects of language dominance.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings from this study reinforce the idea that bilingual proficiency operates along a continuum shaped by language dominance rather than balanced ability across languages. Across all three speakers, patterns in language distribution, grammatical control, and discourse stability consistently aligned with their dominant language, supporting our original hypothesis. At the same time, these results highlight how observable features, such as hesitation, accent influence, and code-switching, may shape how bilingual speakers are perceived in public contexts. For example, Jennifer Lopez’s “Mi gente Latino” moment and Bad Bunny’s Spanish-influenced English pronunciation illustrate how natural features of bilingual speech can be interpreted as errors or deviations. Similarly, Shakira’s phonological transfer in “puntería” shows that even highly proficient speakers exhibit cross-linguistic interaction in real-time production. Together, these patterns suggest that perceptions of fluency are often based on surface-level performance rather than underlying competence.

Overall, this study demonstrates that bilingual fluency is a dynamic process influenced by language dominance and communicative context. By applying CEFR-based descriptors to real-time interview data, we show that even highly proficient bilingual speakers display variation in fluency across languages, reflecting the interaction between their linguistic systems. While this study focused on observable production, future research could expand this work by examining less structured speech contexts, such as spontaneous interviews or informal media interactions, as well as incorporating audience perception data to better understand how bilingual speakers are evaluated. By situating bilingual performance within both linguistic and social frameworks, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of fluency as something that is not only produced but also interpreted.

Cross-Referencing Bilingual Language Learning in Public Figures

While our analysis focuses on observable fluency in interview contexts, broader discussions of language learning can help contextualize why fluency varies across speakers. For example, Chris Lonsdale’s TED talk argues that language acquisition is driven by meaningful interaction, sustained exposure, and real-time communication rather than formal instruction. Lonsdale emphasizes that learners develop fluency by focusing on relevant content, prioritizing meaning over form, and engaging in continuous listening and interaction. This perspective aligns closely with our findings. Speakers who regularly use a language in high-stakes communicative contexts are more likely to demonstrate stable discourse, stronger grammatical control, and fewer breakdowns in fluency. In particular, Lonsdale highlights that understanding meaning before mastering form and tolerating ambiguity are key to developing fluency. These principles help explain why bilingual speakers may appear more fluent in their dominant language, where they have greater experience sustaining extended discourse without hesitation. A similar perspective is reflected in discussions of multilingual celebrities and language learning practices, which emphasize that language proficiency is often developed through immersion, repetition, and continuous use in real-world settings rather than through formal instruction alone. Media accounts of multilingual celebrities highlight the importance of active communication, frequent exposure, and performance-based practice in building fluency (Inlingua Malta, n.d.). This type of sustained engagement allows speakers to develop greater automaticity, making it easier to sustain extended discourse with fewer breakdowns. This aligns with our findings, as speakers who more frequently operate in a given language context demonstrate greater discourse stability, stronger grammatical control, and a wider lexical range. Thus, fluency appears to be shaped by patterns of use and dominance, reinforcing the idea that bilingual ability exists along a continuum.

References

BBC News Mundo. (2025, July 5). Shakira en entrevista con la BBC: Ser inmigrante en EE.UU. “significa vivir con miedo constante.” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUPk1a4ln0U

Carr, J. R. C. (2014). One margarita, please! Language attitudes regarding pronunciation in the language of origin. Voices, 2(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jk6z6tt

Casielles-Suárez, E. (2017). Spanglish: The hybrid voice of latinos in the united states. Atlantis: Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 39(02), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2017-39.2.08

Ciappara, D. (2024, July 8). How hollywood celebrities learned english in record time. Inlingua Malta. https://www.inlinguamalta.com/blog/how-hollywood-celebrities-learned-english-in-record-time/

Jhos. (2015, January 13). Jennifer Lopez en Despierta America 2015 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbDa046KyHg

JLoGreece2. (2012, February 8). Jennifer Lopez Won AMA for Favorite Latin Music Artist of 2011 (HD) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbDa046KyHg

Loureiro-Rodríguez, V., & Moyna, M. I. (2025). “Me aviento el English y el Spanish”: Spanish-English code-switching in Texas conjunto artist Nick Villarreal. International Journal of Bilingualism, 29(4), 984–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069241261305

Mata, R. (2023). Bilingualism is good but codeswitching is bad: Attitudes about Spanish in contact with English in the Tijuana – San Diego border area. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 20(4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2022.2136672

Montgomery, G., & Zhang, Y. B. (2018). Intergroup anxiety and willingness to accommodate: Exploring the effects of accent stereotyping and social attraction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17728361

Raichlin, R., Walters, J., & Altman, C. (2019). Some wheres and whys in bilingual codeswitching: Directionality, motivation and locus of codeswitching in Russian-Hebrew bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918763135

Recording Academy/ GRAMMYs. (2026, February 1). BAD BUNNY Wins BEST MUSICA URBANA ALBUM | 2026 GRAMMYs [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhvdOTvdpjs

Shenk, E. (2017). ‘So yo creo que es un proceso evolutivo’: Language ideologies among Puerto Ricans in southeastern Pennsylvania. Multilingua, 36(6). https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0123

Tedx Talks. (2013, November 20). How to learn any language in six months [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0yGdNEWdn0

Telefe. (2025, November 30). Las mil vidas de Shakira: “Transforme el dolor en arte y mucha gente sano conmigo” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t71lLIQ6wis

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. (2024, March 25). Shakira on Reclaiming Her Resilience in New Album After Ex-Husband, Cardi B Collab and NYC Surprise [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPmnZdaa1bk

Vogue. (2025, April 28). 12 Hours With Bad Bunny In Puerto Rico [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dCHZdcEKo

60 Minutes. (2020, January 5). Superstar singer Shakira once teased by school classmates for singing “like a goat” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIJEuifB9MQ

From Craft to Clarity: Community Politeness and Lexical Shift in Drag Reading

Sociolinguistics

Chai Das, Ella Liang, Mila Matos, Abigail Shih

“Reading”, or delivering witty, crafted insults, is a speech act that may have been popularized by the reality television show RuPaul’s Drag Race, but it actually has roots much deeper. Drag “reading” can be traced back to African American and Latino LGBTQ+ ballroom culture. However, as drag culture has been brought into mainstream media, it has faced pressure to appeal to broader audience expectations. This study analyzed if the same manifestation of pressure can be seen specifically in the reads from RuPaul’s Drag Race, specifically if there are a greater proportion of impolite reads in later seasons compared to earlier seasons. Categorization of polite and impolite was determined by four key aspects: semantic fields, register, specificity and address terms. We analyzed these aspects in Seasons 2 through 5 in RuPaul’s Drag Race, a period of huge growth in viewership, to answer the research question: is there a difference in the proportion of polite reads in different seasons? Using Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, we determined there was a shift from polite reads in earlier seasons to more impolite reads in later seasons. This change seems to reflect a broader “sanitization” of drag culture norms to achieve mainstream legibility.

Keywords: drag culture, politeness, RuPaul’s Drag Race, mainstreaming

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

Loss of Igbo Language and its Effect on Youth

Sociolinguistics

Lussiana Fragoso, Tyler Graupp, Lauren Loesch, Jessica Ojukwu

When a language fades, so does the identity that comes along with it. The Igbo people currently exist as one of the largest ethnolinguistic groups in the region of West Africa, primarily in Nigeria. The Igbo language itself is a vehicle for culture and intergenerational identity, however, among the Gen Z population, this connection is starting to fade away. Our study concentrates on investigating the reasons why there is Igbo language loss among younger speakers, with a focus on how the dominance of the English language and shifts in family dynamics have contributed to the reshaping of language practices across the generations. Through semi-structured interviews with heritage speakers and cultural Igbo youth, we analyzed patterns of language use and code-switching across different social contexts. We also made it a point to extract the participants’ different perspectives on their cultural identity. Our findings demonstrate that while most participants understand Igbo better than they can speak it, their fluency is very closely tied to whether they had early childhood exposure to the language, especially through their elderly family members. We also discovered that language loss carries significant emotional weight in the participants’ lives and can contribute to feeling a loss of cultural identity.

Keywords: Igbo, Nigeria, identity, Gen Z, family dynamics, culture, language loss

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

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.
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
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.
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
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

Familiarity Dynamics: How We Drop Our “G’s” But Keep Our Guard Up

Sociolinguistics

Meera Chavan, Seungyeon Chi, Kaya Kumar, Anna Shin

If a stranger asks you how your day was, would you rather say that you aced your final or fell down Bruin Walk? Now, what if you were asked that same exact question by your close friend? Would you still answer the same? Stemming from our original motivation of wanting to observe intraspeaker variation through a peer to peer conversation, this study investigates how perceived familiarity influences linguistic variations among female university students. Ultimately demonstrating that speakers do, in fact, systematically shift registers and semantic tendencies when addressing friends versus strangers in order to negotiate a more intimate relationship, social identity, and to create ‘distance’. The key research question that guided our study was ‘how do different aspects of everyday conversation affect familiarity dynamics between individuals?’. Whether they be among friends, family members, or peers, everyday conversations play a central role in constructing intimacy, hierarchy, and belonging, yet they are often overlooked because we don’t usually think or reflect when we speak.

Keywords: familiarity, university, variation, selective communication

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

Switching Between Worlds: Code-Switching and Identity Among UCLA Students

Sociolinguistics

Lindsey Byun, Katie Chang, Kelly Cheung, William Udo

On linguistically diverse campuses and locations such as the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), bilingual students regularly move between languages as they navigate academic, social, and cultural spaces. Our research explores how code-switching functions not simply as a linguistic phenomenon but as a social practice through which speakers express identity and manage relationships across contexts. Drawing on survey data from bilingual and heritage speakers at UCLA, we examine how often students engage in code-switching, the environments in which it occurs, and how speakers perceive the relationship between language choice and personal identity. Our research also takes into consideration how factors like comfort level, perceived judgement, and social setting influence when and why students switch languages. Previous research has shown that code-switching is often stigmatized despite being a widespread and meaningful communicative strategy (Ali, 2023). Building on this work, we investigate whether similar patterns emerge among bilingual college students navigating multilingual environments. Our findings suggest that code-switching is closely tied to feelings of belonging, in-group solidarity, and identity expression, highlighting how language choices reflect the complex social dynamics of multilingual university communities.

Keywords: Code-switching, bilingual speakers, heritage speakers, identity, language ideology, linguistic anthropology

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.

Deciphering Differences in Generation Alpha and Generation X’s Slang Usage

Sociolinguistics

Ying Hu, Natasha Hughes, Irene Oh, Emily Usami

Language has been a way for people to communicate with one another, allowing individuals to feel a sense of community and belonging. With that, slang has since evolved into a derivative of language that evolves with the generations as a form of conveyance, along with the tools in each generation offering a nuanced wave of how slang progresses. So how do we quantify such an ever-changing way of communication? Our research aims to answer these questions by measuring and comparing the spread of slang among Generation Alpha and Generation X, specifically, how long it takes for this new slang to be adopted and understood. We found that, on average, it generally took Generation Alpha longer to understand their slang but faster to start using the slang after being exposed to it for the first time, compared to Generation X. Additionally, we linguistically analyzed the differences in the slang between both generations and found that Generation X’s slang was easier to decipher and were derived from non-slang terms with similar meaning, while Generation Alpha’s slang was more arbitrarily introduced, particularly through viral content.

Keywords: Slang, social media, Generation Alpha, and Generation X

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”).

Generation X Slang	Definition (from interviews or video observations)
Rad	Short for radical – used to mean cool
Gnarly	From surfer culture, versatile word used for something extreme, used in both positive (like for something impressive) and negative contexts (something difficult or gross) Used in the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Bod	Referring to “body” in the movie Valley Girl (1983)
Hunk	Used in the movie Valley Girl (1983) to refer to hot, shirtless men on the beach
Yes way	A way to emphasise yes
Dudette	Referring to a girl (related to “dude” for boys)
PK	Short for “Player Kill” – used when you are competing against someone or on television two people competing against one another
Rad	Short for radical – used to mean cool
To the max	To the highest degree possible, often used negatively alongside “grody” (something gross or unappealing): “grody to the max”

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

Generation Alpha Slang	Definition (from interviews or video observations)
67	Various responses: Participant A: Used when someone does something insane or impressive Participant B: Used when the number comes up, rarely used in a sentence Participant C: No specific meaning
Sigma	Various responses: Participant A: “like what the heck but dramatic” Participant B: No specific meaning, but usually refers to something good
Yap	Talking too much. Non-stop blabbering.
Ohio	Used when someone is acting weird. “It’s lowkey an insult to say they’re from Ohio”
IFYKYK	Short for “if you know you know” → self explanatory

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

Instant Inside Jokes: The Creation of Community Through Tiktok Comments

Sociolinguistics

Tiffany Cho, Dana Greenberg, Yitao Li, Bea Roxas, Chloe Sylva

Have you ever made a TikTok reference to a friend or acquaintance that instantly created a bond through the shared recognition of a reference? Alternatively, have you ever been met with confusion or judgment when people don’t understand your reference? In the digital age, social media often has a negative reputation for creating a culture that alienates individuals from their communities. We wanted to push back against this stereotype by exploring how social media, particularly TikTok, actually creates an ideal hub for generating an online community solely through references and shared jokes. Even though social media deviates from the traditional modes of communication, it pioneers a new era of community building and a core pillar of the modern digital age.

Keywords: Social media, TikTok, online culture, digital age, communication, algorithm

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