Projects – Page 12 – Languaged Life

The Impact of Social Media on Romantic Relationships

Chloë Chavez, Sydney Weissman, Ashley Paras, Alejandro Valdez

Interacting on social media is nothing new. We’ve all felt, or at least have heard of people in romantic relationships interacting with others on these platforms, and how it can create feelings of jealousy or uncertainty. Commenting and liking other people’s posts and direct messages could be seen as factors as to why these feelings could become relevant and cause problems in a relationship. We believe that romantic relationships showing behaviors such as these, on other people’s posts besides their partners will cause conflict and negatively affect the overall relationship. An anonymous survey was administered to UCLA students, ages 18-25, that asked whether or not communication online affected how they viewed or felt about their romantic relationships, as well as asking if arguments had ever occurred due to social media engagement. The results were interesting and said a lot about this generation’s relationship with social media.

Introduction

At the base of this research project is the proposal of how communicative behaviors used on social media negatively impact romantic relationships. Our research is narrowly focusing on behavior patterns on social media, and how expressing attention to other people can oftentimes cause jealousy and conflict. The online portrayal of relationships is nothing new, and therefore relevant in nearly all of Gen-Z’s everyday lives. Our research question reads: do online behaviors, such as liking and commenting on others’ posts, direct messaging, and overall online engagement cause jealousy and conflict in romantic relationships? Communication via social media affects our interpersonal relationships, and we hypothesize that online behaviors can cause jealousy and conflict in romantic relationships.

Background

The constant pressure social media holds on individuals and relationships may predicate feelings of jealousy, comparison, low self-concept, envy, and suspicion. Prior research has indicated that social media triggers jealousy and feelings of uncertainty, even when danger is not present (Frampton, Fox, 2018). Altering linguistic norms with different people, (i.e. in a relationship) and using style-shifting is necessary not only in person but also on social media to maintain a healthy relationship.

When going into a relationship with no feelings of paranoia or doubt, social media’s presence only heightened attachment anxiety, feelings of jealousy, and misunderstanding (Sullivan, 2021). Thus, research has shown that language used within social media impacts those within a romantic relationship negatively. Comments, likes, and direct messaging are common sociolinguistic indicators that can work in favor or against relationships.

Methods

An anonymous survey conducted a cross-sectional study at the University of California, Los Angeles. This study was completely voluntary. Participants were UCLA students in a relationship, between 18-25 years old. The study was created on Google forms and links were distributed online through social media platforms and text messages. By sending out open-ended, Likert scale, and multiple choice questions we collected data regarding behaviors shown on social media platforms. With the knowledge that indexical variables include words that change their meaning based on the context used, this study was designed to answer the wider question- how do communicative behaviors via social media (comments, likes, direct messages) impact romantic relationships? Apart from hosting the online survey, a collection of organized data based on predefined research, methodology, graphs, and qualified questions provided by researchers in the past 10 years led the new study. When wanting to discover more about the effects social media has on romantic relationships, we observed the different communicative behaviors used on social media.

Results and Analysis

Figure 1: How often do you post your significant other on social media?

This question had a point scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not frequently” and 5 being “very often.” As seen in Figure 1, participants reported that they never or rarely post their partner, with only two individuals selecting choices ‘4’ and ‘5’. Option ‘1’ and ‘2’ received an equal proportion (31.6), with the median receiving a percentage of 26.3.

Figure 2: How do you feel when your significant other posts you on social media?

Figure 3: How do you feel about your significant other commenting on other people’s posts?

Both data charts, Figures 2 and 3, are critical for our study since they disprove our hypothesis that showing affection for someone other than our significant other through social media might encourage sentiments of jealousy among couples. Figure 2 had a point scale ranging from 1-5, with one being “not happy” and five being “happy.” Figure 3 was scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “uncomfortable/angry” and 5 being “don’t mind.” More than half of the participants answered a ‘4’ or a ‘5,’ demonstrating that this type of behavior (affection for others via social media) does not promote jealousy.

Figure 4: Has engagement on social media (you commenting on others’ posts, liking a post, story reactions, direct messaging) ever instigated an argument between you and your partner?

This data is also important for our hypothesis because it disproves it. Figure 4 used a point scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating “never” and 5 indicating “frequently.” More than half of those in the survey said social media had never caused an argument in their relationship.

Figure 5: What does it mean to you when your significant other likes other people’s posts on social media?

Figure 5 used a 1-5 point scale, with 1 being “not happy” and 5 being “happy.” There’s a large percentage of responses in the median range in this data. This might imply that they are indifferent to their partner’s actions on social media. In this chart, participants who chose ‘3’ remain neutral which portrays neutrality in response to their partner liking others’ posts. Participants may also perceive conversations about feelings of jealousy to be more casual than the conversation being a conflict.

Discussion

After analyzing our results from survey responses and screenshots, we found that the data did not support our overall hypothesis that behavior on social media caused conflict amongst romantic partners. Through a series of questions, the majority of participants revealed that their partners did not post about their significant other often, which correlated with the trend that most participants responded that social media engagement does not cause conflict in their relationships. This also correlates to the question regarding individuals in a relationship commenting on others’ posts or direct messaging others on social media. Most of our respondents revealed that they were unaffected and did not care about partners engaging in these behaviors. Despite social media potentially increasing jealousy and conflict based on prior research, our studies show that romantic relationships are not negatively impacted by user involvement on social media. Rather than conflict arising, feelings of anxiety were reported. Screenshots gathered from our data were exchanges of texts not demonstrating a conflict, but rather how social media instigates feelings of anxiety. Thus, comments and direct messages are elements of communication that we presumed would indicate affection toward another person that would cause arguments and jealousy.

Limitations

While our data does not support our hypothesis, there are limitations to our study that may have influenced the results gathered. Participants may have been reluctant to share the absolute truth for fear that the survey was not completely anonymous. Some partners in a relationship strive for perfection and hide all aspects of their relationship that could taint the views that people have of them. Additionally, people may not be comfortable admitting that they experience conflicts in their relations because of social media. This also ties into the idea of relationships having different perspectives toward the parameters that define conflict. There are different severities of conflict, and couples may differ on what is considered a conflict versus a simple discussion. Lastly, the struggle to gain responses on our survey may skew our results as our sample size is not large enough to make generalizations about an entire population size. While we had nineteen respondents, these may have all been couples that have sufficient communication with their partner, limiting the arguments that exist from social media. However, if the survey had more respondents, we could have conducted a more concrete generalization in response to how social media impacts romantic relations in the realms of jealousy and conflict through linguistic exchanges.

Future Studies

Future studies could expand on this topic and focus more on elements of communication that impact face-to-face communication among romantic partners. This can include factors such as the difference between masculine and feminine communication styles and how these aspects of language affect romantic relationships. Further, looking at the difference in communication between genders would be a future study that could aid in understanding more in-depth the effect communication online has on our relationships.

References

Abbasi, I. S. (2018). Social Media and committed relationships: What factors make our romantic relationship vulnerable? Social Science Computer Review, 37(3), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318770609

Arikewuyo, A. O., Lasisi, T. T., Abdulbaqi, S. S., Omoloso, A. I., & Arikewuyo, H. O. (2020). Evaluating the use of social media in escalating conflicts in romantic relationships. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2331

Beaukboom, C. & Utz, S. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4). 511-527.

Frampton, & Fox, J. (2018). Social Media’s Role in Romantic Partners’ Retroactive Jealousy: Social Comparison, Uncertainty, and Information Seeking. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 205630511880031–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118800317

Sullivan, K. T. (2021). Attachment Style and Jealousy in the Digital Age: Do Attitudes About Online Communication Matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 678542–678542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021

Appendix

Are there social media rules for relationships?

relationships, social media, texting

Breaking Gender Barriers: Exploring Communication and Leadership Styles in UCLA Undergraduates

Sociolinguistics

Rita Chen, Jeannine Xu, Sydney Shi

The study aimed to investigate the differences in leadership styles between male and female undergraduate students in group discussions. Previous research had shown that men are often perceived as more dominant and directive, while women prioritize building connections and understanding. The study focused on an academic setting, with researchers observing 36 UCLA undergraduate students discussing a topic for 10 minutes. Observations were made of both verbal and gestural communication features of each individual, and an observational checklist was used to categorize behaviors into six main traits of authoritative or collaborative leadership style. Results supported the hypothesis that male students displayed more authoritative traits, such as confidence and dominance, while female students displayed more collaborative traits, such as empathy and supportiveness. Interestingly, female participants also displayed the authoritative trait of “clarity” more than their male counterparts. The findings of this study suggest that traditional gender roles continue to influence communication patterns and highlight the importance of advocating for a more inclusive society where all genders have equal opportunities to succeed in leadership roles.

Introduction and Background

Although gender roles are constantly changing and the concept of gender is becoming more fluid, traditional gender roles continue to influence our communication patterns. Starting from childhood, individuals socialized to conform to gender norms, which specifically have a substantial power over decision making and leadership styles in group settings. (Carter et al., 2019) While women prioritize building connections and understanding in their interpersonal relationships, men aim to establish their identity and status through demonstrating independence and control over the conversation.

Such gender differences stemmed our interest in investigating how male and female leadership styles may differ within a group setting. Previous research had investigated different styles of management communication between males and females under a professional setting, suggesting that while females are generally perceived to be more concerned and attentive than males as leaders, male were perceived to be more dominant and directive. (Baird & Bradley, 1979)

Instead of observing different leadership styles within a professional setting, we intended to focus on an academic setting, more specifically we narrowed down our target population to UCLA undergraduate students. We intend to study the differences between male and female leadership styles by observing their gestural and verbal communication features. Specifically, a previous finding shows that men often spread their arms over a chair or lean over the table during discussion to expand their personal space as a symbol of confidence (Greenwood 2017). Conversely, women are more likely to act conservatively in their own personal space, which could be stereotypically viewed as less assertive or less successful than men in group discussions. Therefore, we hypothesized that male students are more likely to be the authoritative leader while female students are more likely to be the collaborative leader in a group discussion in college classrooms. We aim to test this gendered difference in leadership style and advocate for a more inclusive society where all genders have equal opportunities to succeed in leadership roles.

Methods

Our study was conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). We observed 36 UCLA undergraduate junior and senior students to analyze if their behaviors qualify for authoritative or collaborative leadership styles in discussions. Regarding the experiment, we randomly selected 36 students and divided them into 6 groups that each contained 3 females and 3 males. By giving each group the same topic, which was “What is your view on ChatGPT and AI control, we asked each group to discuss and share their thoughts about this question in 10 minutes. During the discussion, each of us researchers observed one group and focused specifically on gestures and verbal expressions of each individual and recorded our observation on an observational list, which allowed us to have a unified interpretation of authoritative and collaborative leadership styles. In this case, we asked 12 questions and categorized them into six main traits with dominance, confidence, and clarity being traits of authoritative style and sympathy, consideration, and supportiveness being traits of collaborative style. For example, we included questions like “Did anyone expand their gestures?” in order to remind ourselves to look for these specific behaviors. After the discussion, each participant also filled out the same observational checklist to evaluate the behaviors of their peers. By collecting 36 responses from the sample and 6 checklists from researchers, we constructed two figures to compare and contrast the variation between different genders regarding their leadership styles in group discussions.

Results and Analysis

According to Figure 1, the results from our study supported our hypothesis that male students are more likely to be the authoritative leader while female students are more likely to be the collaborative leader in a group discussion in college classrooms. Based on 36 responses, we found that in a class discussion setting, more male students display traits of authoritative style such as confidence and dominance, while more female students display traits of collaborative leadership styles like empathy and supportiveness. An interesting finding was that female participants also illustrated a high amount of authoritative leadership style, females even displayed the authoritative trait “clarity” more than their male participants. Figure 2 shows the specific leadership traits performed by male and female participants:

Figure 1 Shows Different Leadership Traits Between Genders

After we obtained the different traits that our female and male participants showed, we summarized these traits into the two big categories: collaborative and authoritative as shown in Figure 2. The authoritative traits are dominance, confidence, and clarity. The collaborative traits are supportiveness, empathy, and consideration. After calculation, we found that 32 female participants portrayed collaborative leadership traits while 26 male participants showed collaborative leadership. On the other hand, 27 female participants showed authoritative leadership style and 31 male participants showed authoritative leadership styles. Looking at this summarized chart, we can see a clearer distinction of the authoritative and collaborative traits females and males utilize as in their leadership.

Figure 2 Shows Different Leadership Styles Between Genders

One limiting aspect of the result is the study’s sampling population. Our study participant population only consisted of full-time UCLA undergraduate students. This is limiting to the external validity of the study’s results, as full-time UCLA undergraduate students are not a good representation of the general population. The study should keep in mind the education level and environment of UCLA students in comparison to the average population in our society.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, we have examined the relationship between gender and leadership styles among college students. Our findings support the traditional gender stereotype that males tend to exhibit more authoritative behaviors, while females tend to display more collaborative behaviors. This is likely due to the societal expectations and gender roles that shape individuals’ approach to leadership roles later in life. Our study has revealed that socialization plays a critical role in shaping gender roles and expectations, which in turn influences leadership styles.

However, we also found that our results are not entirely consistent with the traditional gender stereotype. Despite male students exhibiting more authoritative behaviors overall, female students exhibited a higher frequency of “clarity” traits, an authoritative leadership style, than their male counterparts. This could be attributed to the increasing gender equality and social status, which have enabled more women to develop and display leadership qualities, including more assertive and authoritative styles.

Our study’s broader impact lies in its contribution to creating more inclusive classroom environments that value and recognize diverse leadership styles. Educational institutions can use our findings to design more inclusive classroom settings and curriculum and create a more supportive and inclusive learning environment for all students. Furthermore, our study can help students recognize the disparities in leadership styles and work effectively together.

In conclusion, our study highlights the role of socialization in shaping gender roles and expectations and how they influence leadership styles. It also suggests that the increasing gender equality and social status have allowed more females to develop and display authoritative leadership styles. However, effective leadership depends on the context, and both leadership styles can be successful.

References

Carter, M. F., Franz, T. M., Gruschow, J. L., & VanRyne, A. M. (2019). The gender conformity conundrum: The effects of irrelevant gender norms on public conformity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(6), 761–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1586636

Baird, J. E., & Bradley, P. H. (1979). Styles of Management and Communication: A Comparative Study of men and women. Communication Monographs, 46(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757909375995

Greenwood, B. (2017, November 21). How can gender affect negotiation? Work. Retrieved February 21, 2023, from https://work.chron.com/can-gender-affect-negotiation-5771.html

gender differences, Gender Stereotypes, leadership styles

Why it’s Really Not You, It’s Them. Hook Up Culture, Explained

Sociolinguistics

Have you ever wondered why participants of hook-up culture have a hard time communicating with one another? Whether it’s differences in intentions or the usage of different communication styles, it’s likely that they’re not on the same page. As a result of our extensive research, this paper will highlight the reality of hook-up culture and the big question that haunts the community: How do participants of hook-up culture communicate differently than the ingrained standards we see within long-term relationships? Our hypothesis specifically focused on the idea that communication within hook-up culture will differ between genders and communication styles, ultimately creating a larger gap between methods of communication in short-term and long-term relationships. With the help of our studies, we were able to identify the use of code-switching through emojis and slang, common communication themes (vernaculars and communicative traits), and overall motivations! Overall, we hope to help many be able to overcome communication barriers within hook-up culture in order to see some healthy change within our social dynamics and communication!

Introduction and Background

The goal of our paper was to research the intricacies of a prevalent communication topic in our generation: “hook-up culture”. More specifically, we chose to focus on the motivations behind each gender’s experiences or participation in hook-up culture, ultimately allowing us to analyze the different communication patterns exhibited as well. Hook-ups within “hook-up culture” are defined as, “… activities [that] may include a wide range of sexual behaviors, such as kissing, oral sex, and penetrative intercourse …. these encounters often transpire without any promise of, or desire for, a more traditional romantic relationship…” (Garcia/Merriwether, 2012). With this definition, the rise of hookup culture is then marked by the phenomenon of, “…increasingly normative among adolescents in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and uncommitted sex…” (Garcia/Merriwether, 2012). As a result, our research was conducted on the basis that hook-up culture is prevalent within our society. However, given the constraints of our research project, we had research gaps that prevented us from reaching further conclusions, including the short amount of time we had to conduct our research (given more time we would research a larger group). Another limitation was due to the lack of empirical research on hook-up culture due to the prominence of the topic only flourishing within this past decade.

Our last limitation came as a result of the demographic in which we focused on. Obviously, our demographic was catered to college students, but there may be different results if our demographic was different– so that most definitely should be noted. However, our research, as shown throughout this blog post, will illustrate that our hypothesis is mostly supported by our conducted research. Our research highlights different modes of communication, varying personal intentions, and the popularity of hook-up culture amongst college-aged students.

Methods

Within our method, we looked at different sources of information such as scholarly articles, scholarly speeches (TedTalk), and our own research conducted through the usage of Google Forms. Our scholarly references ranged from communicating commitment in a romantic relationship to communication in the modern hook-up culture, but we made sure to organize an array of valuable sources that would not only prove our hypothesis but also explain our results within our conducted survey. We distributed a survey (through GroupMe chats, Instagram stories, and professors showcasing it at the beginning of class) to our wide demographic of students at UCLA who have knowledge or a basic understanding of hook-up culture, ultimately granting us valuable responses that could help us with our research on how communication differs within hook-up culture through studying gender imbalances/differences in viewpoints and styles. Through our survey, we politely asked our respondents to share their experiences with hook-up culture and answer our specific questions to the best of their abilities. Additionally, there were no incentives and we made sure to inform them that their responses would be anonymous and removable at any point in time. We asked 10 specific questions in connection to our research and our own personal wonderings alongside an entry method for attachments of physical experiences with hook-up culture. Some examples of our questions were: check off boxes of emojis you’ve used when communicating with a prospective partner or how to communicate your intentions to a prospective partner, therefore giving us a deep understanding and a specific answer to the ideas that our research would mention but not specifically answer for us. Within our research, we analyzed communication styles such as emojis or slang, collective gender differences within communication patterns and beliefs, and overall values within personal communication styles and methods such as direct vs. passive communication. For more information on our exact survey, here is a direct link to it: https://forms.gle/cGUqi9sAmSsGQoNX8.

Results and Analysis

In summary, our hypothesis focused on how romantic communication differs between types of connections/relationships (hook-up partners vs long-term relationships), and how each gender engaged with each category differently. Through our extensive research methods, we found that there were factual differences between male and female ideologies. For example, there were similarities within our target audience such as age, education status, and lifestyles – which played a role in the situations these individuals would imagine and partake in throughout their experiences with or without hook-up culture. Our respondents were 50% male and 50% female, mostly aged at 21 to 23 years old by 87.5%. Now, the differences range from gender perceptions/mindset, communication styles, and personal values/needs.

Our survey questions were able to support our hypothesis. For further context, here are some of the most important pieces of information gained from our studies. When asked about hook-up culture in our generation and if they (respondents) participate in hook-up culture, 87.5% answered yes (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1: Do you believe hook-up culture is prevalent within this generation?

Figure 2: Do you believe you participate in hookup culture?

With most of our respondents knowing about or experiencing hook-up culture, the results of our survey would most definitely help us understand the reality of hookup-culture whether it proved or disproved our hypothesis. Now, our questions became more specific in order to curate a representative sample of patterns within hook-up culture. Furthermore, these two questions below provided the most valuable information within our survey research.

Within our hypothesis, we predicted that there would be a difference between communication styles and methods. So, with our own experience with hook-up culture, and our learnings from Amanda N. Gesselmen’s research article on “Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication”, we were able to create our question about the influence of emojis on romantic communication and how different ones convey different meanings (casual hook-up vs long-term love). As can be seen, a majority of respondents affiliated with emojis were deemed to be used for “sexting” within hook-up culture communication (Figure 3). For further support, on our side, we can see that most of our respondents that used those emojis are also the same individuals who announced their participation in hook-up culture as well. Next, Figure 4 provided us with the different communication styles we noted through romantic communication in general, but we mentally sorted them into different categories that would analyze different perspectives. For example, those who answered that their communication style was direct and dishonest were usually men (remember: one can be directly dishonest– they are not mutually exclusive). On the other hand, those who answered that their communication style was more honest, considerate, and passive were women. Through these results, we were able to see that there IS a difference of communication styles between genders AND relationship/partner status (hook-up vs long-term). Furthermore, we were able to conclude that men’s expectations are more short-term and casual while female expectations are more long-term and exclusive, ultimately impacting their different communication styles that portray most men as direct, dishonest, dominant, selfish, and confident while portraying most women as passive, considerate, committed, and honest.

Figure 3: Emojis used when communicating with a prospective partner

Figure 4: Communication styles of survey respondents

Discussion and Conclusions

As discussed at the beginning of the paper, ‘hook-up culture’ has gained high levels of popularity, and more recently amongst younger generations. With influential communication-based platforms and media, such as TikTok, “…. popular culture is simultaneously representing aspects of actual contemporary sexual behavior and providing sexual scripts for emerging adults…”, which has potentially played a role in why we concluded the results from our research as we did (Garcia / Merriwether, 2012). Our results suggest a few common themes within the communication patterns of ‘hookup culture’. As seen in the data above, our results suggest that there is a correlation between men’s motivations for just wanting to participate in casual sexual intercourse, whereas women want to participate in sexual intercourse more so in the pursuit of a serious partner, thus suggesting genders do in fact have different motivations when participating in hookup culture. Additionally, our results show a form of ‘code-switching’ that occurs when individuals use emojis and slang to communicate within hook-up culture. Furthermore, code-switching is defined as, “…the practice of selecting or altering linguistic elements so as to contextualize talk in interaction…”, which we see has occurred when individuals interchanged emoji’s arbitrary meanings with more sexual notions only in the context of hook-up culture communication (Nilep, 2006). Additionally, we saw that the most popular ages amongst participants who take part in hookup culture range from 21-23. Given these results, and the inferences we’ve made from our research, our paper concludes that communication with hookup culture has a unique nature to it that involves various tactics in order to achieve that ‘hook-up goal’, and that there are many mechanical and analytical parts involved in the motivations behind hook up culture. However, depending on who you are, it’s highly likely that if you aren’t achieving that dream ‘hook up’ it really isn’t you, it’s them.

References

Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2009). Let’s get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e615882011-144

Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911

Gesselman, A. N., Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLOS ONE, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297

Klinger, L. (n.d.). Hookup Culture on College Campuses: Centering College Women, Communication Barriers, and Negative Outcomes. https://doi.org/https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol3/iss2/5/

Lundquist, J. H., & Curington, C. V. (2019). Love me Tinder, love me sweet. Contexts, 18(4), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504219883848

Nilep, C. (2006). “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19. https://doi.org/10.25810/hnq4-jv62

Pham, J. M. (2017). Beyond hookup culture: Current trends in the study of college student sex and where to next. Sociology Compass, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12499

Tom Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2010). Just say ‘‘no thanks’’: Romantic rejection in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510384895

Webb, S. (n.d.). Communication in the Modern Hookup Culture: A Literature Review. https://doi.org/https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/lexia/vol4/iss1/3/

Wood, M. (n.d.). Addressing Context with Hymes’s SPEAKING Model. https://doi.org/https://the-ofla-cardinal.org/2018/01/14/addressing-context-with-hymess-speaking-model/

Appendix

NPR Podcast – Hook-up Culture: The Unspoken Rules of Sex on College Campuses https://www.npr.org/transcripts/552582404

TedTalk – Stripping Down the Hook-up Culture: The Need for Emotional Visibility https://youtu.be/EhzOohyAZjs

dating apps, emojis, gender differences, hookup culture, Slang, texting

“Breaking the Barriers: Overcoming Ashkenazi and Sephardic Communication Conflicts”

Sociolinguistics

Collina Binafard, Bina Gabbye, Shaina Sedaghat, Alex Tevonyan

Are you tired of hearing the same old “Ashkenazi versus Sephardic” debates in the Jewish community? While there’s no doubt that these two groups have rich cultural and religious differences, it’s finally time to address the elephant in the room: communication conflicts. Whether it’s differences in language, customs, or even humor, these barriers can often lead to misunderstandings, altercations, alienation, and ostracism. But fear not, by acknowledging and understanding these differences, we can foster a more inclusive and harmonious community. As a result of these differences, Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have often been segregated due to their varying communicative differences which isolate the two communities. The current body of knowledge focuses on their different religious practices, traditions, customs, and backgrounds. While this information is very interesting and important to take into account when considering the ostracism and alienation between the two groups, what about the specific linguistic differences that can be observed between these two groups? How exactly does their linguistic use differ? Are there any observable differences that can be analyzed in prayer to bridge this gap in information? In order to do so, our research tried to uncover these differences through the lens of prayer, using an observational approach, and pinpointing the exact methods and ways in which linguistic practices in prayer play a role in the separation between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. By uncovering the aspects that change communication characteristics we can emphasize the importance of coming together and celebrating our culturally diverse backgrounds, instead of allowing them to divide us.

Introduction and Background

Observing these linguistic differences through prayer allows people to get a deeper understanding of the ways in which Ashkenazi and Sephardic communication differs. The existing literature related to this topic offered information about linguistic differences between orthodox Jews and more traditional Jews in regard to their lexical and phonological differences. The differences that we observed in the literature inspired us to compare multiple populations within Judaism and how their communication differs, especially with respect to their ability to create meaningful interactions with one another (Sacknovitz, 2007). The combination of our analysis of the literature and via our personal experiences as Jews of multiple ethnicities who have observed these limits in communication practices, we found that \t\ release was a highly relevant topic of conversation, often penetrating discussion about humor relating to the other group and ostracizing others unintentionally. The communication language aspect(s) that we will discuss focus on the various aspects of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish cultures on communication preferences when discussing prayers whose pronunciation varies based on cultural and linguistic practices. Certain words in Hebrew using /t/ release have different pronunciations within Ashkenaz and Sephardi communities. In Hebrew, the letter “ת” (Tsav or Tav) can represent two contrasting sounds. This letter can either be pronounced as a “t” sound, or as a “ts” sound. Our research aimed to observe the frequency of such pronunciations in Ashkenazi and Sephardi temples. The usage of Yiddish and Ladino in communication was also a factor we considered in our research (Benor, 2011). This factor was used to attempt to show how people communicate based on their cultures. We pinpointed the differences that can be found within the linguistic factors of prayers between these two subgroups, specifically their pronunciation and incorporation of the languages that they are often associated with.

Methods

To study these aspects of communication, we visited two Jewish temples in the Los Angeles area, Ohel Moshe, a Sephradi Temple, and Temple Emmanuel, an Ashkenaz Temple. We visited each temple at the same time of day for the afternoon prayer called Mincha which is typically said anytime after midday until right before sunset, where we observed the recitation of Psalm 145, also called “Ashrei” in Hebrew (Psalms in Liturgy 10 – Psalm 145 “Ashrei”, Sefaria, 2022). We counted a total of 34 instances where the letter Tav/Tsav appeared in the Ashrei prayer and recorded the pronunciation of those words. We were specifically observing the ways in which each group made use of the /t/ release. We also recorded the amount of time words from languages such as Yiddish and Ladino appeared within prayer and with discussions around prayer. The frequency of the use of Tav and Tsav was recorded by us during prayer which sometimes proved difficult due to the quickness of the clergy members’ sermons. However, this risk of losing data was mitigated as we had prayer books with transliterations and pronunciations.

Results

In our results, we observed the following with regard to the presence of Ashkenazi Jewish and Sephardic Jewish communication when discussing Yiddish and Ladino. When we listened to prayers, we were shocked to find that Ladino and Yiddish were not used at all in prayer. Neither language was used in prayer, but Yiddish in contrast to Ladino was used in discussion around prayer. We observed that Yiddish words were utilized in 5 of 30, or 16.7%, of conversations that occurred before and after the service. The use of Yiddish in a minority of conversations was lower than we expected with our prediction being that one-third of conversations would have discussions in Yiddish. It is worth noting that the use of Yiddish in discussion around prayer could have been influenced by factors such as the age and background of the individuals involved in the conversation as the individuals at these synagogues were generally of an older age and thus would have higher ties to their original cultural roots. It is also possible that our sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions about the prevalence of Yiddish in these contexts. Additionally, these results were skewed by the location as anecdotally Temples on the East Coast see a greater prevalence in the use of Yiddish words (Steinmetz, 2001). Yiddish, a language originally stemming from the intersection of German and Hebrew, is prevalent among Eastern European Jewish populations as a spoken language particularly in the Hasidic community in Brooklyn despite being considered by modern linguists as a dead language. (Roses, 1996) However, the findings we observed were more robust for the use of certain pronunciations of words when discussing /t/ release.

In our observations, we found that in regard to uses of /t/ release Ashkenazi Jews primarily use the Tsav pronunciation which would be most similar to an English “ts” sound, while Sephardi Jews make use of the Tav pronunciation, which is similar to an English “t”. This means that while the words that they are pronouncing look identical on paper, the way in which they pronounce them is different. For example, the word “בֵיתֶ֑ךָ” which appears in the first line of the Ashrei Prayer can either be pronounced as “Veitekha” or Veitsekha”. Of the 34 instances the letter Tav/Tsav appears in the Ashrei prayer, members of the Ashkenazi Temple opted for the Tsav pronunciation 32 out of the 34 times (94.12 %) and members of the Sephardi Temples opted for the Tav pronunciation 34 out of the 34 times (100%) during the prayer. We also made the prediction that Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews would make use of the languages of their heritage within their prayers. Sephardic Jews we believed generally incorporated the Tav pronunciation more while Ashkenazi Jews used the Tsav pronunciation more which proved our prediction.

Figure 1: This figure demonstrates the percentages of instances where Tav and Tsav pronunciations were recorded, as well as the occurrences of Yiddish and Ladino use in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Temples.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that within the Los Angeles community, there is a clear distinction between pronunciation of certain words and individual’s uses of /t/ release. Although our research had its limitations, the data we uncovered can help us understand these linguistic differences to foster a more inclusive and harmonious community. The current state being that Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are unable to properly communicate without encountering a seemingly invisible barrier to communication. By acknowledging and accepting these differences, we can work towards bridging the gap that separates Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. Our research aimed to uncover the disparities that contribute to such a gap. Although in our findings, we did not observe anything which is definitively a silver bullet to indicate that linguistic separations that exist within all Ashkenaz and Sephardi communities nationwide, we did glean valuable insights on communication components within the Los Angeles Jewish community that affect pronunciations and at times communication between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. We suspect that the differences in the communication between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are more tied to culture as a result of the lack of relevance with regard to the results of /t/ release and Yiddish and Ladino usage. Additionally, we were unable to answer the question of how Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews can better communicate as a result of a lack of relevance of the variables of the use of Yiddish and Ladino. Overall, by continuing to investigate and better understand the linguistic differences between different Jewish communities, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and unified Jewish community. It is important to note that these linguistic differences are just one aspect of the rich cultural and religious diversity within the Jewish community. However, they are a significant factor that should not be ignored. Future research in this area could expand beyond the Los Angeles area to include a larger sample size and a wider geographic range. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore the role of other languages in Jewish prayer and communication, as well as how these linguistic differences impact other areas of Jewish life beyond prayer.

References

Benor, S. B. (2011). Mensch, bentsh, and balagan: Variation in the American Jewish linguistic repertoire. Language & Communication, 31(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2010.08.006

Psalms in Liturgy 10 – Psalm 145 “Ashrei” | Sefaria. (2022b, April 11). https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/398850?lang=bi

Roses. (1996). A DEAD LANGUAGE, YIDDISH LIVES. (Letter to the editor). The New York Times Magazine, 6.26–

Sacknovitz. (2007). Linguistic means of Orthodox Jewish identity construction: Phonological features, lexical features, and the situated discourse (Vol. 68, Issue 7). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Steinmetz, S. (2001). Yiddish & English: The Story of Yiddish in America. University of Alabama Press.

Jews, prayer

“Get Ready With Me: Blog Post Edition”: How Influencers Self-Brand on TikTok

Sociolinguistics

Emerson Howard, Kaira Edwards, Kat Balchunas, Kylee Bourbon, Nicole Hernandez

“Ok storytime.” “Get ready with me to go to class.” “Doing my makeup for literally no reason.” We can’t get enough.

Why are “get ready with me” videos so captivating? Are the communicative methods used what contributes to flop or fame…. a like or dislike…a slay or a nay?

In recent years, a new wave of social media “influencing” has emerged. The phenomenon of self-branding, the continuous action of establishing an image or identity of oneself, is most relevant in such an industry. We sought to investigate how influencers’ slang and body language used in “Get Ready With Me (GRWM)” videos conveys or does not convey a sense of perceived authenticity from followers. Our study focuses on three popular lifestyle influencers and their GRWM videos on the platform TikTok. We sought to identify patterns of body language, speech, and audience perception within GRWM videos that allow our subjects to establish and maintain an authentic relationship with their audiences. We hypothesized the intimate and casual nature of GRWM videos allow creators to establish a more personal connection with their audience if accompanied by a positive tone of voice, use of inside slang, as well as high levels of engagement.

Introduction and Background

TikTok is a rapidly growing social media platform which revolves around the creation and sharing of short, user-generated videos (Montag et. al, 2021). The app launched in 2016 and since then has provided an outlet for social media influencers, who are users that obtain a large following through posts, engagement, and advertising (Abidin, 2015). Our study looks specifically at white, female lifestyle influencers aged 18-30 who are recognized for documenting seemingly inconsequential and mundane elements of everyday life such as putting on makeup, getting dressed, etc. These influencers communicate personal information about themselves to create a sense of intimacy between them and their followers, emphasizing their realness and relatability (Abidin, 2015). Like any other social media influencer, lifestyle influencers create a “brand” for themselves by developing a consistent theme and style for their account through patterns of language, images, and content in order to create a certain expectation for how people should perceive them (Marshall).

To provide a basis for our understanding of how TikTok influencers create a ‘brand’ for themselves, we apply Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to the digital media space to explain how influencers put on a performance through self-branding. Goffman’s dramaturgical theory proposes that everyday interactions are like a play in which humans put on a performance. This phenomenon is often displayed on social media in which influencers curate their posts and profiles to express an idealized presentation of self. Influencers employ impression management by being selective with what to post publicly, in order to preserve the identity they have curated for themselves—their “brand.” We feel that GRWM videos uniquely blur the line between Goffman’s concepts of backstage and frontstage, since these videos are predicated on providing followers with a sense of intimacy, seeing the ‘backstage’ of an influencer’s daily life. These videos commodify intimacy by providing the audience with the impression they are privy to intimate and generally inaccessible aspects of the influencer’s lives—this is what makes lifestyle influencer branding successful (Abidin, 2015).

Methods

For our data, we gathered and analyzed the three most recent “GRWM” videos from February 17th to March 1st, from the selected lifestyle influencers: Alix Earle, Darcy McQueeny, and Mikyla Nogueira, to investigate how they create a persona through language and behavior patterns. We gathered our data via the TikTok social media platform and the data was collected in two separate categories: video content and audience response. To observe video content, we looked at their patterns of communication including their body language, as well as their use of “inside slang.” We then observed audience response by focusing on the top seven comments to investigate whether there was a more positive or negative reception, as well as the number of likes per comment. This allowed us to measure each influencer’s level of audience engagement, level of influencer engagement, and engagement sentiment. We then took into account any differences and similarities that may exist amongst the influencers and how those aspects account for the way they’re perceived.

Screenshots of TikTok comments on influencer Alix Earle’s posts

Results and Analysis

Our research both confirmed and rejected aspects of our hypothesis that GRWM videos allow creators to establish a more personal connection with their audience if accompanied by a positive tone of voice, use of inside slang, as well as high levels of engagement. After measuring the creator response rates within their comment sections, we noticed that Mikayla Nogueira had the highest level of engagement with viewers (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Number of Responses to Top 7 Comments

She not only responded to comments more frequently than other creators but also in a variety of ways: liking, messaging, and video responding. However, Alix appeared to have more audience engagement (see Figures 3 and 5) of all influencers we investigated despite her not interacting with them as much as Mikayla.

Despite having greater creator engagement, followers (see Figures 1 and 2) and the most positive engagement sentiments (see Figure 4), Mikayla Nogueira received less likes per GRWM video (see Figure 5) and likes on the top 7 comments (see Figure 3) per GRWM video (236.4k / 1,506), than Alix Earle (400.9k / 3,996). Darcy McQueeny received the least likes per video and comments (61.8k / 227).

Figure 2: Total Likes on All Videos (in Millions)

Figure 3: Average Likes on Top 7 Comments (in Thousands)

Figure 4: Connotations of Top 7 Comments on 3 Observed Videos

Figure 5: Average Likes on 3 Observed Videos (in Thousands)

Through our analysis of this data we established that, as opposed to our hypothesis, it is a “laid-back” neutral tone of voice, use of inside slang, and moderate levels of engagement that is most popular within GRWM videos and most effective in garnering audience engagement.

We observed that Alix is a very good storyteller, creating a more laid-back demeanor and anecdotal style of GRWM videos that is more relatable amongst audiences. Mikayla can seem too enthusiastic, as if she is trying too hard to be liked and seen as a positive person (i.e. “Thank you!!! [exuding love face emoji]”); while Alix interacts just like a friend would on Facetime and responds to comments similar to how friends respond to texts; in a more neutral and moderate manner (i.e. “Hahahahah,” “No”). Mikayla expresses herself very openly and her outgoing personality may be a bit overwhelming for some. Additionally, her high level of engagement with her comment section may appear to some as trying too hard. Contrastingly, Alix exudes a more relaxed persona, talking about her friends as if the audience knows them personally, to solidify this ‘friend-like’ relationship, and utilizing slang such as “it’s not giving” throughout various videos and “losers,” which she notes is used by her own friend group, allowing the audience to feel included. We found that Darcy McQueeny utilizes a monotone/unengaging tone of voice and scarcely engages with comments, resulting in her low levels of likes, audience engagement, and negative engagement sentiments.

Discussion and Conclusions

In relevance to class, this course is centered around social communication and how our everyday speech and interactions are revealing of identity and character. We are able to better understand tone in internet gestures the more we partake in them. Additionally, verbal variation, in that influencers are distinguished on TikTok by speech variation. We also suspect that the successful influencers don’t switch from their normal and internet personality. If we had more time, we would be interested in conducting more research about this.

With self-branding on social media having an ever-growing prominence in modern social communication, especially among our age group, we thought this topic was relevant and crucial to study. Now when we navigate our social media presence, we are keener on how the language and the level of formality we use affects those viewing us.

The limitations in our research included the use of interpretive/qualitative data, restricted data (3 videos, 3 creators), and a narrow demographic (young, white, girls).

References

Abidin, C., (2015). Communicative Intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, & Technology, 8, 1-16: http://adanewmedia.org/2015/11/issue8-abidin/

BBC Radio 4. (2015, April 15). Erving Goffman and the Performed Self [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/6Z0XS-QLDWM

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

Hogan, B. (2010). The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893

Jennings, R. (2018). What Is TikTok? The App That Used to Be Musical.ly, Explained. Vox, www.vox.com/culture/2018/12/10/18129126/tiktok-app-musically-meme-cringe.

Marshall, S. (n.d.). An introduction to brand building through social media – learn. Canva. https://www.canva.com/learn/introduction-brand-building-social-media/

Montag, C., Yang, H., & Elhai, J. D. (2021). On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673

Pulse Advertising. (2021, September 1). What Is an Influencer? | Influencer Marketing Explained [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/JLiKXW82tjE

TikTok Videos

Alix Earle

Darcy McQueeny

Mikayla Nogueira

engagement, influencers, self-branding, Slang, social media

You’re Just Somebody That I Used to Know

Sociolinguistics

Audrey Edwards, Hung-Yi (Henry) Chen, Laksha Chhaddva, Sarah Manwani

Figure 1. A text message screenshot sent in by a Gen-Zer demonstrating breakup practices over text

Let’s face it, ghosting sucks. Some may comment on the exchange above and say no response is a response, but does that provide effective closure in breakups? Although most people feel indirect breakups are outright disrespectful, the reality is that many of us are guilty of engaging in unhealthy breakup practices. However, has the rise of the Digital Age made this problem worse than before? Our study investigates how breakup practices differ amongst the two generations, Millennials, and Gen Z. Through our exploration of dating differences between these two generations using surveys and interviews, we found that tech use is more common in romantic relationships and breakups amongst Gen Z and indirect breakups are more common amongst Millennials. Ultimately, while the fact that indirect breakups wear is different, it seems like our tendency to do so is little changed by the prevalence of digital technology, one way or the other.

Introduction and Background

Our study intended to assess the effect of technology on relationship practices between Gen-Zers (born between 1997 and 2012, according to Dimock (2019)) and Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996, according to Dimock). We know that technology has impacted both Gen Z and Millennial romantic relationships, but the impact of tech use on romantic relationships is contested. Christenson’s (2018) study found that heavy social media users experience a severe decline in the quality of interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, Nicolas (2020) found that relationships formed on social media achieve similar self-disclosure and companionship as in-person relationships. More generally, Seemiller and Grace (2018) contended that Millennials were self-absorbed and ill-equipped to deal with meaningful relationships, while McGuire (2015) finds that Millennials still learn proper romantic expectations. The emergence of ghosting (the sudden cessation of communication over digital platforms) as a breakup method has further increased academic alarm, with LeFebvre and her colleagues (2019) finding that 96% of the college students they interviewed had been a part of ghosting interactions in some capacity. With this disagreement in scholarly assessments of technology and the younger generations in general, we feel that the healthiness of relationships experienced by these generations is worthwhile to study, with breakup methods as a good proxy. Baxter (1984) found that indirect breakups (without telling the partner directly, as in ghosting) were associated with self-centered breakups, prolonged the breakup process, and were a source of regret for breakups. Therefore, we expected that Gen-Zers were more likely than Millennials to use indirect breakup methods and to use technology in their breakups. If this hypothesis is true, then it demonstrates that tech use is likely to have a negative impact on breakup methods, since the biggest difference between Millennials and Gen-Zers is their exposure to tech use (as a consequence of their respective birth years).

Methods

To study the effects of technology on break-up methods, we sent a survey to Gen-Zers and Millennials that we knew and asked them to send it on to other Gen-Zers and Millennials that they knew as well. The survey was conducted through an anonymous Google Form to enable honest responses to sensitive questions. Ultimately, 27 Gen-Zers and 20 Millennials responded to the survey. The survey asked respondents how much they agreed with statements about the prevalence of technology use in their romantic relationships and their experience with breakups. The questions used the Likert scale, with respondents stating their agreement from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” and binary (Yes-or-No) questions concerning whether they had encountered or engaged in specific break-up strategies described in Baxter’s (1984) study.

To complement the survey, we also conducted anonymous interviews with three Gen-Zers and two Millennials that we knew. Each interview proceeded with a set of interview questions that covered the same topics as the survey, but in an open-ended way. The interviewees were encouraged to go into detail on their experiences that relate to the questions, such as by describing the break-up experience in narrative form rather than merely categorizing it. Since the survey’s responses relied on the Likert scale and binary questions, which included no way to explain the answers, we needed a way of discovering more nuance in the relationship between technology use and healthy break-up methods. The interviews, which were fewer in number but far more detailed, provided a way to get into the details.

Results

The survey results show that indirect breakup methods are less preferred by both Gen-Zers and Millennials compared with direct breakup methods. However, Millennials are more likely to have used indirect breakup methods than Gen-Zers. 30% of Millennials report having broken up with someone indirectly, versus 15% of Gen-Zers. The results illustrate that Gen-Zers have been broken up over text more often than Millennials, with 44% of Gen-Zers having experienced this versus 25% of Millennials. The key takeaways that we acquired from the interview questions were that both Gen-Zers and Millennials predominantly prefer direct break-ups rather than indirect breakup methods. On the other hand, one of our Gen-Zer interviewees preferred to break up indirectly, especially if they were not in a serious relationship with their partner. This somewhat contrasted our findings, but our interviewees still largely preferred direct over indirect breakups, and they were generally of the opinion that indirect breakups are messy and disrespectful.

Figure 2: This pie chart indicates that Generation-Z individuals most likely Strongly Disagree (9 people) or Disagree (6 people) with the statement “When terminating a relationship, you ended the relationship without ever directly stating your intention”.

Figure 3: This pie chart illustrates that Millennials disagree more than they agree with the statement “When terminating a relationship, you ended the relationship without ever directly stating your intention”.
The results illustrate that Gen-Zers have been broken up over text more often than Millennials, with 44% of Gen-Zers having experienced this versus 25% of Millennials.

Analysis

According to the results, Millennials tend to break up in person, whereas Gen-Zers break up less in person and more over text than Millennials. This confirms our hypothesis that tech use is more common among Gen-Zers for breakups. On the other hand, Gen-Zers are actually less likely than Millennials to break up indirectly, which contradicts our hypothesis. While this does not necessarily indicate that tech use leads to healthier breakup methods, it does put a wrench in the scholarly speculation that they render younger generations actively unprepared for romantic relationships.

Figure 4: This pie chart shows that a vast majority of Millennials have not been broken up with over text.

Figure 5: This pie chart shows that 44% of Gen-Zers have been broken up over text.
However, Millennials are more likely to have been broken up with in-person than Gen-Zers, with 75% of Millennials having experienced this versus 37% of Gen-Zers.

Figure 6: This pie chart indicates that Millennials are more likely than not to have been broken up with in person.

Figure 7: In the pie chart above, this chart illustrates that Generation-Z individuals are less likely than not to have been broken up with in person.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our hypothesis that Gen-Zers would engage in more indirect breakup methods than Millennials was incorrect. Contrary to our expectations, it doesn’t seem like Gen-Zers are less equipped than Millennials to deal with breakups. However, we found that technology was more extensively used in Gen-Zer breakups compared to Millennial break-ups. This verified our hypothesis that Gen-Zers use technology in romantic relationships more than Millennials and suggests that there was no correlation between being exposed to technology and the tendency to use indirect breakup methods. This is important because it suggests the rise of technology use by Generation Z doesn’t affect their relationship readiness as negatively as scholars fear. Moreover, neither of these two generations exhibited any special tendency towards indirect breakups compared with other generations. Baxter’s (1984) study found that 49% of the relationships examined were broken up through indirect means. This rate is much higher than the 30% of Millennials and the 15% of Generation Z who had engaged in at least one indirect breakup in our study. While the numbers are not fully convertible and the Baxter study involved more interviewees, one could reasonably conclude that Millennials and Generation Z are not more likely, and are quite possibly less likely, to use indirect breakup methods than Baxter’s Baby Boomer subjects. Of course, break-up methods are only a small part of the overall process of a relationship, but this finding supports the opinion of scholars who feel that the younger generations are as capable of healthy relationship practices as the older ones.

References

Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of Relationship Disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407584011003

Christensen, S. P. (2018). Social Media Use and Its Impact on Relationships and Emotions (Order No. 28107583). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2442249267). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/social-media-use-impact-on-relationships-emotions/docview/2442249267/se-2

Dimock, Michael (2019). Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins. Pew Research Organization. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/ where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Krafchick, Julie and Yue Xu. (2020, March 10). Millennial vs. Gen Z Dating (No. S10E5) [Audio podcast episode]. Dateable. Drank Production. https://www.dateablepodcast. com/episode/s10e5-millennial-vs-gen-z-dating

LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in Emerging Adults’ Romantic Relationships: The Digital Dissolution Disappearance Strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618820519

Mateo, Ashley. (2019). How to Break Up With Someone Without Hurting Them. Oprah Daily LLC. https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/relationships-love/a27865922/how-to-break-up -with-someone/

McGuire, Kate, “Millennials’ perceptions of how their capacity for romantic love developed and manifests” (2015). Masters Thesis, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/659

Nicolas, É. M. (2020). The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Attachment Style for Generation Z (Order No. 27737202). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2348090364). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/impact-social-media-on-adolescent-attachment/docview/2348090364/se-2

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2018). Generation Z: A Century in the Making (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429442476

Further Reading and Listening

This episode of the Dateable Podcast explores more ways in which digital technology has affected Gen-Z romantic relationships.
This blog-style article from the Oprah Daily explores healthy breakup methods, including why direct breakups are essential.

breakups, Gen Z, millennials, relationships, Technology, texting

Click, Swipe, Connect: Flirting Directly and Indirectly through Online Mediums and In-Person Interactions

Sociolinguistics

Natasha Motamed, Sasha Bok, Angelica Limoanco, Ashley Lopez

Does the medium in which you flirt with someone change your flirting style? Are you more likely to use direct language such as complimenting when trying to flirt online versus in-person, or are you more likely to use a pick-up line? The following research project will investigate how individuals flirt online via private messaging on dating apps such as Hinge, Bumble, and Tinder, and text messages versus in-person interactions and whether they use direct or indirect language in their flirting practices. Based on previous findings, we hypothesized that flirting on various online mediums will employ greater directness, whereas in-person flirting would consist of more indirect language. To test these hypotheses, we compared screenshots of online flirting interactions with flirting scenes between contestants on The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise.

Our main finding was that flirting on online mediums consisted of both direct and indirect communication through the usage of compliments and pick-up lines, respectively. Therefore, our hypothesis was partly true in predicting that online mediums would at least employ direct communication. On the other hand, we were surprised to discover that in-person flirting employed direct communication rather than indirect communication, which was what we had initially predicted.

Introduction and Background

How exactly do you interpret what flirting is? According to Wade (2018), flirting refers to words or nonverbal actions that include any semblance of romantic and sexual relations between individuals. Moreover, when communicating face-to-face, flirtatious speech is also often used with laughter and animated speech (Whitty, 2016). With flirting, it is prevalent within our society today both in-person as well as on online mediums. Regardless of whether someone uses pick-up lines or compliments to flirt, people tend to communicate differently depending on the modality they are using, i.e. online or in-person.

For our research, we investigated how people flirt differently depending if it is in-person or online. We researched and observed the similarities and differences of flirting indirectly or directly between in-person interactions of The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise contestants and online private messages on various dating mediums, direct messages, and texts, which were obtained from 18-29-year-old UCLA students. When looking at the linguistics of flirting, indirect communication can be defined as nonverbal choices such as pauses and bouts of silence, where the recipient must contextualize the situation in order to more accurately discern the speaker’s implied message (Joyce, 2012). Pick-up lines are a perfect example when it comes to indirect flirting since there might be hidden messages beyond what is actually being said. A popular example of this would be the infamous saying “Netflix and Chill,” which requires contextual clues in order to decipher the sexual innuendo being implied.

On the other hand, direct communication means there is no hidden meaning in what is being said, so the speaker will use exact words for their intended meaning (Joyce, 2012). An example of direct communication while flirting is a compliment, such as “I think you are gorgeous.” We had hypothesized that flirting on various online mediums will utilize greater directness, whereas in-person flirting will use more indirect language and word choice. Whether it was a Bachelor franchise contestant flirting in-person or a UCLA student flirting online, they had all found different methods of flirting depending on where they communicated from (see below in Results).

Methods

To investigate these hypotheses, we observed two target populations –– the first consisted of male, female, and non-binary/non-conforming UCLA students, ages 18 to 29, from any ethnic or socioeconomic background. While people of all ages and demographics use the internet, according to Smith (2014), the majority of internet users are actually between the ages of 18 to 29. Additionally, it has also been noted that they utilize technology to start romantic relationships (Meenagh, 2015). Therefore, we analyzed their online communication through various online platforms such as dating apps (Hinge, Bumble, and Tinder) and private text messaging. Our second target population included cisgender male and female contestants, ages 21-35 years old, from any ethnic background and socioeconomic status, on the television shows The Bachelor and Bachelor in Paradise. We observed their in-person communication through their methods of flirting shown on-screen.

The communicative/language aspects our project looked at included directness versus indirectness which is observed through word choice and specifically manifested through pick-up lines versus straightforward phrases and complimenting. These practices are used as a means to flirt in both in-person and online contexts.

We recruited the participants for our first target population and collected their screenshots by posting a Google Form on various platforms that UCLA students use such as GroupMe chats from various classes, Instagram stories, and Slack groups. Participants were asked to submit one or more screenshots where they used flirting on the following platforms: Hinge, Bumble, Tinder, or private messaging.

Our total data set included 33 screenshots of conversations on various online platforms as well as 21 in-person interactions observed from The Bachelor franchise shows. Throughout the analysis process, we highlighted and noted which interactions utilized indirect and direct communication by analyzing word choice in addition to the use of compliments and pick-up lines.

Results and Analysis

Figure 1: Bar graph comparison of direct and indirect communication in in-person vs online interactions

As a result, in Figure 1 we see a comparison of direct and indirect communication within in-person and online interactions. Direct communication like compliments were seen the most in online mediums as well as in in-person interactions. Indirect communication such as pick-up lines were only seen in online interactions.

Figure 2: Breakdown of the number of direct and indirect communication within online and in-person interactions and examples of each type of communication.

After collecting our empirical evidence, we observed that out of 33 online flirting interactions, 24 of them contained direct communication manifested through compliments whereas only 9 interactions contained indirect communication through the use of pick-up lines. Examples of direct and indirect communication observed are shown in Figure 2 above. This shows that although both direct and indirect communication are utilized on online platforms, the majority of online interactions use direct communication. In contrast, out of a total of 21 in-person flirting interactions, all of them contained direct communication and none of them contained any indirect communication or the usage of pick-up lines. Examples of direct communication in in-person interactions are linked in Figure 2 above.

After observing 33 screenshots and 21 in-person interactions, we found that pickup lines were very prominent in online mediums and were used indirectly compared to in-person interactions. Participants in The Bachelor franchise were more direct in their conversations while pursuing a romantic relationship. They did not utilize any indirect communication such as through pick-up lines in person. But in both mediums, compliments were utilized. For example, the following compliments were used on online mediums: “you know how to dress well and ur kinda cute”, “I like ur face”, “I think you’re gorgeous”, “you really fine”, and “that smile won me over”. The following compliments were used in in-person interactions: “I’m very nervous, I’m shaking really badly if you can’t tell but I’m excited to get to know you,” “you look amazing,” “you’re the hottest girl here,” and “you’re a hot commodity.” In online mediums, it is much more common to see someone use direct language when they ask if someone is free when compared to in-person interactions. Individuals will use direct language such as “Are you free this Tuesday” or “U free later tn tho?” We found that people online were more indirect through their usage of pickup lines and it was rare to see pickup lines like “you’re definitely a star because I can’t take my eyes off you” used in person. Both online and in-person interactions used direct and explicit word choices in the form of compliments in order to get their meanings across. However, in the in-person interactions, our observations found that the flirting did not result in any individual asking out another person. Overall, we found that flirting online utilizes both direct and indirect communication through the use of complimenting and pick-up lines, respectively, whereas in-person interactions solely use direct communication as a means to show romantic interest.

Discussion and Conclusion

For our Post Data Collection Analysis, we concluded that word choice can result in either direct or indirect communication, for example through compliments or pick-up lines, respectively. We observed both the screenshots and Bachelor scenes through the lens of explicit and implicit word choice, and ultimately placed them into their respective categories, as seen in the chart and graph above.

Based on these findings alone, we could predict that flirting on online mediums could potentially lead to higher or more frequent usage of direct and indirect communication through the employment of pick-up lines and compliments. We attribute this trend possibly to people feeling more confident or comfortable when there is a physical distance between the parties involved and also due to the anonymity veil provided by device screens.

In regards to the validity of our observations and findings, we do acknowledge that there are limitations in having The Bachelor represent in-person flirting practices due to the possibility of it being scripted. Therefore, it’s important to note potential differences between our samples from the reality show and what actually happens within everyday life.

That being said, we believe that our observational results can benefit anyone who communicates online or would like to explore the benefits of talking to and meeting new people online, especially in the romance department. As daily users of technology and online communication yourselves, you can definitely utilize our findings to improve your methods of obtaining the best romantic partner ever! We want you to succeed romantically as much as possible, so take our results into consideration when looking for your future partner in crime!

For future purposes, it’s also important that we research and examine any new and upcoming trends and patterns that arise from our behaviors within these online modalities, especially since we live in this technological age where the majority of society is now heavily reliant on social media as a primary means of communication.

References

Joyce, C. (2012). The impact of direct and indirect communication. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association.

Meenagh, J. (2015). Flirting, dating, and breaking up within new media environments. Sex Education, 15(5), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1033516

Smith, J. (2014). The Perceived Impact of Online Versus Offline Flirting on Romantic Relationships [Master’s thesis, University of Dayton]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.

‌Wade J. A. (2018). (I Think) You Are Pretty: a Behavior Analytic Conceptualization of Flirtation. Perspectives on behavior science, 41(2), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0136-y

Whitty, M. T. (2004). Cyber-flirting: An examination of men’s and women’s flirting behaviour both offline and on the Internet. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.21.2.115.55423

dating apps, direct language, flirting, pick-up lines, texting, virtual

From Slay to On Fleek: Linguistic Features of Millennial and Gen Z Internet Communication

Sociolinguistics

Aileen Dieu, Makenna Kumlue, Nicholas Litt, Jazmine Pineda, Rafael Santos

The social media community is truly that, a community. Groups of people gather based on common interests to share ideas, offer support, and even criticize opposing views, for better or worse. Millennials were the first generation to create an online community, and through that, a whole new array of lingo, trends, and even celebrities arose. Then, Gen Z entered social media and created their online community filled with their interpretations of millennial slang, as well as bringing a whole new batch of slang to the mix. However, the interactions between both groups yield confusion, amusement towards popular trends in either community, and even irritation due to a lack of comprehension of new terms. In our research, we observed the specific tokens and behavior displayed by both groups individually and in interactions with one another across varying social media platforms. We found varied sentence structure, emoji use, and critical attitudes of Millennials towards Gen Z slang. Yet, for the most part, Millennials and Gen Z communities interact fairly effectively across some parts of the internet.

Background

Digital communication plays a crucial role daily. Regardless of occupation, race, gender, or class, social media is a form of communication with others and provides a place to express opinions to a targeted audience. Social media usage began around 1997 with a website called “Six Degrees” where people could communicate with close contacts. This was popular among the Millennial generation (1981-1996), and the emergence of another application called “MySpace” in 2004 was another big hit (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Fast forward a decade later, Generation Z (1997-2012) has evolved to also use multiple social media platforms at once (not as much as Millennials). Recent studies showed that Millennials use 5 to 6 social media platforms at once while Generation Z use around 2 to 3 social media platforms (Vacalares et al., 2023). The advancement of technology along with the comfort of being more expressive in an online setting was appealing to Generation Z, as we see them use more current social media apps than millennials today. As a result, they have created their forms of communication and language styles that are derived from digital trends (Jeresano et al., 2022).

The types of slang used are also motivated by a sense of social conformity. Depending on the app, the social norms differ greatly based on the demographics of users as well as the app’s intended purpose. If anyone were to talk outside the “social norms” of the app, it would lead to negative feedback, loss of followers, and a negative social media presence (Taber et al., 2023). Generation Z also utilizes social media apps for various purposes such as education, shopping, entertainment, and socializing (Mude, 2023). We hope to explore more on the types of linguistic features seen across various apps like TikTok, Instagram, X, and Facebook among Millennials and Generation Z individuals. How would these differences reflect evolving cultural and technological influences?

Methods

Data for this article was acquired through observation and analysis of different word usage on various social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X, and Facebook, based on usage and popularity. Observations were then assigned to team members by platform and instances of slang were captured as screenshots (See Figure 1) and then analyzed by individuals. Instances of slang, word choice, tone, and sentence structure were assigned a rating of Gen Z or Millennial based on prior perception and/or investigation of user age. Perceptions of Gen Z versus Millennial word usage and choice were based on a consensus around Gen Z’s abbreviation usage and knowledge of contemporary media culture (Jeresano et al., 2022), in comparison to the Millennial generation’s lower intelligibility for newer slang (Taber et al., 2023). The team then convened and analyzed for further patterns of linguistic choice and feature. Lack of or inaccurate user information was addressed to the best of our ability.

Figure 1. Sample posts with instances of slang usage.

Results and Analysis

There were some semantic communication barriers between those we identified as Millennials and Generation Z. Both generations demonstrated similar morphological features within their slang, namely, acronyms and euphemisms (Which may be due to the platform’s format, like character limits and censorship). However, the resemblances begin to deviate when examining specific slang words and phrases. Our data exhibits the referential and ironic nature of Generation Z’s coined words and phrases rapidly generated and circulated across each platform. These coined words and phrases, derived from internet culture and AAVE (African American Vernacular English), contain a level of specificity within them that, to use properly, one must know the original to some extent. Accordingly, our collected data suggests that Millennials tend to use outdated or misused slang or are entirely oblivious to the terms.

Therefore, there appears to be frustration and confusion between Millennial and Generation Z interactions, primarily exhibited on the Millennial side. In Generation Z-dominated media, like TikTok, the cross-generational interactions are question-oriented. Our data includes numerous accounts of deemed Millennials seeking meaning and context behind creators’ and commenters’ posts to better understand the jokes and discourse occurring (See Figure 2). However, apps containing older demographics tend to display rejection, ridicule, or misunderstanding of Generation Z’s communication style. Additionally, these apps depict Millennials attempting to increase their engagement and flaunt their relevance through overcompensation, i.e., frequently using slang and emojis. Thus, generating derision from members of Generation Z who come across their content.

Figure 2. A Millennial TikTok user obtaining an understanding of a popular culture reference from the video content and learning Generation Z coined slang through user-to-user engagement within the comment section.

However, it is essential to note that the gap between generational differences in slang is shortening due to high social media exposure and interactions across generations. With the growing demographics of Generation Z-dominated apps, there tends to be more exposure to viral content from which these terms are derived. Additionally, personal interactions between each generation further the understanding and adoption of coined words and phrases. While our data exhibits the semantic communication barriers between Millennials and Generation Z, we question whether this issue will remain prevalent in the foreseeable future.

Discussion

Our results provide insights into the linguistic differences and communication trends between Millennials and Generation Z individuals in social media. Through observation of various social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook, our research highlights distinct linguistic features and communication practices exhibited by each generation. Millennials tend to use “outdated” slang words and phrases, while Gen Z incorporates slang derived from abbreviations and references to other viral trends. This reflects the evolving cultural and technological influences on language use, with Gen Z being more influenced by internet culture and current trends. The demographics of each social media platform also play a role in the linguistic practices observed, which suggests that the linguistic features seen on these platforms may be influenced by the dominant generation using them.

TikTok demonstrates semantic barriers in communication between Millennials and Gen Z. Gen Z individuals on TikTok use coined words and phrases derived from internet culture and AAVE (African American Vernacular English), heavy acronym usage, and euphemisms. On Instagram, Gen Z users use informal slang with abbreviations and unique vocabulary from internet culture. At the same time, Millennials exhibit a more formal writing style with complete sentences, positive affirmations, and subtle humor. Both Millennials and Gen Z individuals use X, but there are some differences in their linguistic practices. Gen Z shows strong use of irony, informality, and word choice derived from current internet culture and technology. Millennials, on the other hand, use outdated terms and references, specific to their periodical upbringing, and have a more formal sentence structure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the linguistic differences and communication trends observed between Millennials and Generation Z in social media reflect the evolving cultural and technological influences on language use. Each generation exhibits distinct linguistic features and practices, influenced by their respective demographics and exposure to internet culture. The interactions between Millennials and Gen Z online highlight both generational differences and a willingness to engage in a compromised social bubble. Further research in this area can provide a deeper understanding of how language evolves in the digital age and its impact on intergenerational communication.

References

Taber, L., Dominguez, S., & Whittaker, S. (2023). Ignore the Affordances; It’s the Social Norms: How Millennials and Gen-Z Think About Where to Make a Post on Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–26. doi.org/10.1145/3610102.

Jeresano, E. M., & Carretero, M. D. (2022). Digital Culture and Social Media Slang of Gen Z. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 3(4), 11-25.

Vacalares, S. T., Salas, A. F. R., Babac, B. J. S., Cagalawan, A. L., & Calimpong, C. D. (2023, June 11). The Intelligibility of Internet Slangs Between Millennials and Gen Zers: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Science and Research Archive. doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.9.1.0456.

Mude, G., & Undale, S. (2023). Social Media Usage: A Comparison Between Generation Y and Generation Z in India. International Journal of E-Business Research, 19(1), 1–20. doi.org/10.4018/ijebr.317889.

Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019) “The Rise of Social Media” Our World In Data ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media.

Gen Z, millennials, Slang, social media

The Enigma of Everyday Speech: Why some casual language might be nearly impossible to translate

Sociolinguistics

Eden Amsellem, Anaïs Clancy, Emily MacDonald, Jennifer Padilla Villegas, Summer Xia

Communication in casual contexts appears to be less directly translatable between languages than communication in formal contexts. Several of our group members are bilingual and have experienced difficulties when translating between the different languages they speak. Based on their personal experiences, we wanted to determine whether language in casual or formal contexts tended to be more untranslatable. To do this, we analyzed texts that had been translated between English and French, Spanish, or Mandarin. Our bilingual group members searched each text for instances where the translation was noticeably inconsistent with the original meaning. These inconsistencies came from a variety of language aspects including tone, connotations, idioms, and slang. The translators recorded these inconsistencies as our data. From that data, we found that the casual texts had more instances of untranslatability than the formal texts. We discuss why this might be and why the greater degree of untranslatability in casual language might suggest it carries more cultural meaning.

Introduction and Background

We are building our research first on a foundation of literature that defines untranslatability along with its many different variations. Untranslatability is a phenomenon in which the full meaning of some communication does not have an equivalent in another language (Lomas, 2018). There are different types of untranslatability, distinguished by the reason why translation is not possible. One way of dividing untranslatability is into linguistic untranslatability and cultural untranslatability (Cui, 2012). Linguistic untranslatability occurs when two languages do not share the linguistic features necessary to convey meaning in quite the same way (further explanation of one type of linguistic untranslatability). Cultural untranslatability occurs when there is a cultural gap between two language communities that makes it impossible to convey the same meaning in both languages.

Lomas (2018) and Özgen (2004) discuss how language influences a person’s perception of the world by dictating the ways they are able to categorize ideas and conceptualize their experiences through the language available to them, an idea known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. From this perspective, untranslatability indicates not only barriers in available words but barriers in entire frameworks of understanding. Additional literature also explores the importance of cultural differences as a major factor that contributes to untranslatability (Cui, 2012; Lomas, 2016; Talukder, 2020; Witherspoon, 1980). Related to this, Talukder (2020) even points to untranslatability as important to cultural identity, reasoning that the inability to translate parts of a language can keep certain information and practices exclusive to the cultural in-group.

Originally, we planned to examine untranslatability more generally, but as we read through previous studies, we realized that there was no research we could find that touched on the differences between translating formal language and translating casual language. The bilingual members of our group thought that this was an important topic because in their experience, translating casual language is very different from translating standard or formal language. Because of that, we decided that we should fill that research gap and narrow our focus to comparing untranslatability in formal and casual texts.

We approached our research asking the question: How effective are cross-cultural translations in conveying meaning in language in casual contexts compared to language in formal contexts? In response, we hypothesized that more meaning would be lost when translating casual communication compared to formal communication.

Methods

In order to find instances of untranslatability, we collected data in the form of inconsistencies in translations of texts. We analyzed texts that had been translated from French, Spanish, and Mandarin into English or from English into any of those three languages. We included these languages in our research because three of our group members are fluent in each of them. Because we wanted to explore the differences between untranslatability in formal and casual contexts, we included texts which had contexts of differing levels of formality ranging from governmental speeches (Guterres, 2023; 特朗普就职演讲完整版, 2017), which were the most formal, to conversations between highschoolers in television shows (Andem, 2018; Ipartment, 2014), which were the least formal. In the middle was Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech (Mali, 2008; 马丁·路德·金, n.d.), as it is somewhat formal while also intended to be accessible to the average person.

Our translators recorded any inconsistencies they encountered between the original texts and their translations in a table (examples of potential inconsistencies in translation) They noted what aspect of language caused the inconsistency and how it changed the meaning. This allowed us to compare the frequency and causes of untranslatability between the different contexts and between the different languages.

Figure 1: An example of an inconsistency in translation in a casual context. The text is translated “I would understand if you were mad at me” despite the original French text having more aggressive connotations that do not translate. Andem, J. (2018). Skam France. Season 7. Episode 3.

Results and Analysis

Our results support our hypothesis, as we found more inconsistencies in the translations of casual contexts than we did in translations of formal contexts. In all of the languages we looked at, there were more inconsistencies in the translation of the casual speech from the television show than there were in the translations of the formal governmental speeches. In Spanish, our translator found four inconsistencies in the translation of the casual text, four in the translation of the intermediate text, and none in the translation of the formal text. In French, our translator found nine inconsistencies in the translation of the casual text, one in the translation of the intermediate text, and six in the translation of the formal text. Lastly, in Mandarin, our translator found fifteen inconsistencies in the translation of the casual text, eight in the translation of the intermediate text, and none in the translation of the formal text.

Figure 2: Number of translation inconsistencies by language and formality of context

Figure 3: Two examples of strong emotional connotations being lost in translation (Andem, 2018; Ipartment, 2014)

The two types of untranslatability discussed by Cui (2012) are cultural untranslatability and linguistic untranslatability. If the greater degree of untranslatability within casual contexts of speech is caused by cultural untranslatability, that would suggest that there are more concepts discussed in casual speech that are culture-specific. Talukder (2020) proposes the idea that untranslatability corresponds with cultural identity, while Cui (2012), Lomas (2016), Talukder (2020), and Witherspoon (1980) cite cultural knowledge as one of the main causes of untranslatability. If cultural meaning is correlated with greater untranslatability as the background research suggests, and our results show that casual speech has more instances of untranslatability, then that might suggest that casual speech tends to carry more culturally specific meaning than formal speech. Talukder (2020) also explains the importance of untranslatability as a mechanism that keeps certain aspects of a culture exclusive to those who belong to that culture. If casual language is less translatable than formal language, it could also be a way of indexing oneself as part of a cultural group and ensuring that the full meaning of what one is talking about is only understood by other cultural insiders. It is also possible, however, that the greater degree of untranslatability we observed within casual speech is due to linguistic untranslatability. In that case, it may suggest that linguistic construction is more standardized, even between languages, in formal contexts.

Another reason why casual contexts hold more meaning than standard contexts of a language can be explained by the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. As described by Lomas (2018), the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis argues that “language plays a constitutive role in the way people experience and understand life” (p. 478). As we previously stated, standard contexts of a language have a universal aspect to them in that they can be easily translated from one language to another as it is more formal and don’t require too many culture-specific references or words. However, in casual contexts, it is not made to be universally translated and is instead very culture-specific as it holds more untranslatable words or phrases like idioms or slang.

More than formal contexts, casual contexts illustrate people’s perspectives and understandings of life who speak a certain language because it is so unique to that specific culture or language. Indeed, Özgen (2004) researched language and color perception and stated that “Berinmo, a language spoken in Papua New Guinea… has just five basic color terms,” additionally, “these terms seem to have unusual referents, such as the color of dead leaves” (p. 96). If one were to translate colors from Berinmo to English word for word, the meaning would not be understood by an English speaker. Even if the word was translated for the color that it is referring to, significant meaning would be lost as the English speaker would not be aware that the word was translated from a word that does not directly mean the color that it is referring to. Therefore, certain words in certain languages are often hard to translate because they provide a different perspective or insight about the world that itself isn’t easily conveyed to someone who has not grown seeing the world through that perspective.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our research is helpful in that it points to a possible pattern in untranslatability, namely that formal language appears to be easier to translate while casual language presents more instances of untranslatability. This opens the door to possible future research and could help readers and translators be aware of where potential inconsistencies in translation are likely to be found. When people read or listen to a translation, they should be aware that cultural differences might impede their understanding of the original meaning, especially when the translation they are reading is of language in a casual context.

Though our research is an interesting starting point, it is limited by our time and resources. We only looked at three languages, only had one translator per language, and our sample size of texts is small. More research is needed to elaborate on these ideas or to prove or disprove our findings.

References

Andem, J. (2018). Skam France. Season 7. Episode 3.

Cui, J. (2012). Untranslatability and the method of compensation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 826–830. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.826-830

Guterres, A. (2023). UN secretary-general’s remarks to the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council secretary-general. United Nations. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-02-27/un-secretary-generals-remarks-the-52nd-session-of-the-human-rights-council

https://Agendamagna.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/Discurso-De-Toma-De-Posesion-De-Barack-Obama/, El Comercio Website, 20 Jan. 2009, http://obamaspeeches.com/.

Ipartment. (2014). YouTube. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://youtu.be/goQzSuBwBa4

King, M. L. (2023). Martin Luther King, Jr. I Have a Dream. Martin Luther King Jr. I Have a Dream speech – American Rhetoric. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

Lomas, T. (2016). Towards a positive cross-cultural lexicography: Enriching our emotional landscape through 216 ‘untranslatable’ words pertaining to well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1127993

Lomas, T. (2018). Experiential cartography and the significance of “untranslatable” words. Theory & Psychology, 28(4), 476–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318772914

Mali, U. S. M. (2018, February 8). ” I have a dream ” : Le texte intégral en français du discours de martin luther king. Ambassade des Etats-Unis au Mali. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://ml.usembassy.gov/fr/dream-le-texte-integral-en-francais-du-discours-de-martin-luther-king/

Özgen, E. (2004). Language, Learning, and Color Perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 95–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182921

Talukder, B. (2020). Matijaner Meyera in Translation: Cultural Identity Construction Through Untranslatability of Language. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(6), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.6p.36

“The Complete Text Transcripts of over 100 Barack Obama Speeches.” The Complete Text Transcripts of Over 100 Barack Obama Speeches, http://obamaspeeches.com/.

Witherspoon, G. (1980). Language in Culture and Culture in Language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 46(1), 1–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1264442

特朗普就职演讲完整版. (2017). 哔哩哔哩_bilibili. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from http://b23.tv/ZEZpQA6

马丁·路德·金《我有一个梦想》伟大演讲全文（中英文对照）-随笔. 【姚从刚】. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2023, from http://www.yaoconggang.com/post96/96.html

Cross-culture, culture gap, formality, Untranslatability

Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Cultural Backgrounds or Personal Preferences More Heavily Affect the Way We Verbally Affirm Our Romantic Partners?

Sociolinguistics

Tina Festekdjian, Krunali Mehta, Mark Keosian, Tatiana Akopyan

Do you ever wonder why people belonging to different cultures express love differently in their romantic relationships? Are they accustomed to verbal or nonverbal forms of affirmation, and does this carry on throughout generations? This study explores why and how second-generation college students living in Los Angeles who identify as Latin American, Asian American, or American verbally affirm their partners, as we were curious to see if culture may cause communicative differences in relationships. Whether words of affirmation can be attributed to the way people were raised, their cultural habits, or their personal preferences, the population we studied displayed an interesting trend: individuals are less heavily influenced by their culture, and the majority (66.7%) are more likely to follow their personal preferences when expressing love. While the minority (33.3%) displayed cultural allegiance, we generally noticed that one’s culture is not the leading contributor to how they express love – possibly due to the generational shift that embodies independence, socialization, and even Americanization. We can conclude that our target population is perhaps more open-minded, individualistic, and willing to break cultural barriers for love to embody their own preferences. Breaking barriers can make students more comfortable to approach others, adapt to new love languages, and better learn how to express love verbally.

Introduction and Background

Do second-generation college students living in Los Angeles prefer to follow cultural guidelines or personal preferences when expressing verbal love in romantic relationships?

We hypothesize that particular people will be influenced by their culture if they abide by cultural norms, but that this most likely does not separate people – especially in a younger generation of college students who may be more willing to branch out. The motivation for our research was to explore what role culture plays in verbal affirmation in romantic relationships for second-generation college students, and whether social norms, family life, or personal feelings are the leading contributors. The problem is, based on the way we were raised, or based on our own preferences, we show love differently, which can cause miscommunication. By investigating different forms of linguistic communication among Latin American, Asian American, and American college students in Los Angeles, we can deduce how intimacy is present through verbal communication in their relationships. Some specific aspects of communication that we will look at include words of affirmation, romanticism in conversations, tone, and context of affection. For example, in a cross-cultural context, this means: the specific words people use to address their partner and whether it comes from their own language/culture, if someone is more expressive verbally or uses nonverbal communication, and in what situations they will be verbally affectionate. Virtual communication like text-messaging will also be studied to develop a deeper understanding of day-to-day interactions and what exactly is said in these relationships. Above personal experience, relevant literature tells us what we know so far. Brinton (1886) displays how many tribal and modern languages of Latin America tie the sentiments of love to verbal expression. The Nauahtl and Aztec tongue, for example, indicate higher levels of emotional strength with words of origin that hold deeper meanings and cultural values. These lexical attributes can provide evidence as to why Latin America is the home to many “romance languages”. Lindholm (2006) explores the Western (American) vs. Eastern scope of view, delineating how Western linguistic expression is often romanticized in the media and verbal expression of gratitude and admiration is common. On the other hand, Bello et. al. (2010) provides evidence for how in some Asian cultures, communicative patterns like verbal affirmation are less likely to be expressed. Allendorf (2013) provides context on how romantic relationships have evolved from arranged marriages to love marriages in many parts of Asia. Ultimately, we were able to bridge this gap by bringing generational evolution to the table. Because our population is second-generation college students, and most of our literature is broadly culturally based, we were able to understand that the evidence for our trend generally lay in the people, rather than what cultural group they belong to. Being in college in Los Angeles leads to Americanization, socialization, and the added element of independence that our literature did not address.

Methods

Through the use of a clear and straightforward 4 question questionnaire and student-submitted text message screenshots, we gathered responses from 27 second-generation college students about which form of love expression they prefer to use when expressing love to a romantic partner, along with the social and cultural norms of love expression they are familiar with. Finally, we had the students answer whether they prefer to use their chosen personal preferences or the social and cultural norms they are familiar with when expressing love and affection to a romantic partner in order to see which influences students’ communication and verbal affirmation to a greater degree. These methods allowed us to analyze the specific words and tones being used by students to express affection to a partner, along with the conversational structures and atmosphere. We compared these results with the social and cultural norms of love expression the students responded they were familiar with in order to see if their personal preferences were or were not being influenced by social or cultural norms. While a student’s personal preference for verbal affirmation or love expression and the social and cultural norms they are familiar with may overlap, this may be attributed to strong cultural roots or identity. By looking at which words, verbal affirmations, and other forms of love expression second-generation college students preferred to use when expressing love or affection to their romantic partners, we hoped to find whether culture played a significant role in the specific words, affirmations, or actions being used by these students or whether the personal preferences these students have just simply outweigh the social and cultural norms in their lives.

Results and Analysis

In regards to our results from Table 1: Culture, we collected information from 3 different cultural groups: 37% being Latin American college students, 33.3% American college students and 29.6% Asian American. We collected a fairly good range of responses from our intended cultural groups to get a fair representation of second-generation college students.

When asked about their preference on personal preferences or social/cultural norms shown in Table 2: Norms, 66.7% chose personal preferences while 33.3% chose social/cultural norms.

Table 2: Preference for sociocultural norms or personal preferences in a relationship

These students were then asked what words/actions were their preference in romantic relationships shown in Table 3: Preferences, from choices of spending quality time together (44.4%), words of affirmation (29.6%), physical touch (22.2%), and gifts (3.7%).

Table 3: Preference for words/actions in romantic relationships

We were able to collect examples of text messages in Table 4: Cross Cultural Text Messages from each cultural group. We found Asian American college students to be showing love through using words like “shona” that embodies their cultural background where Latin American college students show love by saying thank you and words of appreciation. The difference we found in American college students shows love through constant repetition of words of affection and reassurance.

Discussion, Conclusion, and Contributions

Through conducting our research, we concluded that our findings are truly impactful as we found that college students are more likely to use their own personal preferences during verbal affirmation in a romantic relationship rather than their known social and cultural norms. This is important to recognize because it highlights that students aren’t restricted or limited by their cultural upbringing and actually care more about their own personal preferences when expressing verbal affirmation to a romantic partner. Another finding to recognize is the bias when students are asked if they follow social norms or their own personal preferences. They might not answer truthfully or not even realize that social norms have become their personal preference overtime. For generations to come, we may find that students have become more approachable or sociable as culture may not play as big of a role in verbal affirmation and love expression as we may thought. Ultimately, our findings could definitely benefit students who are in existing romantic relationships or are interested in finding a romantic partner as it can help break social barriers and make students more comfortable when communicating romantically and approaching those of different cultures. We were able to analyze various findings through code-switching from Hindi to English in the Asian American text message and how emotions/feelings are shown through the usage of emojis in online communication to further understand how society and cultural factors have contributed to various forms of communication. Although some students still prefer to follow their known social and cultural norms in verbal affirmation with a partner, our findings show that students are more open minded to adapting to one another’s love languages and potentially learning how to better communicate and express love verbally, as they are not being tightly confined by social and cultural norms.

References

Allendorf, K. (2013). Schemas of Marital Change: From Arranged Marriages to Eloping for Love. Journall of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 453–469. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23440792

Bello, Brandau-Brown, F. E., Zhang, S., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2010). Verbal and nonverbal methods for expressing appreciation in friendships and romantic relationships: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 294–302. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176710000118?via%3Dihub

Brinton, D. G. (1886). The Conception of Love in Some American Languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23(124), 546–561. http://www.jstor.org/stable/983335

Gumperz, J. J. (1962). Types of Linguistic Communities. Anthropological Linguistics, 4(1), 28–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30022343

Lindholm, C. (2006). Romantic Love and Anthropology. Etnofoor, 19(1). 5–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758107

Sergeyevna Kim. (2021). EXPRESSION OF LOVE AS LINGVOCULTURAL AND GENDER LINGUISTIC CONCEPT AND ITS REFLECTION IN DIFFERENT CULTURES. CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2(5), 48–54. https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps/article/view/89/77

college students, Cross-culture, relationships, second-generation, texting