WHAT WAS OUR IMPETUS? WHAT DID WE ALREADY KNOW?

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

HOW DID WE APPROACH THIS STUDY?

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

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

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

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

WHAT DID WE FIND?

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

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

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

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction and Background 

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

Methods

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

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

Results and Analysis

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

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

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

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

Discussion and Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

Who Gets to Speak on the Walls of Los Angeles? 

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

How Did We Do It?

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

Figure 1 – Downtown LA graffiti towers  

Figure 2 – Second Street Tunnel Downtown LA

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

What Did We See?

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

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

Figure 3 — Freeway Overpass Graffiti DTLA

Figure 4 — Abbot Kinney Street Mural

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

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

Figure 5 — Venice Beach Firefighter Mural

Figure 6 — South Central LA Kobe Mural

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction & Background

Medical dramas like Grey’s Anatomy make doctors seem powerful, confident, and completely in control, even in chaotic, life-or-death situations. Whether they’re delivering urgent instructions in the ER or explaining a diagnosis to a patient’s family, doctors almost always sound certain, authoritative, and emotionally composed. But have you ever wondered how that authority is actually created? A huge part of it comes down to language, the way doctors speak, the words they choose, and how they structure conversations. In our project, we looked closely at how medical professionals in Grey’s Anatomy use language to establish authority, shape patient identities, and reinforce the hierarchy of the hospital. What we found is that authority isn’t just shown, it’s actively constructed through communication. As a group, we decided to delve further into our question: How do medical TV dramas linguistically construct medical authority, patient identity, and inequality across age, race, and professional hierarchies? We hypothesize that doctors are authoritative through hierarchical speech patterns, using biomedical categorization on patients, and visual staging as experts. In contrast, patients are constructed in subordinate roles through their narratives, often being reduced during moments of institutional decision-making. These dynamics intersect with broader social factors such as age, race, and institutional hierarchy, shaping how patients are addressed and how their experiences are framed. 

Methods

We will be making our observations through two different scenes on Grey’s Anatomy, and our method was collecting qualitative data and using basic transcription conventions to analyze.

Chart 1: Basic Transcription Conventions

Results & Analysis:

Image 1: In this snapshot from season 2 episode 6 of Grey’s Anatomy, we see a couple (Bonnie and Mr.Maynard) who have been impaled together by a long metal rod surrounded by a medical team. They are being wheeled through a hallway to an emergency room, and what follows is an emotionally heated conversation that displays a negotiation of power and multiple linguistic indicators of medical authority. 

Initially, the doctor-patient interaction appears precarious due to the high-stakes nature of the situation and the imbalance of medical authority. The physicians control access to biomedical knowledge, while the patients rely on them to interpret their condition and chances of survival. To reestablish authority in the interaction, the doctors shift the conversation into a biomedical framework through structured explanations and technical speech. This reframes the situation in clinical terms, prioritizing diagnosis and procedural logic over the patients’ emotional experiences.

This dynamic becomes more visible in the following interaction:

• Dr. Shepard:  .We have to separate you two.
• Dr. Bruke: <°You would both start bleeding very quickly.>
• Dr. Burke: °Right now, the pole is plugging the wounds.°
• Bonnie: °So (1.35s) if you move me…     
• Bonnie: ?I’ll d(^)e? 
• ((room is silent))

Image 2: Bonnie’s reaction while Dr. Burke explains to her why the procedure they will use to save Mr.Maynard can not also be used to save her, as it would lead to death. 

Through this exchange, biomedical categorization is constructed through technical language such as “bleeding,” “organs,” and “damage,” which abstracts the patients into clinical cases rather than individuals with lived experiences. This reflects a process of recording or entextualization, where patient experiences are transformed into abstract medical categories (Kuipers, 1989). The doctors dominate the interaction through extended turns and uninterrupted explanations, while the patients’ contributions are limited to brief questions. This reflects the institutional organization of medical discourse, where authority is produced through control of knowledge and conversational structure (Ainsworth-Vaughn, 1994).

At the same time, Bonnie and Tom attempt to assert patient narratives through their questions, seeking reassurance and understanding. Tom’s question, “Can’t you just pull the pole out of both of us?” reflects an attempt to negotiate treatment, while Bonnie’s fragmented speech, “So…if you move me…I’ll die?” reveals her effort to process the situation emotionally and cognitively. The use of pauses (0.0), hesitations, and rising intonation highlights uncertainty and vulnerability through paralinguistic features that signal a disruption in conversational flow (Woolfson, 1991). 

Image 3: The doctors are surrounding the patients on the table. The rod is still impaling both of them, and the room falls silent as they begin to come to terms with the fact that the procedure may lead to Bonnie’s death.

Notably, silence plays a critical role in this interaction. After Bonnie realizes her likely death, the room becomes silent, marking a breakdown in ordinary conversational flow. This pause signals the limits of biomedical discourse, as the technical explanation gives way to an unspoken acknowledgement of morality. In this moment, the patient narrative briefly resurfaces, but it is not fully engaged or responded to, reinforcing how institutional priorities override individual experience in high-pressure medical settings. This interaction demonstrates how medical authority is not only conveyed through what is said, but through how it is said; through pacing, control of turns, and the strategic use of silence.

Image 4: We see the family of the 12-year-old boy who was shot facing the cop who believed him to be a burglar. They are standing in a hospital hallway with the patient lying on a stretcher, all while the doctors observe from a few paces back.

At first glance, Grey’s Anatomy’s interactions appear to follow a standard medical hierarchy in which physicians exercise authority through diagnosis and decision‑making. Yet the scene demonstrates that healthcare power extends beyond clinical expertise. Authority is shared among doctors, police, and family members, each representing different institutional, emotional, or experiential forms of power (Ainsworth‑Vaughn, 1994).

This layered dynamic becomes clear in the following exchange:

• Father:  I wa:nt to thank you kindly to <step away> from my twelve-year-old _child_.
• Mother: He always forgets his keys. >Were you climbing in the wi:ndow again?<
• Patient: Ye:s, but I di:d go to the nei:ghbor’s house fi:rst,
• Mother:  And for <thi:s> you sho:t hi:m?
• Patient: I was re:aching for my phone to call you, (0.2) and they sho^t me 
• Officer: Why don’t you c:al:m down. 
• Mother: Ca:lm down? Calm do^wn?
• Officer: Calm down. We will have a lit:tle discussion about it. 
• Doctor: [You mean after they have had some ti:me with their kid (0.2) right?

In the case of Eric Sterling, a young Black child shot by a police officer, clinical authority lies with the physicians directing care, while the officer embodies institutional power tied to the incident’s cause. The parents, meanwhile, attempt to assert emotional and moral authority on behalf of their child. These layers of authority are not equal; institutionally supported voices tend to dominate, illustrating how medical encounters reproduce broader social hierarchies (Wilce, 1997).

The parents’ attempts to assert themselves (“step away from my child”; “And for this you shot him?”) are ignored, while the officer’s directives aim to silence alternative accounts. The child’s own explanation, “I was reaching for my phone…”, is overshadowed by institutional voices. This dynamic mirrors real healthcare settings, where families not only face medical hierarchies but also racialized power structures that influence whose narratives are taken seriously. Research shows that physicians interrupt minority patients more frequently, reinforcing control over the interaction (Kuipers, 1989).

Table 1: This table aims to show what type of authority and linguistic features each character in the scene possesses and how they influence the interaction we have analyzed.

The scene also illustrates how patient and family voices can be minimized through the use of medical and institutional language. While doctors focus on diagnosis and treatment, the police officer attempts to control the interaction through directives such as “calm down,” the emotional and experiential perspectives of the family risk being overshadowed. In this context, the child’s injury is reframed primarily as a clinical problem, reflecting a process of entextualization in which lived experience is detached from its social context and translated into biomedical categories (Kuipers, 1989).

Image 6: After the police officer attempts to tell the mother to “calm down”, we see her clearly upset and snaps back at the ignorant remark made by the cop while her son is lying on a hospital bed next to her.

While this reframing is necessary for treatment, it also shifts attention away from the broader social context of the injury, including the role of racial profiling and police violence. The family’s emotional and experiential perspectives are not validated; instead, they are managed, minimized, or redirected. The doctor later challenged the officer, “after they have had some time with their kid, right?”, momentarily disrupting police authority, but does not fundamentally alter the institutional hierarchy. By redirecting and containing these responses, the interaction disempowers the family, effectively rendering their narrative secondary within the clinical encounter (Wilce, 1997).

Image 7: The patients Mom, Dad, and two siblings stand in the room where the patient is being treated, all looking at him with concern. His brother, in particular, is clearly appalled by the situation.

By depicting these dynamics, Grey’s Anatomy highlights how communication in medical settings can both address and inadvertently suppress elements of patient experience. The scene presents that who is heard, and how their words are interpreted, is shaped not only by medical necessity, but also by underlying social inequalities.

Table 2: This table aims to show how each unique social experience shown in the episodes is viewed through the lens of medical professionals and then treated.

Discussion & Conclusions: 

This pattern supports our initial hypothesis that medical dramas portray doctors as authoritative from both linguistic control and professional hierarchy. Across the scenes, we found that authority is constructed through directives, technical language, and conversational control. These patterns reveal how doctors must process situations logically to make decisions that are realistic in life-or-death situations. Patient experiences are often reframed as biomedical categories, and communication patterns shift depending on social factors such as age and race. These linguistic and interactional patterns reflect a larger cultural phenomenon in which media normalize institutional hierarchies and shape expectations about how real clinical encounters should sound. Their narrative isn’t diminished in these settings; rather, they are given the “reality” of things. Our findings should be interpreted with several limitations, as our analysis focuses on a small set of scenes from a single television show. Nevertheless, these scenes still provide insight into how popular media represent medical authority and patient identity and how certain voices are positioned as more legitimate within that representation.

References

Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1998). Is that a rhetorical question? Claiming Power in Doctor–Patient Talk, 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195096064.003.0006

Burson‐Tolpin, A. (1989). W. H. R. Rivers prize essay (1988): Fracturing the language of biomedicine: The speech play of U.S. physicians. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 3(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1989.3.3.02a00070

Kuipers, J. C. (1989). “medical discourse” in anthropological context: Views of language and power. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 3(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1989.3.2.02a00010 

Wilce, J. M. (1997). Discourse, power, and the diagnosis of weakness: Encountering practitioners in Bangladesh. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 11(3), 352–374. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1997.11.3.352 

Woolfson, P. (1991). Aspects of non‐verbal accommodation to language in a bilingual Montreal Hospital setting. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(2), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1991.1.2.178 

Introduction and Background 

Gen Z and Millennials constantly interact in professional and educational environments, and intergenerational lexical differences can become evident. These differences may be in the form of slang usage, tone, formality, turn-taking, discourse markers, and conversational structure. Our study aimed to understand how generational language ideologies shape people’s perceptions of others’ character. To achieve this, we analyzed how Gen Z and Millennials perceive their own and each other’s generations from a linguistic perspective. 

We know these differences have been examined before. Studies suggest that generational speech differences are a product of societal pivots and technological developments, with Millennials using slang to strengthen social ties and keep up with evolving trends, and Gen Z naturally adopting behaviors reinforced by online algorithms (Juli et al., 2024). What’s less studied is how they affect the assessment of one’s character. Through our project, we asked the following questions: Does speech style have the power to make someone appear less trustworthy? More creative? More kind? More professional? And do these perceptions rely on assumed generational identity? This is the gap our project addressed, using the concept of language ideology as our framework, or the idea that specific speech features carry socially constructed meanings. 

Methods

To answer our questions, we designed our study using a matched-guise test paired with open-ended interview questions. Our goal was for participants to listen to a natural conversation and share their initial impressions of the speakers without bias. We aimed to assess participants’ judgements based solely on speech, designing the study so as not to reveal the research focus or any additional information about the speakers. 

To achieve this, we recruited 10 participants to represent our target population through a convenience sample: 5 Gen Z participants, ages 18 to 25, and 5 Millennial participants, ages 29 to 45. Each person listened to four audio clips of real conversations. Two clips featured Gen Z speakers, and two featured Millennial speakers. To maintain consistency in our representation of each generation, we used one female-to-female conversation and one female-to-male conversation for each generational group. Additionally, we sourced one audio recording from a reality television show and one from a podcast for each group. Every conversation occurred between people who were newly acquainted. The topics were generally informal, ranging from icks in dating (Babich, 2025) to lip balm (Call Her Daddy, 2026) to zodiac signs (Anything Goes, 2025) to country music (Coelen, 2025). We did our best to control for conversation length, topic, and overall tone, while also prioritizing authenticity to each generation. To reduce the effects of established opinions and other external variables on results, we ensured that the speakers and media featured in the clips were unknown to the participants. 

After listening to each recording, participants were asked to share whether they believed the speakers were intelligent, trustworthy, creative, and kind. We also asked open-ended questions to allow participants to explain their reasoning, such as “Would you feel comfortable working on a group project with them? Why?” “Would you take their advice?” and “What assumptions (if any) did you make about the speakers?” These questions provided insight into which speaker behaviors influenced participants’ opinions, such as slang, discourse markers, tone, and conversational structure. After listening to all four conversations, participants were asked to assess the speakers in relation to one another (e.g., “Which group sounded the most professional?” “Which group did you relate to most?”). This assessment aided the comparative aspect of our study. 

We then looked for patterns in both the ratings and the interview responses. More specifically, we examined how each generation interpreted speech from Gen Z and Millennial speakers and whether participants responded more positively to the speech style of their own generation. This helped us better understand how generational language ideologies shape the way people judge others based on speech. 

Results and Analysis 

1. Slang and Informality: A Double-Edged Sword 

The clearest pattern across all ten interviews was that Gen Z speakers received harsher judgment in all categories of character assessment. 80% of Gen Z participants rated the speakers in both Gen Z clips as unintelligent and unprofessional. Simultaneously, 80% of Gen Z participants selected a Gen Z conversation as the most relatable, demonstrating that familiarity does not guarantee positive perception. While we may understand what drives the use of lexical features associated with our own generation, the results suggest that awareness does not minimize the effects of features such as slang and discourse markers on perceived intelligence, authority, and self-confidence. 

Millennial listeners were not far behind Gen Z, with nearly 50% determining Gen Z conversationalists as unintelligent and unprofessional. Slang, filler words, stretched vowels, and what a few participants cited as “brain-rot” terms, all pushed ratings down regardless of who was listening. 

Figure 1: How each generation evaluated informal speech Trait Evaluated 

Trait Evaluated	Gen Z Listeners	Millennial Listeners
Intelligence	– Often regarded speakers as unintelligent when slang was heavily used	– Regarded Gen Z speakers as less intelligent due to heavy use of slang  – Regarded millennial speakers as having average to high intelligence
Creativity	– Frequently determined that speakers were not creative, with the few positive responses being to clips 2 (Millennial) and 3 (Gen Z)	– Typically, more likely to feel that speakers were creative than Gen Z participants  – Majority Millennials rated Gen Z clips as creative (clips 1 and 3)
Trustworthiness	– Frequently regarded Gen Z speakers as untrustworthy  – More likely to rate millennial speakers as trustworthy	– Typically determined that group 3 (Millennial) was trustworthy)  – Majority responded that Gen Z speakers did not seem creative
Kindness	– Frequently regarded as speakers in millennial clips as kind  – Regarded the majority of Gen Z speakers as neutral or unkind	– Frequently determined that speakers were kind (with no variation through the generations)
Professionalism	– Identified most speakers as unprofessional regardless of generation, with a few outliers determining speakers in clips 2 (Millennial) and 3 (Gen Z) as professional	– Determined speakers in clips 2 (Millennial) and 4 (Millennial) are professional, and remaining groups (Gen Z) are unprofessional

2. Natural Professionalism in Millennials 

When asked which group was the most professional, 60% of Gen Z participants and 60% of Millennial participants identified a Millennial pair, as demonstrated in Figure 2. Across both generations, Millennial speech was more frequently associated with professionalism, even when conversations were considered informal. This demonstrates that, regardless of content, Millennial speech behavior is more likely to be perceived as professional than Gen Z in the context of our experiment. 

Figure 2: Responses When Asked, “Which Group Sounded The Most Professional?” 

Discussion and conclusions 

Our original hypothesis, that participants would evaluate speech associated with their own generation more positively, was ultimately disproven by our results. Gen Z participants typically described Millennial speakers as more professional, especially when the speech involved minimal slang. Similar to Millennial participants, Gen Z participants often characterized the usage of slang and filler words as signals of unintelligence. Our prediction that Gen Z participants would perceive Millennial participants as less trustworthy was also disproven, as participants from both generations often determined that more professionally perceived individuals were trustworthy, suggesting that professionalism may enhance perceptions of trust rather than diminish them. 

Both generational groups frequently misidentified speakers’ ages, providing interesting context and suggesting that perceived age is not a leading factor in judgment, and rather, assumptions are made from lexical features alone. 

We additionally recognize that our study possessed limitations, some of which came to light through the results. For instance, we intended to assess perceptions of others based solely on speech, but some participants expressed that conversation content and topic contributed to their opinion of the speakers. While we did take this into account when selecting conversations, even eliminating some contenders for fear that the topic would affect perception, finding conversations for the study turned out to be much more difficult than we anticipated. 

Despite this, our study suggests that lexical features, which can be tied to generational speech styles, influence how people judge others, even when listeners can’t see the speaker. The commonalities between both participant groups’ judgments of the speakers, as well as the frequent misjudgments of speakers’ generational identities, perhaps suggest that individual lexical choices, rather than perceived generational identity, drive character assumptions. For Gen Z participants, particularly, intragenerational connection does not eliminate judgment of intelligence and professionalism based on informal speech behavior. Considering this, it is important to be mindful of lexical and tonal choices when speaking in professional settings or simply making first impressions, regardless of the perceived age of your conversation partner. What you say says more about you than you may think. 

Bibliography 

Anything Goes With Emma Chamberlain. (2025, January 22). The Reality of Being a Gymnast, a Talk with Nia Dennis. [Video]. Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQSnRKsLhQ. 

Call Her Daddy. (2026, January 23). Anna Kendrick: Pitch Perfect, Twilight & Relationships (Full Episode) [Video]. YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwzJHLPkF6o. 

Babich, M. (Creator). (2025, June 3). Welcome to New York (Season 1, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In Next Gen NYC. 9th Degree Productions. Bravo. 

Coelen, C (Creator). (2025, February 14). I Have a Husband (Season 8, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In Love Is Blind. Kinetic Content. Netflix. 

Juli, A., Suci, M., & Esti, A. (2024). Comparison of slang in millennials and Gen Z: A semantic analysis in the context of linguistic learning. Semantik: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Pendidikan, Bahasa dan Budaya, 2(3), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.61132/semantik.v2i3.792 

Introduction/Background

Language plays an important role in the workplace because the way someone talks can indicate professionalism, familiarity, and authority with others. In various professional settings, it is expected to use formal language, especially when interacting with higher level staff and supervisors. People often use more informal language, slang, or jokes when talking with co-workers or peers. Workers naturally change the way they speak, based on who they are talking to and the setting they are in, known as code switching, where speakers shift between distinct language styles to match different social situations. Past research has displayed that language in workplaces is often formed by hierarchy and power relationships. Although, the idea on how everyday situations within the workplace influencing these language choices often gets overlooked. Factors including who is present, familiarity between co-workers, or whether conversations take place in or out of work may also play a crucial role. Our findings suggest that language use is not shaped only by job position but everyday context and social situations often influencing how people choose to speak. 

Methods

For our project, we analyzed the language patterns of staff within our four different work spaces at UCLA: The Hammer Museum, Gogobop, UCLA Cleanroom Labs, and Airtasker Corporate. Each environment focuses on a different type of service/experience and ranges from very social and informal/semiformal (The Hammer Museum and Gogobop) to more formal or business-like (Cleanroom Labs and Airtasker Corporate) which provided us with a larger variety of data and settings to analyze. The methods we used included observational fieldwork, interviews, and collecting data samples from Slack, messages, and email. We went about our fieldwork by entering a normal work day or shift, and taking notes on the interactions between individuals inside the workplace. We would note their position in the hierarchy (student worker, supervisor, boss, shift lead, etc.), the position of who they talked to/interacted with, the topics of discussion, and their language use. We chose to focus on language patterns such as slang usage, tone of voice, formality and diction of speech, pitch shifting, pauses, markers of authority, and body language. The four of us also conducted interviews with at least 2-3 people from our workplace each, and a predetermined set of questions covering topics such as personal life, their jobs, and code-switching. Samples were taken of staff exchanges both during and outside of work hours. This data collection was conducted over the course of a month.

Results/Analysis

We found that formal and informal language was used to some extent by all levels of job hierarchy in each of the work environments. A majority of the informal speech, tone, and slang usage we heard came from student workers or lower level staff positions. That is not to say that the higher ups did not engage in informal or casual language patterns. In their case, the extent of informal language usage varied between the four work environments, from extensive use to rarely heard, but was still present within each space. Formal language patterns also seemed to be connected with the presence of higher up staff. We saw a trend in which it occurred most often between higher up staff or when lower level or student workers interacted with higher ups. Rarely did we observe super formal language use between student workers of the same level. This seemed to correlate with how close coworkers were to one another and if their work environment promotes them working together or separately during work shifts. We noted that environments that had more collaborative coworker interactions had heavier slang and casual language use. It is likely that collaborative work promotes more familiarity, and therefore, more informal conversation patterns.

In our interviews, we noted a variation of reactions to the act or experience of being asked questions. A pattern that we observed was that when interviewing our coworkers, they tended to strictly stick to the questions being asked and looked towards us as interviewers often to almost check in if they answered correctly or gave the response we wanted. This contrasted to what we saw during interviews with our higher ups in which a good amount of them seemed to show comfort or confidence in directing or almost taking charge of the interview or conversation. We think maybe it’s linked to their job hierarchy position and either how they believe they are expected to act, or the types of interactions they are used to in the workplace created by holding this job title. In our analysis of workplace online communication, we noticed that staff tend to vary in their language use and formality from inside to outside workplace settings, regardless of if the topic being discussed is personal or work related. Many of our message exchanges with staff during work hours are seen to lean towards being more formally worded and tend to be mostly structured around work but may be about other topics. However, outside of work hours, exchanges with the same person or people can be seen to take on much more casual and informal patterns and have much more variety in terms of slang use, structure, and emotion. An important thing to note is that we observed that a more informal or social work place, such as the Hammer Museum, experienced much less formality variation inside vs outside work. We found that conversation between coworkers in this environment stayed mostly informal compared to labs or airtasker, however, it still experienced the difference in formality from inside to outside work hours to some extent.

Discussion/Conclusions

Our findings suggest that language use in UCLA student workplaces is highly flexible and shaped by multiple social factors rather than hierarchy alone. While workers often used more formal language when interacting with supervisors or managers, situational context such as the pace of work, familiarity with coworkers, and the presence of customers also played an important role in shaping how people spoke. As workers switched between formal and informal speech within seconds, showing how natural and automatic code switching can be in everyday interactions. These patterns highlight that workplace communication reflects speakers continually adjusting their speech to fit social roles, expectations, and relationships rather than a simple division between professional and casual language. Yet this study has several limitations, as our observations were limited to a small number of workplaces and relied partly on self-reported experiences. Future research examining a wider range of workplace environments could further explore how different industries, workplace cultures, and forms of communication influence style and code switching in professional communication. 

References

Bucholtz, M. (2012). Word Up: Social Meanings of Slang in California Youth Culture. Escholarship.org . https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0c7141bs .

Hazen, K. (2002). Identity and Language Variation in a Rural Community. Language, 78(2), 240–257. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3086557 .

Khairunissa, M., & Budiwati, T. R. (2025). The use of Gen Z slang by digital influencer “Awkarin” on her social media: A socio-semantic study. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 9(2), 1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v9i2.12177 .

Masuda, K. (2016). Style-shifting in student–professor conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 101 , 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.012 .

Wei, L. (2005). “How can you tell?” Journal of Pragmatics , 37 (3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.008 . 

Introduction and Background

We’ve all been there, where we’re sitting in a lecture hall on the first day of the quarter, waiting for the professor to speak. While it might feel like a routine formality, the way an instructor introduces themselves is a pivotal linguistic event. Research shows that students’ initial perceptions of a course and its learning environment are greatly influenced by the instructor introductions given on the first day of class (Tanner, 2013). These introductions serve more purposes in higher education settings than just giving out information; they set expectations, represent authority or approachability, and indicate the classroom’s social and academic norms (Cazden, 2001). Our project focuses on these introductions as an important moment of interaction between instructors and students. Specifically, we explore how instructors use language and communication strategies to establish the kind of classroom atmosphere they hope to create from the very beginning. We analyze syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic elements within these introductions. Pragmatic features include tone, friendliness, stance, and gestures, while syntactic and semantic features focus on how instructors structure and phrase their sentences. Language is rarely neutral, especially in education. By observing some hidden strategies, we want to understand how a room full of strangers is transformed into a cohesive academic environment before the first syllabus is even handed out. The purpose of this study is to determine how obvious and covert language strategies used within instructor introductions reflect the educational environment the instructor intends to foster, and we hypothesize that linguistic and pragmatic behaviors displayed in instructor introductions will specifically reflect the levels of expectations, comfort, and engagement that the instructor attempts to promote within the classroom. 

Cross Reference: TED Talk explaining the major impact, both positive and negative, introductions, shaped by our tone and words, can have on our biases and perceptions of people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHGoIsrQZFs

Methods

For our project, we conducted both naturalistic observations and interviews to investigate our research question: What do instructor introductions in higher education classrooms reveal about classroom environments? We started by asking for permission and once granted, analyzing the recordings of four UCLA professors’ introductions, which were available through BruinCast lectures. As we ethnographically transcribed them, we looked out for the features that could shape the way a student would understand the lecture environment. Some behaviors we noted included the way the sentences are structured, the use of rhetorical questions, the use of examples, the tone, and the use of gestures. We also looked at relevant literature to help us interpret and assess the behaviors and patterns we found in our transcriptions. 

Along with these observations, we went a step further to survey the professors and the students to find out what kind of environment professors were aiming to create as well as what kind of environment the students perceived the classroom to have. The surveys asked both the professors and students to describe their classroom environment in their own words and rate the engagement, comfort, and expectation on a likert scale from 1-5, with 1 being the highest and 5 being the lowest. Finally, we conducted thematic analysis where we divided the survey answers into themes and compared these themes to the linguistic behaviors we found within the transcribed introductions. 

Google Forms Survey for Students 

Google Forms Survey for Professors 

Through this process, we would be able to discover whether the features within the instructor introductions would contribute to the overall classroom environment the professor aimed to create, as well as whether these features would shape the students’ views of the classroom environment in the same way as the professor intended. 

Results and Analysis

Table 1: The most common linguistic and pragmatic behaviors within introductions and student and professor perspective of classroom environments amongst 4 UCLA classrooms 

Professor	Professor 1	Professor 2	Professor 3	Professor 4
Linguistic and pragmatic behaviors within their introductions	– Rhetorical questions (syntactic)  – Personal/  relatable examples (semantic)  – Emphasis on “you” (syntactic)	– Hand gestures (pragmatic)  – Jokes (semantic)  – Asks questions (syntactic)  – Laughs and smiles (pragmatic)	– Admits he is bad at emailing (semantic)  – Asks “okay?” at the end of his explanations (syntactic)	– Calm tone (pragmatic)  – Slight smile (pragmatic)  – Pauses to allow for responses (pragmatic)  – To the point – no jokes (semantic)
Professor Perspective of Environment	– Challenging  – Critical Thinking  – High Expectations  – Very Engaging  – Very Comfortable	– Open and informal  – High expectations  – Very Engaging  – Very comfortable	– Functional  – Transparent  – Friendly  – Rigorous  – High expectations  – Engaging  – Comfortable	– Rigorous  – Supportive  – Inclusive  – High Expectations  – Very Engaging  – Very Comfortable
Student Perspective of Environment	– Entertaining  – Organized  – High Expectations  – Very Engaging  – Comfortable	– Collaborative  – Moderate Expectations  – Moderate Engagement  – Very Comfortable	– Open  – Helpful  – High Expectations  – Engaging  – Comfortable	– Collaborative  – Open to different perspectives  – Moderate Expectations  – Moderate Engagement  – Comfortable

Across all data points, we noticed that the student and teacher perspectives were relatively in line with each other, where every student and professor in each class rated the levels of expectations, engagement, and comfort in the classroom as moderate or higher. We also found a correlation between the student and teacher perspectives of the classroom environment in aspects other than expectations, engagement, or comfort. For instance, for Professor 2 and Professor 4, both the students and the professor viewed their classroom environment as being very inclusive and open to student’s different perspectives. 

In addition, we found that the behaviors displayed by each of the professors we looked at could be categorized into three main categories: syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic, and within each category, there were certain behaviors that multiple professors shared. Syntactically, the most common behavior we found amongst the instructor introductions was questions. Semantically, there were multiple professors who used personal stories or examples within their introduction. Finally, the most common pragmatic behavior amongst the professors was smiling and laughing as they introduced themselves. 

Transcription 1: Professor 3 Example of Questions 

Transcription 2: Professor 1 Example of Personal Stories/Examples 

Transcription 3: Example of Smiling/Laughter 

After analyzing our data from both the transcriptions and the surveys, we looked into literature and found that each of the linguistic and pragmatic behaviors that the professors use within their introductions were found to enhance the features of the environments that both the professors and students viewed the classroom to have. Pragmatically, smiles, displayed by both Professor 2 and 4, are found to be “the most important gesture for greeting and an invitation to communicate” (Teodorescu, 2025). By making sure to consistently smile throughout their introduction, the professors can contribute to the inclusive environment they try to foster and encourage students to share their thoughts in class. Syntactically, Professor 2 also uses a lot of questions which not only tests how well the students understand the content, but also prompts discussion and peer interactions amongst the students in the class (Elsner et al., 2013). With these questions incorporated, the professor can make sure that the students are engaged from the very start of the class all while encouraging them to think and share their ideas with those around them, creating an informal and engaging classroom. 

Discussion and Conclusions

These findings point to a larger phenomenon: lasting impressions can be formed based on initial information. In classroom settings, instructor introductions shape expectations and influence students’ perceptions of the classroom environment before any real learning begins. 

We found that the way instructors introduce themselves actually has a noticeable impact on how students perceive the classroom. The linguistic and pragmatic choices in these introductions seem to reflect the kinds of classroom environments instructors intend to create, and students actually pick up on these cues. 

For example, Professor 2 said that they hoped to foster a classroom environment that is open and very comfortable. During their introduction, they laughed and smiled. When surveyed, their students also described the classroom environment in similar terms, saying that it was very comfortable. So, in this case, Professor 2 successfully employed linguistic and pragmatic behaviors to convey their intended classroom environment, and the students’ perception of it was consistent. This also aligns with existing research. Studies suggest that behaviors like smiling can contribute to a more friendly atmosphere (Teodorescu, 2025). 

Overall, our findings suggest that instructors can and should use their introductions intentionally. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic behaviors can all be tools for setting expectations and fostering a classroom environment right from the first day of class. If professors have a specific environment in mind, they should intentionally plan and employ linguistic and pragmatic behaviors from the very first day. 

References

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann. 

Elsner, J., Tofade, T., & Haines S. (2025). Best Practice Strategies for Effective Use of Questions as a Teaching Tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7), 155. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe777155 

Tanner, Kimberly D. (2013). Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115 

Teodorescu, R. (2025). Teacher’s Nonverbal Language: Unimportant Detail or Influencing Factor in the Educational Process. Euromentor Journal, 16(3), 142-156. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/teachers-nonverbal-language-unimportant-detail/docview/3287118264/se-2 

Figure 1. Streamer Clavicular moments before driving over a man who had climbed onto his vehicle.

Figure 2. Fan comments posted to Clavicular’s YouTube video within hours of the incident. Approximately 80% of visible comments expressed support, defense, or celebration of the streamer’s actions.

Introduction

When Clavicular’s fans rallied behind him following a car accident in late 2025, they were demonstrating peak parasocialism. Parasocial relationships, first theorized by Horton and Wohl (1956), have existed since television, but their language has evolved. Modern influencers use linguistic tools like inclusive pronouns (“we,” “us”), affectionate address, emotional self-disclosure, and indexical language to manufacture closeness. Although parasocial relationships are widespread (Tyrväinen & Karjaluoto, 2024), research has focused more on marketing outcomes than the linguistic mechanisms behind them. This study addresses that gap by analyzing the speech and fan responses of four Gen Z influencers—Clavicular, IShowSpeed, Emiru, and Nara Smith—to examine how language constructs parasocial attachment and what behaviors it produces.

We hypothesize that inclusive pronouns, affectionate address, and self-disclosure elicit stronger parasocial responses, and that different forms of linguistic intimacy shape distinct fan behaviors—from loyalty to aspiration. We further propose that these bonds extend beyond the screen, influencing fans’ real-world attitudes and actions.

Background

Horton and Wohl described parasocial interaction as “intimacy at a distance,” where audiences feel familiar with performers. This intimacy is constructed through casualness, small talk, and direct address that mimic face-to-face interaction.

Today, influencers build intimacy through disclosive (sharing private life), reciprocal (acknowledging fans), and commercial forms, together forming an “intimacy pact” (Mardon et al., 2023). When disrupted, these relationships can intensify into possessiveness, obsessive monitoring, or anti-fan behavior.

Linguistically, intimacy is created through informal registers, direct address, terms of endearment, second-person pronouns, and spatial metaphors (Roh 2024). These features function indexically, constructing group identity. For instance, Clavicular repeatedly addresses viewers as “boys,” indexing a masculine in-group identity. When fans mirror his language, they participate in this identity, reinforcing the community his speech creates.

Methods

Our study used observational analysis of public interactions from four influencers across platforms: Clavicular (Kick), IShowSpeed (YouTube), Emiru (Twitch), and Nara Smith (TikTok). To standardize analysis, we used YouTube videos for all four cases.

For each influencer, we collected two types of data: video transcripts representing their typical communication style and corresponding comment sections, focusing on high-engagement comments. The dataset ranged from 215 comments (Nara Smith) to 9,826 (IShowSpeed).

Data was analyzed using the SPEAKING model, with specific attention to three components: Key (the emotional tone and intensity of interactions), Instruments (the platform features shaping how intimacy is performed), and Norms (the unspoken community expectations governing closeness between influencer and audience)

This study has limitations. The sample size was small—four influencers and one video each—and comment sections capture only visible fan behavior, excluding private interactions. However, consistent patterns across cases support our interpretations.

Results and Analysis

Figure 3. Linguistic Mechanisms and Fan Response Patterns Across Four Influencers

Influencer	Primary Linguistic Mechanism	Fan Attachment Type	Boundary Violations	Real-World Consequence
Clavicular	Collective address, decision delegation, radical self-disclosure	Tribal/defensive	Violence defense, doxxing, forensic monitoring	Looksmaxxing ideology, bone smashing, hit-and-run defense
IShowSpeed	Chat as third party, spectacle, performative generosity	Romantic/ invested	Stream sniping IRL, parasocial grief	Fans directing his romantic life, extended attachment to third parties
Emiru	Vulnerability disclosure, advocacy framing	Empathetic/ mobilizing	Physical assault, lack of security/ security concerns	Collective institutional action against Twitch
Nara Smith	Aesthetic curation, strategic withholding	Aspirational/ loyal	Relationship interference, obsession, and negative talk about their children (especially their names) You could just say exposure of minors to online spaces or smth	Cross-platform tracking, deep community loyalty

Case Study: Clavicular

Clavicular’s linguistic profile most clearly demonstrates how language produces extreme parasocial outcomes. His primary mechanism is collective address: the word “boys” appears over one hundred times in a single stream. He also delegates personal decisions (outfits, hair, drinking) to chat, creating a sense of direct participation and agency (Roh 2024).

Indexically, “boys” constructs a masculine in-group identity that fans adopt. This is evident in responses to his December 2025 incident, when he drove over an alleged stalker during a live stream. Approximately 80% of comments were supportive. Fans constructed legal defenses, used his vocabulary, and one wrote: “the only issue is he didn’t run them both over.”

This sustained loyalty reflects what Mardon et al. (2023) describe as parasocial relationships that become “negatively charged whilst maintaining their intensity.” Many comments also showed obsessive monitoring—tracking timelines, cross-referencing past streams, and reconstructing events—what Mardon et al. (2023) call “extensive online research” by fans.

Comparison Cases: Intimacy Is Not One Thing

The three remaining influencers enrich this picture, demonstrating that parasocial intimacy is not a single phenomenon but a spectrum of linguistic constructions producing distinct outcomes.

IShowSpeed’s primary mechanism is spectacle, as the chat is woven into every personal moment, including a real-life date, where he directly addresses the audience over thirty times: “Chat, was she capping or not?” The audience is living his life with him. This results in a romantic parasocial investment: when his relationship ended, fans who had never met either person wrote “I wasn’t even dating Amy like Speed was and I miss Amy.” Critically, Speed’s content also normalizes boundary violations: fans tracked him to his precise location mid-date, and rather than expressing concern, he rewarded the behavior.

Emiru’s linguistic profile offers another sharp contrast. Her primary mechanism is vulnerability disclosure, where in a 47-minute stream addressing her assault at TwitchCon, she produces statements like “I could have literally been stabbed yesterday,” “I’ve been failed so many times,” and the self-correction “I’m sorry you had to see that.” This apology resulted in multiple fan comments correcting her self-blame, which exemplifies what Mardon et al. (2023) identifies as disclosive intimacy. Emiru’s comment section shows little possessive language, little forensic monitoring, and less dehumanization than the comment sections of the other influencers, specifically the male influencers. Her disclosure triggers fan self-disclosure in return, creating a seemingly bidirectional emotional bond. However, the fact that a “fan” was able to get past security at TwitchCon and assault her shows that there are real-life implications of this more emotional bond.

Finally, Nara Smith presents our most counterintuitive finding. Her transcript in her video reveals almost no personal disclosure, she never names her husband, conceals her children’s faces, and her most intimate moment is “I overthink gift-giving.” However, fans track her across platforms, write paragraph-length content proposals, and describe her content as “giving calm, self-care, feminine and intrigue.” This gap between what she reveals and what fans feel they know is the largest of any influencer in our dataset, yet community loyalty measured by cross-platform tracking behavior might be the deepest. 

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined how influencers construct parasocial attachment through language and what consequences emerge beyond the screen. Our findings support the hypothesis that inclusive pronouns, affectionate address, and self-disclosure strengthen parasocial responses, with two key extensions.

First, intimacy is not one thing. Clavicular builds it through collective masculine address and in-group identity construction, producing loyalty strong enough to withstand a hit-and-run. IShowSpeed builds it through spectacle, producing romantic investment that extends to third parties. Emiru builds it through vulnerability, producing empathetic collective action. Nara Smith builds it through withholding, producing quiet but persistent cross-platform devotion. Each mechanism produces distinct communities with different norms and thresholds for harm, suggesting that the linguistic architecture of intimacy shapes fan behavior.

 Second, context matters more than disclosure level alone. Emiru’s vulnerability typically generates little possessive or harmful behavior, while Clavicular’s similar level of disclosure produced doxxing, forensic monitoring, and defense of violence. The difference lies in the social worlds constructed through language. Male-dominated content appears to channel loyalty into in-group protection, while advocacy-oriented or feminine-coded content channels it into empathy and aspiration.

Figure 4. Screenshot from BenoftheWeek’s (2026) YouTube video based on Clavicular’s looksmaxxing community, showing instructions directing followers to strike their faces with a hammer to reshape bone structure

The implications are significant. Parasocial bonds extend beyond comment sections into physical behavior, such as looksmaxxing practices, and institutional outcomes, like collective pressure on Twitch. Horton and Wohl (1956) warned that parasocial relationships become dangerous when they override reality. Our findings suggest that contemporary influencer language makes that threshold easier to reach.

References

Addressing what happened at TwitchCon [Video]. Emiru. (2025, October 18). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_USuIpVAqAw

A day in my life: Holiday shopping🤍 [Video]. Nara Smith. (2025, December 19). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIFo5UtLgn8

BenoftheWeek. (2026, January 30). I tried Clavicular’s $1000 looksmaxxing program [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4raQjuxBnU

Clavicular RUNS OVER Stream Sniper.. | FULL STREAM [Video]. Clavicular VODs. (2025, December 25). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgY1z4Rn7g4

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

iShowSpeed Goes On A Date In South Korea.. [Video]. Live Speedy. (2024, May 17). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj56_nSbDjw&list=PLZiR2JvplpXnddlBhavhc4nQeXY0G2qr5

Mardon, R., Cocker, H., & Daunt, K. (2023). When parasocial relationships turn sour: Social media influencers, eroded and exploitative intimacies, and anti-fan communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(11–12), 1132–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2149609

Roh, Y. C. (2024). Fan culture, technology, and the parasocial: How the K-pop industry advances relations between celebrities and fans [Master’s thesis, Georgetown University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/fan-culture-technology-parasocial-how-k-pop/docview/3051223075/se-2

Tyrväinen, O., & Karjaluoto, H. (2024). Unrequited love? A mixed-methods study of parasocial engagement with social media influencers. International Journal of Information Management, 79, 102845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102845

Introduction 

Viral media is popular for bleaching daily content into our lives; terms that once only survived on social media are now affecting our everyday lives. Terms like “sigma,” “mid,” or “slay” can be commonly found in comment sections and are now moving into our everyday vernacular. In fact, about 42% of our Gen Alpha participants said new phrases become part of their way of talking within the same day (Figure 5B). In a digital environment where millions of people consume the same content simultaneously, language is changing faster than ever before. Traditionally, linguists have studied language change as a slow process that unfolds over decades. However, the rise of social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube has accelerated the spread of new linguistic forms (Figure 2). Research in sociolinguistics has long shown that language functions not only as a tool for communication but also as an indexical marker of identity, signaling group membership and social belonging. Despite growing attention to digital language practices, there remains a gap in understanding how evolving social media environments influence generational linguistic differences, particularly between the two youngest generations. Generation Z (1997–2012) experienced the rise of mainstream social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter, while Generation Alpha (2011– 2025) has grown up immersed in algorithm-driven, short-form media ecosystems such as TikTok and interactive gaming environments like Roblox (Figure 5A). These different digital environments may shape how each generation develops and interprets slang, humor, and online communication styles. Given what we know about the relationship between social media and our two generations, it allowed our group to form the research question: “How has social media directly accelerated linguistic change, and how have Gen Z and Gen Alpha digitally adapted their slang to be used as an indexical marker that signals generational identity?” Allowing us to explore how social media accelerates linguistic change and contributes to generational identity formation by comparing the language practices of the two generations, specifically in their use of slang and style of humor. We examine how slang and humor function as indexical markers that signal generational belonging, how short-form media platforms influence the spread of viral language, and how humor styles differ between Gen Z’s layered irony and Gen Alpha’s “brainrot” communication through a multimodal methodology. By analyzing these patterns, this project argues that emerging digital slang is not evidence of linguistic decline, but rather a reflection of language adapting to new technological and cultural environments. 

Background 

Existing research supports the idea that youth slang plays an important role in expressing identity and belonging. Mary Bucholtz argues that slang among youth communities functions as a social marker that signals identity, group affiliation, and cultural positioning (Bucholtz, 2017). More recent studies have examined how digital platforms accelerate this process. For example, Eti and Rosalinah (2025) analyze TikTok comment sections and show that Gen Z slang spreads rapidly through online interaction and meme culture. Similarly, Khairunissa and Budiwati (2025) demonstrate how influencers contribute to the circulation and normalization of digital slang across social media audiences. Comparative studies of youth language further suggest that Gen Z and Gen Alpha are developing distinct communicative patterns shaped by their digital environments (Paoleti & Mujahidah, 2025; Pillai, 2025). While these studies highlight the role of digital platforms in shaping slang, fewer studies directly compare how these linguistic patterns function as generational identity markers across both Gen Z and Gen Alpha. 

Methods 

In our methods for this project, we have conducted a digital survey on the two generations, in which we received 60 responses in total. Within our defined parameters, 43 participants were Gen Z, and 17 were Gen Alpha. But to further understand our language gap, it should be noted that how they identified themselves was different; 44 people said they were Gen Z, 12 were Gen Alpha, and 4 identified more with millennials (Figure 1). In our survey, we asked what type of slang and brain rot the participants are familiar with, which generations they belong to, their social media usage, and in which context they might use different slang. The participants involved are acquaintances and family members, with Generation Z (1997-2012) making up the majority of our responses, in contrast to those in Generation Alpha (2011-2016). With this reported data, we see that the participants spend a majority of their time on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, and also become their main source for developing new slang. We also saw through our 2 interviews with siblings, one in Generation Z and the other in Generation Alpha, how easily language can be influenced not only by consuming social media but also by simply being around a different generation. In Table 1, it is shown that one of the most popular phrase choices among all our generational participants was “cooking/cooked” or “lowkey/highkey.” This demonstrates that there is a bridge between these two generations and shows the similarities in not only how they develop language but also in the type of slang words they share. This allows us to understand that there is a relationship between social media exposure and how language is being adopted into daily vernacular and identity, as well as within the generations we focused on. 

Result/Analysis 

Discussion and Conclusion 

Our research shows that digital slang serves as more than casual vocabulary. The language used in this study serves as an indicator of which generation an individual belongs to. Our results, specifically in Figure 6, demonstrate that social media platforms operate as multimodal communication systems that allow users to share meanings through textual content, visual elements, and generation-specific humorous content. Our research shows that Gen Z and Gen Alpha use language to create new ways of communication, including daily content such as new videos/audios. Our research results have limited how broadly these findings can be applied since we did not account for factors such as sibling influence or cross-generational interaction. Future research comparing older generations, such as Gen X, could further clarify how digital environments could influence language shifts. Recognizing how slang shows identity may help reduce generational stereotypes and improve communication across age groups. Remember, language found on social media can equal identity, and it is evolving faster than ever. So next time you’re doom-scrolling, you may just be scrolling away the next big trending slang. 

References 

Bucholtz, M. (2017). Word Up: Social Meanings of Slang in California Youth Culture. Escholarship.org. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0c7141bs#main 

Eti, S. H., & Rosalinah, Y. (2025). An Analysis of Gen Z’s Digital Slang: Patterns from TikTok Comment Sections. IDEAS: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 12(2), 3250-3262. http://ejournal.iainpalopo.ac.id/index.php/ideas/article/view/5911 

Khairunissa, M., & Budiwati, T. R. (2025). THE USE OF GEN Z SLANG BY DIGITAL INFLUENCER “AWKARIN” ON HER SOCIAL MEDIA: A SOCIO-SEMANTIC STUDY. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching (Online), 9(2), 1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v9i2.12177 

Paoleti, V. D., & Mujahidah, N. F. Z. (2025). YOUTH LANGUAGE UNCOVERED: META-SYNTHETIC INSIGHTS INTO GEN Z AND GEN ALPHA SLANG. English Review: Journal of English Education, 13(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v13i1.11425 

Pillai, S. (2025). Generational Linguistics in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of Gen Z and Gen Alpha English. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL), 13(3), 343–347. http://www.rjelal.com/13.3.25/343-347%20Dr.%20Surabhi%20Pillai.pdf 

Other Related Sources 

Gen Alpha is Brainrotted And That’s Okay | Kiara Galway | TEDxKGV School Youth 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkabQRxdhY

Brain Rot:The Hidden Cost of Endless Scrolling | Vishnu Nemala | TEDxInternationalSchoolOfHyderabad 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkr8XmF394o

Why did we study this?

For our research project, we specifically focused on water polo players and non-water polo players at and around UCLA. We identified specific language choices among the community of water polo players, and then sought to determine if non-water polo members could understand and participate in this language exchange to test our hypothesis of group specific lexical choices.

Prior research by Eckert and McConnell‑Ginet (1992) describes a similar kind of setting as a community of practice and found that people build local norms and identities through what they regularly do together, including how they talk. Bucholtz (2002) adds that youth and young adults actively shape who they are through everyday cultural practices. Given this past research, we treated water polo slang as one of the tools players use to signal who belongs and how they see themselves in relation to their teammates and non‑athletes. Ishak’s (2017) review of sports communication supports the idea that clear verbal and nonverbal signals are crucial for coordination, cohesion, and role performance on teams. This relates to our idea that having a shared vocabulary is foundational to how players successfully organize themselves in games and practices. Heath’s (2024) study of a UK swimming club shows that banter and shared jokes can help athletes cope with boring or intense training while also drawing boundaries around who is identified as an insider. Schei et al. (2023) finds that when athletes strongly identify with their team and coaches practice identity leadership, intra team communication becomes more effective and supports task cohesion, suggesting that feeling like part of a “we” is tied to how people talk to each other and how information moves through the group.

Commonly used terms in waterpolo help create efficiency for players who share the same background, but these terms can sound insulting, confusing, or even nonsensical to non water polo people who are only interpreting the words based upon their literal definition.  This was the basis for our hypothesis of what we would see in our group interviews, and in our surveys from non‑water polo players.

 How did we do it? 

For this project, we combined an online survey with interviews to compare how water polo players and non‑players interpret commonly used terms in the game. We recruited participants through UCLA networks and personal connections and asked them whether they had ever played organized water polo before answering any questions about language. This allowed us to sort responses into two broad groups: experienced players and people with no playing background.

The survey presented short prompts with de‑contextualized terms that players frequently yell during games, such as “set,” “press,” “drop,” “driver,” and “5‑meter,” and asked participants to define what each word meant in their own words. We deliberately did not give additional context, like describing a specific play, to see whether people could still access the sport’s specific meaning rather than the everyday one. 

To complement the survey, we conducted interviews with five current or former water polo players, focusing on how they actually use this vocabulary in the pool. The interviews also included reflections on how long it took them to learn this terminology and how newcomers respond when they first encounter it in practices or games. Taken together, the survey and interview data gave us a way to see both sides of the same terms: how insiders rely on them for quick coordination and how outsiders struggle to interpret them without shared experience.

What did we find?

Survey: The results we found suggest that water polo language works as insider vocabulary that players learn through participating in the sport. In the survey, most participants who had never played water polo struggled to correctly identify the meanings of common terms used during games. For example, only 1 out of 15 respondents correctly identified the meaning of “set,” and only 3 out of 16 understood the meaning of “press.” Similar patterns appeared with other terms such as “drop,” “driver,” and “5-meter.” For non-players, these words often sounded familiar but lacked the specific strategic meaning they carry in the context of a water polo game. In the questions where only one participant correctly defined a term, that response came from the only respondent who had prior experience playing water polo.

Interview: The interviews with water polo players showed that these terms are used constantly during gameplay and are understood immediately by teammates to create efficient gameplay. Players also described regularly shouting short commands to coordinate positioning and defensive strategy in real time. Because water polo games move quickly and players are spread out across the pool, they said how this kind of condensed language allows them to communicate complex instructions almost instantly which you will hear in the audio below. The players we interviewed also shared that this vocabulary is not something beginners understand right away. All five of those who were interviewed explained that learning the terminology takes time and usually happens gradually through practice and gameplay, instead of being something that is learned immediately. New players often feel confused by the language at first, but over time they begin to understand how these terms have a function within different game situations.

Check out these audio clips from our interviews:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MUnLg9FRJwZIqCuBfIZjgdC1ykzH9Gnz/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bzoqAP-eYeIs5lTCKzVnSeWQKjwxoX8y/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NO0KYyT7nSGmVvF7oLhDHlBmTycINlME/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vj2k2X93bKg-Rv5iyW7wb-xupo0JexoY/view?usp=drive_link

This pattern reflects what linguistic anthropologists Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992) described as a community of practice. The language used in water polo is not just random sports jargon, but it is part of the shared knowledge that players build together. Knowing how to interpret and use these terms signals that someone belongs to the group. The data from the interviews also supported Ishak’s (2017) idea that clear verbal and nonverbal signals are crucial for coordination and cohesion on teams because the participants shared that when plays or specific terms are called out they all typically know what to do and it makes for more efficient game play. 

In linguistic anthropology, communities of practice are important because they show how language and identity develop together through shared activities. Over time, shared vocabulary becomes part of what defines someone as a member of the water polo community. This helps explain why outsiders in the survey struggled to interpret many of the terms. Understanding water polo language requires not just knowing the words themselves, but also participating in the social and physical environment where those words are used. The survey results and player interviews together show how language in sports can function as both a practical communication tool and a marker of social belonging.

So what?

While our project is limited to a relatively small sample from around UCLA, it points to a broader pattern in sports where specialized jargon helps teams function smoothly while reinforcing group boundaries. Looking ahead, similar methods could be used to compare how jargon works in other sports or to explore how players translate this insider language when they talk to coaches, parents, or fans who are not part of their immediate community of practice. The results we have found from this project remind us that many communities, from workplaces to friend groups, develop their own shared language that strengthens coordination and belonging.

Bibliography

Bucholtz, M. (2002). Youth and cultural practice. Annual review of anthropology, 31(1), 525-552. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085443  

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-490. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155996

Heath, S. (2024). Banter as transformative practice: linguistic play and joking relationships in a UK swimming club. Humor, 37(4), 529-549. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2024-0005  

Ishak, A. W. (2017). Communication in sports teams: A review. Communication Research Trends, 36(4), Article 1. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/crt/vol36/iss4/1  

Schei, G. S., Høigaard, R., Erikstad, M. K., Ivarsson, A., & Haugen, T. (2023). Identity leadership and cohesion in elite sport: The mediating role of intra-team communication. Heliyon, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17853