college students

Going Greek?

Sociolinguistics

Jasmin Lopez, Samantha Solowitz, Max Orroth, Esther Lin, anonymous author

Collegiate Greek life has been around for centuries, fraternities first being established in 1775 followed by sororities in 1851, giving both men and women the opportunity to become a member of an exclusive association promising brotherhood and sisterhood to all who join. The mysterious and vague identity of these fraternities and sororities became a tradition, with members specifically using terms and/or slang that make sense only to those involved. The purpose of our blog is to recognize the meaning behind Greek life slang, and how this particular lexicon represents a departure from formal language. We delve into the nuances of Greek life, from its rich history and recruitment process to understanding its cultural shift in linguistic trends and social dynamics. Through the use of online videos and fieldwork, we explored how Greek life slang terms develop a strong sense of social acquisition for those directly involved while simultaneously maintaining a form of mystery for those who are not.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Background

Pictured: A faux wedding, strangers kissing, the crowd going crazy. Credit: Max Orroth

As I (Max) walked into the Phi Kappa Psi house on a Tuesday night for a frat wedding (a faux wedding, two fraternities/sororities come together to host their chosen couple), a brother greeted me: “Hey welcome bro, tonights gonna be so ferda.” I didn’t understand what he meant by this at all, specifically ferda,  and when I asked what the word meant I never got a straight answer. It was clear at this moment, to me and the brothers of Phi Psi, that I was an outsider. I did not understand their secret slang, and for the rest of the night, I felt like a toddler asking what words everyone seemed to know meant.

The example above showcases an ingroup outgroup dynamic. Through this experience, we sought to understand the slang evoked in the Greek life college setting, towards a cultural shift in linguistic and social status. Through the use of online videos and fieldwork, we explored how Greek life slang acquisition is used to communicate valuable insight into fraternities and sororities. This project draws on two main questions; How does Greek slang separate members of Greek life from the broader collegiate community? And, How do Greek organizations undergo a socialization process through linguistic genres?

Introduction to Greek Life

The origins of Greek culture can be identified in the late 18th century when the initial Greek-letter societies were founded (Harding, 1972). Greek life is a conduit for lifelong friendships, countless parties to attend, and the opportunity to live in a mansion with 20-50 peers (Jones, 1976). However, the daily lives of some “brothers” and “sisters” are widely known to be exclusionary, insular, and with roots in the secretive masonic lodges (Dymchuk, 2020). The groups are segmented into fraternities for men and sororities for women. Like most groups, Greek life holds its own set of slang terms, and priori language is only understood within the community. Slang is not an official language, but is characterized by familiar coloring (Izmaylova et al., 2017). Familiar coloring refers to certain words being associated with a specific group, used to linguistically signal identity and ingroup status. More specific to the linguistic environment we studied, college slang amongst undergraduates pulls from both broad lexicons as well as university and context-specific slang (Hummon, 1994). We hypothesize that at its core, greek life slang represents a departure from formal language, often characterized by its genre. This departure of informality is developed through sociocultural language acquisition (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984). The social functions of slang are manifold. Firstly, it serves as a marker of group identity, fostering a sense of camaraderie among those who share a common slang lexicon (Bucholtz, 2012). The slang lexicons used by sorority members and fraternities alike use phrases, symbols, and handshakes only known to collegiate Greek members, differing from the common use of slang found by nonmembers.

Ready to embark on a Greek life journey?

We were not! This is why our methods are participant observation and visual anthropology. We examined how the words and phrases are used in context and how they deviate from mainstream slang through visual anthropology (Abasi & Taylor, 2007).

Methods

For our methods, we used TikTok and YouTube videos; which involve heavy use of acronyms, Greek letter symbols, and code language. 

Picture is Lauren Norris via YouTube, 2023

Some popular accounts on TikTok were @makeupbymckenna and @emmaortiz24.

@makeupbymckenna’s TikTok videos titled “GRWM” (get ready with me) displayed a full day of the “Last rush week ever.” While @emmaortiz24 showcases a “GRWM” with Penn State recruitment trips. “Day in the Life” were mostly made by women in sororities representing “PNM”, “PIE PIE”, “DLAM”, “Olemiss”, etc. In the introduction to one of the TikTok videos, a girl is doing her makeup to get ready for sorority recruitment as a “TriDelt” and talking about the amount of “PNMs” that are going to be at their “house.” She advises those who will be participating in the recruitment process to make intentional relationships with other “PNMs” from their “pledge class” or “active number.” In a similar video, a girl advises her audience to let their “Pie Pie” know if they are going to be late to an event.

The YouTube videos we looked at were videos about “rushing” which is the recruitment process for joining a sorority. The picture above is Lauren Norris, talking extensively about her experience of being “dropped” from sorority Pi Beta Phi. This was a contrast from the TikTok videos which seem to be an audience for sisters “in” the sorority. Whereas, Lauren talks about her experience of being “out” of the organization.

Although the videos were meant to be informative, the slang used in the videos made it difficult to understand the symbolic meaning of words such as rush, dropped, sisters, and acronyms. Our research results in a complex web of terminology that defines, unites, and separates members of Greek life from the broader collegiate community.

Results

Here is a compiled list of the common slang terms used in Greek culture:

Additional Resource: Greek Life Glossary – Montclair University

Analysis

New members of Greek organizations seem to undergo a rapid socialization process to become competent members of their respective communities. In videos such as “GRMW(Get Ready with me)” or “Day in the life,” the general public may recognize the language used within the videos but certain keywords would not be understood unless one had previous knowledge of them. These videos demonstrate that a majority of the slang used are English words or acronyms that may seem out of context to those unfamiliar with Greek life and possibly even completely change their meaning (Nardyuzhev et al, 2017), solidifying the barrier between those within the community and those outside it. Our analysis of Greek life slang reveals a rich and complex language system that serves multiple functions: it cements the bonds between members, upholds traditions, and sets the community apart from the broader campus, and society.

Conclusion

Throughout this study, we analyzed Greek life culture through their unique sociolinguistic and cultural acquisition. This research has provided a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted dynamics within Greek life, encompassing indexical slang, language social acquisition, online communities, and symbolic vocabulary. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the group was able to integrate sociolinguistics, visual anthropology, and analysis, to uncover the intricate interplay between language, identity, and rituals within Greek organizations. Through research into archetypes and codes that generate sense, our findings determine that symbols did not hold the ultimate meaning, but rather offered a vast array of interpretation possibilities; they served as a gnoseological key, a means of self-learning and learning about “philosophical knowledge,” and a medium for the development of the adept’s gnoseological qualities. To an outgroup member, this translates into a form of social acquisition during the initiation process, a crest or secret message is revealed as a rite of passage, only to be mentioned among the membership for exclusive purposes. Greek organizations separate ideology from each other by ascribing symbolic meaning to their group organization. Hence the various phrases, symbols, and handshakes are showcased in varied TikToks, YouTube, and the Greek wedding ritual. This socialization process is enacted by active members, who are assigned the task of formal recruitment. This process entails acts of initiation that signal the acquisition of the group’s values, pledges, and ultimately the group’s acceptance.

References

Bucholtz, M. (2012). Word Up: Social Meanings of Slang in California Youth Culture. eScholarship, University of California.

Dymchuk, A. (2020). Masonic symbolism in the context of philosophical anthropology searches. Skhid, 1(165), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.21847/1728-9343.2020.1(165).197068

Harding, Thomas S. (1972), College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815–1876, New York, New York: privately published

Hummon, D. M. (1994). College Slang Revisited: Language, Culture, and Undergraduate Life. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943878doi.org/10.2307/2943878

Izmaylova, G.R., Zamaletdinova, G.R., & Zholshayeva, M.S. (2017). Linguistic and social features of slang. International Journal of Scientific Study, 5(6), 75-78.

Jones, B. M. (1976). The American fraternity. In Paper presented at the meeting of the National Interfraternity Conference, Williamsburg, VA.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. CUP, pp. 276-320.

Nardyuzhev, V. I., Nardyuzhev, I. V., Marfina, V. E., & Kurinin, I. N. (2017). AMERICAN SLANG: DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS. RUDN Journal Of Informatization In Education, 14(4), 399-405. doi: 10.22363/2312-8631-2017-14-4-399-405

[/expander_maker]

, , , , ,

Analyzing Miscommunication and Preferences in Face-to-Face vs. Texting Among College Students

Sociolinguistics

Adam Bouaricha, Emily Haddad, Ryan Kimura, Usuhe Maston, Natalia Adomaitis

Reportedly, 97% of young adults aged 18 to 24 are actively engaged in texting (Smith, 2011). Central to our inquiry is exploring how college students adeptly navigate misunderstandings and mend communication breakdowns within their text-based interactions with peers, friends, and romantic partners. Specifically focusing on the demographic of college students aged 18 to 22, our study delves into the myriad factors contributing to miscommunication within this cohort. Using a comprehensive mixed-method approach, we integrate surveys with picture-based evidence for enhanced analysis. Drawing upon the framework of multimodal conversational analysis, our research endeavors to unravel the intricacies of repair mechanisms, encompassing trouble sources, repair initiation, and ensuing solutions in text-based interactions. Analysis of our diverse sample of college students unveils that critical trouble sources, such as the absence of tone and social cues, substantially influence the occurrence of misunderstandings. Participants demonstrate a keen awareness of communication breakdowns, prompting proactive engagement in repair solutions to rectify discrepancies. Through rigorous thematic analysis of survey responses, we discern prevalent patterns and adaptive strategies individuals employ to navigate the complexities of miscommunication within text-based interactions. Ultimately, this study enriches our understanding of the nuanced challenges inherent in digital communication practices among college students, contributing valuable insights to the broader discourse on effective communication in the digital age.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

The main problem we wanted to investigate was what factors contribute to miscommunication in our target population of college students ages 18-22, since texting (computer mediated communication) is so prevalent in our observed demographic. Our project design observed whether college students preferred texting or live conversations (face-to-face) as a means of communication. While somewhat scarce, previous research on this topic has allowed us to form a basic understanding of miscommunication over text. Studies have shown that the lack of cues, ubiquity, and brevity of interactions during CMC provide a disadvantage compared to FTF communication. Previously, students have felt that texting has both its advantages and disadvantages, and did not indicate a strong preference for CMC or FTF (Kelly et al 2012). Another study found that emojis can serve as speech acts. Emojis possess meaning and intent behind their usage, but their ambiguity over CMC is where miscommunication arises. It was shown that senders and receivers of texts both significantly overestimate the effectiveness of an emoji in conveying meaning, which can lead to miscommunication (Holtgraves 2024). Our research aims to fill the gap left by previous research, especially because much of the research on this topic is over ten years old. We also hope to narrow the scope of such a topic, focusing on a more specific group (college students), rather than a wider range of demographics. Similarly, many studies emphasize emojis and their ability to perform speech acts (Holtgraves 2024). While we do not deny the role emojis play in communication or miscommunication, we also observed the use of acronyms and slang, as well as the lack of FTF multimodal communication such as tone, gesture, and facial expression. Our paper builds on prior research to answer why online miscommunication occurs and whether CMC or FTF is preferred amongst college students ages 18-22 when communicating.

Methods

The method we used to analyze the results of our data was multimodal conversational analysis. One of the factors we mainly focused on was repair. Three components involved in analyzing repair in our data are: 1. The trouble source, or what’s causing the miscommunication, 2. Repair initiation, how the problem is being addressed, and 3. Repair solution, how do the participants solve the problem (Hoey & Kendrick, 2017). In observing instances of miscommunication from our observed community of college students ages 18-22, trouble sources such as lack of tone, social cues, body language, and other multimodal factors, contributed to miscommunication over text or as one respondent stated, “ a common issue between me and my partner is that I’m a blunt texter (no punctuation or emojis) and he’s the opposite. So my texts make him feel like I’m upset at him when in reality I’m just trying to respond as quickly as possible” (anonymous participant). While further analyzing our responses from the Google Form we sent to our participants, repair initiation typically occurred when the people involved in the conversation realized a mishap occurred. Repair solutions transpired as senders and receivers addressed what was miscommunicated and what was actually intended. As in Figure 1, an apology was used and deemed honest because one person admitted the error and explained the problem. Here is another example from our data where these three components of repair can be observed in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Example from our data of using repair in conversational analysis as researched (Hoey & Kendrick, 2017).

Results and Analysis 

Figure 2: Responses to survey question: “How much would you say you prefer texting over in-person interaction?”
Figure 3: Responses to survey question: “How much of a frequent texter are you?”

Our sample population fit our target population, with over 50% of participants being upperclassmen with all having a variety of majors encompassing STEM, the humanities, and social sciences. Figure 2 shows that 52.6% of respondents claimed that they preferred CMC over face-to-face interaction, and figure 3 shows that 42.1% text a little frequently, with 3-5 text conversations occurring a day. All but 2 respondents had listed English as their primary language, at 89% of the responses, the two outliers had put Spanish as their primary language; however, all the examples we received from participants were wholly in English. Participants were prompted to provide an example, either as a screenshot of a CMC conversation or to type out an example. The following question asked respondents to identify the miscommunication, which allowed us to better analyze and understand how they occurred. The majority of participants listed that they were close to their communication partner in their provided example, with 57.8% of respondents identifying their partner as either a friend, significant other, or family member. However, despite this closeness and increased familiarity much of the self-identified reasons for miscommunication arose from a lack of tone, or being too blunt while writing. Some wrote that their communication “[felt] like [it] had sass”, that their blunt texting style makes their significant other believe that they’re “upset at him”, and one respondent wrote that “I can never tell if they’re being sarcastic or genuine”. Other than lack of tone, the second most common misunderstanding was simply one party not being familiar with a word/phrase/acronym being used by their conversation partner.

Discussion and Conclusions

As we examine our results, we can conclude that, based on the demonstrated sample size (initially influenced by previously conducted studies citing technological relevance in effective age groups (Hemmer, Heidi 2009), there is a noticeable preference for in-person, face-to-face communication over computer-mediated conversation. As we had begun to hypothesize how the significance of multimodality comes into play in regard to the interpretation of language through CMC, contextual research, in addition to our data, has allowed us to develop a means of identifying the conditions that allow for the total utility multimodal communication, or a lack thereof within the identified samples. We attempt to examine the aspect of repair within our use of multimodal conversation analysis; recognizing the lack of physical indicators that help to form comprehendible, precise conversations within CMC, followed up with the identification of said misinterpretation of communication acknowledged by both parties, and finally, resolution of both parties being reached upon clarification. When examining the submitted data from a phenomenological lens, we identify the occurrence of these criteria from an individual yet quantified perspective.

References

Hemmer, Heidi (2009) “Impact of Text Messaging on Communication,” Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Vol. 9, Article 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56816/2378-6949.1058 Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol9/iss1/5

Hoey, E.M., & Kendrick, K.H. (2017). Conversational Analysis. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2328034_8/component/file_3513001/content

Holtgraves, T. (2024). Emoji, Speech Acts, and Perceived Communicative Success. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231200450

Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., Becker, B., Cole, J., Littleford, L., & Rothe, B. (2012). “It’s the american lifestyle! ”: An investigation of text messaging by college students. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2012.719203

Smith, A. (2011). How Americans Use Text Messaging. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech; Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/09/19/how-americans-use-text-messaging/.

[/expander_maker]

, , ,

Do Students Hold Their Professors to a Certain Standard?

Sociolinguistics

Madison Atiabi, Araceli Valladares, Sean Freilich, Antoinette Alfaro, Brandon Elkington

Knowledge production in the global context has enabled an unprecedented ability to share information in the modern age. Because of this, International Universities like UCLA serve as a hotbed for intellectual progress over a backdrop of movements for inclusivity and representation in educational institutions. While recognizing elements of language associated with ethnicity such as accents is a sensitive topic, it is an undeniable element that comes into play when analyzing the perceptions that students hold of their professors. Even though we initially invested in how accents affect academic outcomes, this study has instead developed an understanding of subconscious biases and expectations within the academic setting that demonstrate a contradictory notion of judgment versus inclusivity. While clearly expressed to varying degrees of appreciation for different language practices, the individual word choice illustrates an intent to perform academically that is not only a standard to be upheld by professors, but to an extent to students as well.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction

The development and ability to share information in the modern world is faster than ever and there has been an emphasis on developing scholarship around the diverse perspectives that come together within the global context. While there are undeniable benefits towards the development of scholarship by including international perspectives, there are a number of challenges that arise when centered around communication between speakers with different linguistic backgrounds. In attempts to understand how students perceive different elements of language, a handful of studies and experiments have been conducted as a means to better understand what incites the most favorable repertoire between students and professors. As “language is an important and necessary medium of communication,” (Kuo 2011) differences in pronunciation, intonation, rhythm, and word choice may lead to miscommunications or misinterpretations of information which can have a devastating impact in an academic setting where clear communication is crucial to success. Since how people speak demonstrates many notions of group belonging, elements of language such as accents tend to elicit stereotypical perceptions that can influence the perceptions of professors as less credible (Alexandra 2015). Considering that a student’s perception of their professors as the ambassadors of the university can have an impact on a student’s learning outcomes (Gill 1994), it is important to understand the various ways that accents and language choices such as the use of slang affect students’ perceptions of their professors. Therefore, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as an international institute provides a diverse cultural background to deepen our understanding of how accents and slang shape communication dynamics, social interactions, and language attitudes between professors and students.

Methods

When initially proposing this study, we intended to collect a variety of qualitative and quantitative data through a series of interviews, observations, and a survey as means to gather in-depth insights into how language affected the relationship between professors and students. Our original hypotheses centered around the notion that a professor’s accent would be recognized as a challenge in a student’s ability to comprehend the course material and build connections with their professors. However, in the process of developing the proposal, we acknowledged the potential for biases in the responses to our questions considering the academic nature of the project. As such, we conducted five 20-minute interviews with other UCLA students (four undergraduate and one graduate) that we had less formal relationships with hopes of receiving more open and honest responses to our lines of questioning considering the sensitivity of acknowledging a difference in language typically associated with difference in culture. As such, the interview questions focused on concerns regarding accents and the use of slang in the classroom setting and how they affect student’s perceptions of their professors and whether or not they have an expectation of a “standard” language for their professors.

 For consideration, below are the questions that were asked during the interview:

  1. Have you ever had a professor with a strong accent?
  2. How do you feel this has affected your ability to comprehend the course materials? Please elaborate.
  3. How do you feel that this has affected your interactions with your professors?
    1.  How has it affected your sense of community in the classroom?
    2. How has it affected your connectedness to the course materials?
  4. What kind of language use do you expect from your professors in a classroom setting? Do you think there is a “standard” for how professors should speak to their students?
  5. How do you feel when a professor uses slang or a younger language?
    1. How does it affect the relationship with the professor?
    2. Do these language choices affect your sense of immediacy with your professor?
    3. Does the use of slang make your professor seem less credible?
  6. Can you think of any other ways your professors build a sense of community or contribute to your education through their language?
    1. Do any other positive or negative effects of a professor’s language choices come to mind?
    2. Do the ways that your professor chooses to convey certain ideas affect your education?
  7. What changes could professors make in their language choices to improve their interactions with students?

Results and Analysis

Accents and Academics

While our respective interviews yielded varied responses due to the intimate nature of the process, there were a few constants that emerged within them. For instance, as predicted, there was an almost universal recognition that accents contributed to certain challenges within the classroom. In some cases, students revealed they had trouble understanding the course material despite efforts of professors to ensure comprehension; one student, Angel, expressed disinterest with sentiments like “I just want this lecture to end faster,” or “I’ll talk to the TA.” This reveals insight beyond our initial hypothesis; the spirit of inclusivity that is present in universities may directly contribute to the disconnect between students and professors to a degree that impacts a student’s willingness to engage with a course. Similarly, despite appreciating the beauty of different cultures coming together, Evan noted in his interview that “it was awkward and a little embarrassing to have to keep asking the same question because their strong accent made it hard for me to understand what they were saying.” Consequently, in response, it was common for students to seek more time with their TA as a solution to address issues with comprehension in lectures.

Slang Use

On the other hand, in discussions about slang use and “standard” language practices of professors, there was a surface-level appreciation for professors’ attempts to connect through slang-use and a general positive reaction. However, what a few of our interviewees argued to be more important was the use of genuine language as opposed to language that caters to a professor’s perception of what students may want to hear. Similar to the study by Martin, Weber, and Burant, the students we interviewed appeared to be able to recognize the subtleties of slang use and distinguish them from the subtexts of their uses (1997). For example, Jessica expressed that it was “cringy” when professors end up “overdoing it while trying to be relatable” because it comes off as inauthentic and pandering. Nonetheless, our interviewees expressed a general support for the use of slang words and “younger” language in the classroom. But in doing so, the words that they used represented a potentially larger concern surrounding language use in academic settings.

Unconscious Biases

When asked about whether she had any expectations for a “standard” language from her professors, Anna responded, “I don’t think slang would come in the way of teaching. Professionalism could be… um… what I’m trying to say is I don’t think language really affects the way the material is taught, and I don’t think slang should be penalized or looked down upon in the classroom setting.” While her response initially shows an understanding and support for less restrictions on language, the expression of the contrary as professionalism followed by a subtle retraction indicates a subconscious level of decorum that is to be expected from professors and the university as a whole. While our interviews only represent a minute sample of students at UCLA, the results indicate a wide range of responses that demonstrate similar notions of underlying pressures to maintain certain values.

Figure 1: Common and uncommon words found throughout the five interviews

Discussion and Conclusions

Our study and its findings contribute valuable insight into our understanding of students’ perceptions and expectations of their professors within academic settings. By investigating whether students hold their professors to a certain standard and coupling our empirical findings with existing literature, our study allows for researchers to formulate testable predictions or hypotheses on the nature of student-professor relationships in the future.

Our findings not only revealed diversity in linguistic and academic standards amongst students, but also suggested a potential for underlying biases inherent within academic settings. Our research highlights the extensive influence of academic norms and expectations on linguistic practices, suggesting an unconscious pressure on both students and professors to conform to behaviors typically perceived as “professional.” Such findings emphasize the importance of working towards building inclusive learning environments that embrace linguistic diversity while also encouraging authenticity and cultural sensitivity.

This study ultimately enhances our understanding of the complex interplay between language and identity within the academic realm, inviting future discourse and exploration that would enhance student-professor relationships. By acknowledging the dynamic experiences uncovered through our research, students, professors, and institutions alike can begin to strive for an educational environment that yields successful outcomes for individuals from diverse backgrounds.

References

Gill, M. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(4), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889409365409

Kozlowski, Alexandra (2015). The Influence of Accents on Social Perception. Inkblot, 12-16.

Kuo, Ya-Hui. (2011). Language Challenges Faced by International Graduate Students in the United States. Journal of International Students. 1(2). ISSN: 2162-3104.

Martin, M. M., Weber, K., & Burant, P. A. (1997). Students’ Perceptions of a Teacher’s Use of Slang and Verbal Aggressiveness in a Lecture: An Experiment.

Orelus, P. W. (2020). Other People’s English Accents Matter: Challenging Standard English Accent Hegemony https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1246799.pdf

 [/expander_maker]

, , , ,

Are You Seeing What I’m Seeing?: The Impact of Relative Authority on Information Interpretation

Sociolinguistics

Annabelle Jeon, Seamus Kim, Ani Abramian, Liam Fink

We’ve all celebrated Thanksgiving or some other special occasion when people from opposite sides of the aisle come together to celebrate an obligatory meal in the name of family—and chaos ensues. The estranged uncle is spouting conspiracy theories and someone’s aunt is convinced that raising taxes will be the downfall of the economy. As amusing as this hypothetical scenario is, growing polarization is a very real issue that contributes to increased social fragmentation and wider political turmoil. This study aimed to investigate the source of polarization—specifically as a result of differing interpretations of the same information due to different positions of power. Our sample consisted of students and police officers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), all of whom were instructed to watch the same video of a protest in Belarus and interviewed to gauge and compare their linguistic behavior. Our results suggest that differences in power do indeed contribute to different interpretations and subsequently different linguistic behavior as those in power, the police officers, showed a markedly neutral and indifferent response in contrast to those without, the students, who demonstrated a clearly supportive response when given the same information.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

There is a common sentiment that Americans are becoming increasingly polarized (Figure 1, Pew, 2023). Across the political spectrum, many identify the foremost culprit as: misinformation. While there is a growing body of research that points to dangerous levels of misinformation in our current digital age, to attribute polarization solely to misinformation is an oversimplification (Vasist et al., 2023). As information systems researcher Stahl points out, there is no singular “truth” (2006). We each carry with us implicit biases that paint the way we process information. Influenced by his research, we opted to study how divergence arises from people interpreting the same information differently due to identity-based idiosyncrasies.

Figure 1: As shown in this figure, according to a mass survey distributed by Pew Research Center, many Americans describe U.S. Politics as “divisive”, “messy”, and “polarized”.

Our design was influenced by Kahan et al. (2012), which asked subjects of various political beliefs whether the police acted lawfully or not after watching a video of an ambiguous protest to investigate the potential influence of ‘cultural cognition’ on perceptions of legally consequential facts. Since positions of power have been shown to play a significant role in shaping linguistic behavior in social settings, we decided to use relative authority as a factor of interpretative divergence—and—linguistic behavior as a measure for participants’ interpretations (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al. 2012).

Thus, we investigated how UCLA students and UCLA police officers interpreted an ambiguous protest scenario, hypothesizing that officers would use more critical language while students would use more positive terms, despite receiving the same information.

Methods

We employed a qualitative interview design to investigate how relative authority (being a student versus being a police officer) might correlate with differences in interpretation of the same video, as evidenced by linguistic behavior. We interviewed 6 participants–3 UCLA students and 3 UCPD officers–in-person. First, we asked about their age, ethnicity, gender, rank/year, and political leaning to account for potential both inter- and intra-group differences due to factors beyond position of authority. Then, the interviewer provided a single sentence of context for the video, describing it as a factory strike over stagnant wages in Belarus. The participants then viewed a ten second clip of the strike and were asked at least four questions:

  1. How would you characterize the people striking?
  2. How would you characterize the overall atmosphere of the protest?
  3. What do you believe is the primary motivation behind the protest?
  4. What impact do you think the protest has on the local community?

Interviews were to be 10-15 minutes long to provide enough data for rigorous linguistic analysis. In case responses ran under, interviewers were instructed to ask follow-up questions for each primary question, including:

  1. What from the video are you basing this perspective on?
  2. How do you think people with opposite political beliefs from you would respond to this question?

The questions were designed to elicit elaboration beyond the immediate facts of the video (there are people; they’re carrying signs; etc.), without insinuating any particular interpretation.

We analyzed transcriptions of their responses for diction (buzzwords, specific phrasings, etc.) to identify any notable patterns in linguistic behavior, which were then compared to reveal potential intra- and inter-group differences in the interpretation of the scenario. Finally, the findings were situated within a larger societal context to contribute to ongoing discussions of the relationship between information and perspective. 

Results and Analysis

We engaged in two levels of analysis, starting with an examination of each transcript for keywords and phrases, patterns in descriptions, and other notable features. Below is a short excerpt from one of the responses collected.

Figure 2: Comparison of responses between police officer 1 and student 1 when asked to characterize the overall atmosphere of the protest. [underlined words/segments reflect features that we noted as relevant diction for analysis]:
Second, we compared our analyses of the transcripts to yield insights about both within-group (student or police officer) and between-group commonalities and differences. To organize our findings, we organized extracts and our resulting insights into four categories/topics of interpretation:

Figure 3: Summarized responses of each group based on the four categories

Our data revealed that all participants shared a relatively positive view of protests. Though the difference in results were not as significant and explicit as expected, there were still clear linguistic differences. In contrast to students, who emphasized overt and immediate solidarity from the start, stating that the protestors were “supportive of each other” and “perseverant”, police officers were more hesitant in their responses, describing the protests as “passionate… but pretty peaceful” and “not very aggressive” before expressing mild approval.

The officers also mentioned that the protest could “cause disturbances” and “be a little disruptive” when asked about the possible impact on the community. Meanwhile, students continued to express support, characterizing the protests as a communal movement for the greater good. One student even expressed personal willingness to join, citing reasons such as fair wages, drawing from their own protest experiences. To summarize, all three students demonstrated clear patterns of empathetic identification with the protestors, while the officers exhibited a more distant, moderate sense of support.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our data reveals notable linguistic patterns amongst the police officers that differ from those of the students, strongly suggesting differences in the interpretation of the same scenario, which moderately aligns with our hypothesis. It’s important to note, however, that while the students used clearly positive diction to express support, the police officers were implicitly critical rather than using outright critical diction in describing the protestors. In sum, the discursive behavior of the students in comparison to the police officers suggested that the students by default held the protest in a positive regard, while the officers determined that the protest was generally acceptable but only because it met certain criteria (non-aggressive, minimal disruption, within scope of rights, etc.). Furthermore, our results align with that of Karjus’ study, which demonstrated a strong correlation between linguistic differences and American political polarization as each political faction constructs their own linguistic echo chamber of shared narratives of certain words and phrases, reinforcing their beliefs and causing further division (2023).

An unexpected challenge in gathering and analyzing our data was the consistently brief responses from officers, which were about a quarter to half as long as those from students. This reduced data volume may decrease confidence in our findings regarding police perspectives. However, the brevity could also suggest neutrality or indifference, reflecting a lack of strong opinion. Another plausible explanation: because of their stronger authority relative to the student, the officers felt less inclined to answer as thoroughly as the students. In this way, our positionality as students may have also affected the results of this study, a reminder of the elusive nature of the ecological validity that we anthropologists continue to seek.

This study contributes to research on communicative divergence and polarization by highlighting the role of relative authority/power in shaping differing views, even when information is controlled for. We urge future studies to explore additional factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnic/cultural background, and region, which may also influence divergent interpretations. Understanding these factors is crucial for modifying approaches to cooperation and peaceful resolution to combat polarization. Rather than focusing solely on ‘the facts,’ advocates must acknowledge and align with the underlying principles driving diverse interpretations.

References

Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Lee, L., Pang, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2012, April). Echoes of Power: Language Effects and Power Differences in Social Interaction PDF. Ithaca; Cornell University Department of Computer Science. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/Echoes_of_power_files/echoes_of_power.pdf

Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., Braman, D., Evans, D., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2012). “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speechconduct Distinction. Stanford Law Review, 64(4), 851–906. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41511108

Karjus, A., & Cuskley, C. (2023, September 4). Evolving linguistic divergence on Polarizing Social Media. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01659

Pew Research Center. (2023). Americans’ feelings about politics, polarization and the tone of political discourse. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-feelings-about-politics-polarization-and-the-tone-of-political-discourse/

Stahl, B. C. (2006). On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: A critical research perspective. Informing Science, 9, 83.

Vasist, P. N., Chatterjee, D., & Krishnan, S. (2023). The Polarizing Impact of Political Disinformation and Hate Speech: A Cross-country Configural Narrative. Information systems frontiers: a journal of research and innovation, 1–26. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10390-w

 [/expander_maker]

, , , ,

Uncovering Gendered Dynamics: A Comparative Analysis of Interactions Between Customers and Service Industry Workers

Sociolinguistics

Elizabeth Truong, Naomi Crandall, Zoe Jespersgaard, Jennifer Ma, Victoria Yu

In contemporary society, coffee shops act as significant social hubs, facilitating interactions between service workers and customers that reflect broader gender dynamics. This research investigates the nuances of gendered interactions within coffee shops, focusing on American college students in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles. The study aims to understand how gender influences various aspects of service worker-customer interactions, including word choice, politeness, and conversational patterns. Based on the hypothesis posited, which suggests that female-presenting customers are more likely to exhibit politeness towards service workers compared to their male-presenting counterparts, the research examines data collected through non-participant covert observation and conversation analysis. The findings reveal significant gender differences, with female-presenting individuals demonstrating more polite behaviors such as hedging and the use of politeness markers compared to their male-presenting counterparts. Female-female interactions were characterized by longer discussions and more pleasantries, while male-male interactions tended to be more direct. Overall, the study contributes to our understanding of gender dynamics in public spaces and underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing these dynamics for fostering inclusive environments.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction

Within modern society, coffee shops serve as social hubs, offering an ideal setting for individuals looking for a quick respite as well as providing us with critical information regarding the nuances of gendered interactions between service workers and customers. Interactions between service industry workers and customers play a key role in shaping the experiences within public spaces, revealing broader societal norms and dynamics. In this research paper, we investigate how the dynamics of service worker-customer interactions in coffee shops are impacted by gender, specifically focusing on various aspects such as word choice, personability, and politeness. This paper is focused on studying these interactions between the demographic of American college students, with data collection taking place in coffee shops in Westwood Village, close to the campus of the University of California Los Angeles. By analyzing these factors, we aim to contribute to the understanding of gender dynamics within service interactions, uncovering any patterns or disparities present. Our hypothesis posits that female-presenting customers are more likely to exhibit politeness towards service workers compared to their male-presenting counterparts. Additionally, we anticipate greater deviations from the conventional ordering process when the gender presentation of the customer aligns with that of the service worker.

Background

In observing service encounters, we see various linguistic properties which are present in communicative patterns, contributing to the dynamics of interaction. Some specific examples include politeness strategies, turn-taking patterns, gestures, and lexical choices. Politeness theory, developed by linguists Brown and Levinson is quite in-depth, and the following video made by the University of Vienna does a great job of simplifying some of its more complex aspects: https://youtu.be/e-B-kJi0Rek. Speakers often use politeness strategies to maintain positive social relations. The desire to be perceived as kind or polite is an example of a term known as positive face (Brown and Levinson 2006). As many people wish to be accepted and liked by others, we expect most customers to utilize positive face techniques such as smiling or engaging with the server in conversation outside of their order. This can involve using polite language, such as “please” and “thank you,” or softening directives and requests. In addition, conversations typically follow turn-taking patterns, where speakers take turns to contribute to the interaction. Signals such as pauses, intonation, or body language help regulate conversation flow and indicate when it is appropriate to speak. Moreover, nonverbal cues like facial expressions, gestures, and body language are also important. They complement verbal communication and may convey sincerity, friendliness, or authority. Lastly, the selection of words and phrases reflects cultural norms, social roles, and individual identities. Lexical choices can influence identity, social status, or group membership, contributing to the overall tone and meaning of the interaction.

Similarly, the data samples we have gathered closely align with these linguistic properties and patterns seen in other service encounters. A previous study, which looked at female politeness towards other females versus towards males, found that gender played a pivotal role in the presence of politeness. The authors found that females were more likely than males to speak politely to others, especially when speaking with other females (Keikhaie and Mozaffari 2015). Across the interactions in our research, both baristas and customers use polite greetings, express gratitude, and use personalized terms to address each party, fostering a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. Turn-taking patterns were also observed, with participants getting a chance to speak and respond. Additionally, positive body language, such as smiling and maintaining eye contact, contributes to a positive customer experience by maintaining an informal and relaxed environment. Overall, the data illustrates the importance of these linguistic elements in effective communication during service encounters.

Methods

The methods we used for data collection were non-participant covert observation and conversation analysis. We opted for non-participant covert observation of the interactions between the customer and barista in order to understand the social reality and implicit features of the interactions. With the participants not knowing that they are being observed, it ensures that the data is the most accurate and unbiased as it can be. We will also be analyzing the conversations we observe to investigate and gain more insight into the deeper meaning of the words and actions throughout the interactions.

To guide this research, our general research question is, do levels of politeness differ in server-customer interactions based on gender? Within this question, we also have some more specific focuses. They are as follows: How do different genders express and navigate face-saving and face-affirming behaviors through mechanisms such as hedging and politeness markers?; Do levels of intimacy and politeness differ in same-gender interactions as compared to different-gender interactions?; Are male or female-identifying people treated with more politeness?; Do male or female-identifying people use more politeness markers? Our general hypothesis is that females will use more face-saving behaviors and be less direct when ordering and interacting with customers.

Results

In order to gain a more complete understanding of the gendered relationships between customers and service workers, we collected data from different coffee shops in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. The coffee shops that we collected data from include Alfred Coffee, Starbucks, Ministry of Coffee, and Stereoscope in Hollywood. Our general hypothesis for our research was that females would use more face-saving behaviors and be less direct when ordering and interacting with customers. Based on our data samples taken from various coffee shops, it can be seen that females are more likely to initiate an interaction and use pleasantries during a service encounter. After analyzing the 17 conversational samples that we have collected thus far, we were able to group some behaviors that we felt applied to our hypothesis. The following categories are presented below, accompanied by examples derived from the dataset.

Hedging

The data revealed distinct gendered differences in the interactions between customers and service industry workers. Our observations consistently indicated hedging behavior among female customers, evidenced by the frequent use of words such as “um” and employing indirect language when placing orders. Female customers had the tendency to substitute “could” for “can” during these brief interactions. Additionally, the hedging term “just” was more prevalent in the speech of female customers within the dataset. Furthermore, female customers exhibited greater pauses or displayed hesitance while placing their orders.

Introductory Greetings

Across all data sets, we found that female service industry workers were more likely to ask the customer how they were doing in addition to giving a standard greeting. Additionally, the data show that although both male and female baristas will initiate the interaction between them and their customers, females are more likely to ask about a customer’s well-being as part of the introductory greeting.

Politeness Markers

The data show that the majority of the time, female customers were significantly more likely to say “please” while making their requests. Additionally, we found that across all the data sets, there was less smiling involved in male-to-male interactions. One data set found that the male barista solely smiled at female customers, maintaining a neutral expression for male customers.

We found that female customers are more likely to respond politely and provide detailed information about their order, contrasting with the male customer’s direct and concise style.

Volume

Based on the observed data, both the customers and service industry workers maintained a consistent volume level throughout the majority of their interactions, with subtle variations in assertiveness, such as a female barista taking a slightly more assertive tone during certain interactions. Across all data sets, we found that the volume of female speakers in both roles was lower than that of their male counterparts. We also found that female customers tended to end their sentences with a higher pitch, while male customers kept their tone and volume consistent throughout the entire interaction.

Length of Discussion

Across all data sets, the longest discussions that took place were in female-female interactions while the shortest interactions tended to be in male-male interactions, with very few pleasantries.

We observed a consistent pattern between these interactions with the deviations occurring primarily in female-female interactions. One deviation that we recorded was a female barista complimenting a female customer’s sweater. Additionally, we recorded a sense of friendliness and camaraderie when a female barista made a mistake when taking an order from a female customer and the two laughed together. Across all the interactions, the male-male interactions required significantly less clarification of their orders. We were able to conclude that longer interactions are likely characterized by the female customer providing detailed information about their order. Male customers usually order without much elaboration, thus leading to shorter and more direct interactions.

Discussion

The data show that there are significant gender differences in the interactions between service industry workers and customers. The results of this study show that there were gendered differences in hedging, introductory greetings, politeness markers, volume, and discussion length. Female customers were significantly more likely to exhibit hedging behaviors than their male counterparts, demonstrating hesitation and less confidence in the interaction overall. While male customers rarely demonstrated hedging behavior and tended to have a more dominant approach to the conversation, especially when speaking to a female barista. Additionally, the data show that although both gendered service industry employees provided some sort of greeting, female service industry workers were significantly more likely to ask the customer about their well-being in addition to providing a standard greeting.

While surveying politeness markers, the data show that female-presenting customers were more likely to utilize polite terms such as “please” and “thank you” than male-presenting customers. Additionally, our study found that female-presenting customers were more likely to respond politely and provide more detailed information regarding their order while male-presenting customers tended to adopt a more concise and direct approach. Across all data sets, we found that there were fewer non-verbal politeness cues such as smiling in male-male interactions. Previous studies have produced similar results that show females interacting with other females will utilize polite behavior more often than their male counterparts. The authors explain that this may be because women are more conscious of rejection and stigma and therefore put in more effort to be perceived in a positive way (Keikhaie and Mozaffari 2015). In our research, the male-presenting customers had the tendency to adopt a more dominant and less friendly approach to these interactions, highlighting their perception of their importance and role within this particular community.

In terms of volume, our data show very little variation. Both gender identities maintained a consistent volume throughout their interactions, however, female-presenting customers and service workers utilized a lower volume overall, ending their sentences with a higher pitch. Alternatively, while studying conversation length, we found that female-female interactions were significantly longer than male-male interactions. This variation is due to the use of more pleasantries in female-female interactions as well as the absence of these pleasantries and the more direct tone used in male-male interactions.

While our study is able to successfully identify gender differences in hedging, the presence of introductory greetings, politeness markers, volume, and discussion length, it is important to note that our research is primarily focused on the Los Angeles neighborhood of Westwood. Although the individuals who visit local Westwood establishments possess very diverse backgrounds and gender identities, this is not the case in all communities across the United States. Different communities may have differing opinions on gender identities and thus have drastically different interactions based on their community’s view on gender identities. In order to gain a more complete understanding of how these interactions between service industry workers and customers vary by gender, more research must be done examining broader geographical areas. By expanding the geographic range of this study, we will be able to come to a more concrete understanding of the different practices and patterns utilized between different genders in service industry interactions.

Conclusion

After conducting a thorough literature review as well as completing data collection such as observations and conversation analyses, we found that female-presenting customers and service industry workers were significantly more likely to utilize polite behaviors than their male-presenting counterparts. The data show clear patterned differences between these service industry interactions in the categories of hedging, the presence of introductory greetings, politeness markers, volume, and the length of the interaction. In each of these categories, the female-presenting customers and service industry workers utilize more polite approaches when addressing each other and members of the opposite gender. These results provide valuable information regarding not only the gender roles within service industry interactions but also the underlying social norms and dynamics within a public sphere.

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2006.). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. In The Discourse Reader (2nd ed., pp. 311–323). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Forseth, U. (2005). Gender matters? Exploring how gender is negotiated in service encounters. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(5), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00283.x

Gibson, E. K. (2014, May 27). Would you like manners with that? A study of gender, polite questions, and the fast‐food industry. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/4031180/E._K._GIBSON_-_A_study_of_gender_polite_questions_and_the_fast_food_industry

Hultgren, A. K. (2017). New perspectives on language and gender: Linguistic prescription and compliance in Call Centres. Language in Society, 46(5), 671–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404517000574

Keikhaie, Y., & Mozaffari, Z. (2015). A Socio-linguistic Survey on Females’ Politeness Strategies in the Same Gender and in the Cross-Gender Relationship. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 51-82. doi: 10.22111/ijals.2015.1877

Schnabel, Lukas. “Politeness in Linguistics: An Overview.” YouTube, uploaded by Lukas Schnabel, 23 June 2019, https://youtu.be/e-B-kJi0Rek

Taylor, J. L. (n.d.). I Need a Coffee: Pragmalinguistic Variation of Starbucks Service Encounter Requests According to Interaction Modality. Indiana University. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iulcwp/article/download/26219/31840/61913

West, C. (1993). Reconceptualizing gender in physician-patient relationships. Social Science & Medicine, 36(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90305-n

 [/expander_maker]

, , , ,

Fluency Ideologies Amongst Undergraduate Bi- and Multilinguals

Bilingualism

Kendall Vanderwouw, Rachel Liu, Julia Tran, Nessa Laxamana, Thalia Rothman

UCLA is an incredibly diverse institution, with over 5,000 international students and 100 nations being represented. It is no surprise, then, that they boast a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. From this wealth of information, we sought to explore fluency ideologies amongst bi- and multilingual undergraduates, aged 18 to 22. Through this course and personal experiences, it’s become evident that the definition of fluency is in constant flux. A largely self-defined term, fluency could encompass everything from native-level repertoire to conversational proficiency. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether linguistic background impacted self-perception of fluency.

We engaged in semi-structured interviews with 30 undergraduates to explore this phenomenon and its implications amongst different languages. As we dove deeper, however, we observed little variation in how different languages defined fluency. Rather, most participants revealed similar definitions, centering around, “the ability to express feelings and complex ideas.” Instead, participants expressed a positive relationship between self-perceived fluency and a sense of familial or cultural connection. This finding and others ultimately led us to a new research question that targeted whether an individual’s fluency in a language, upbringing, environment, and cultural background can influence linguistic identity.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

Our research began with questions regarding linguistic identity and fluency. Why do definitions of fluency fluctuate? Are definitions of fluency influenced by our linguistic backgrounds? What is the role of fluency in our cultural lives? Our participant pool represented a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds with which to answer these questions. This unique context provided a near-direct perspective into the context of language acquisition since many students had recently left backgrounds of language learning or were still in proximity to them, such as high school and familial environments.

We examined these curiosities through a series of interviews, taking an ethnographic approach to gain a more holistic understanding of the perspectives of our participants. After consolidating interview data, our research focus pivoted in a slightly different direction, one that looked at how a variety of factors—including fluency—can influence one’s linguistic identity. Our central research question was finalized as such:

Does an individual’s fluency in a language, upbringing, environment, and cultural background influence their linguistic identity?

Overall, our project ultimately represented a variety of linguistic backgrounds and cultural identities, with 18 languages spoken by 30 different speakers. This is visually represented in Figure 1, created by one of our group members to illustrate the linguistic diversity of our participants.

Figure 1: Tran, J. (2024). A map illustrating the linguistic and cultural spread of our participants

 To garner a more in-depth understanding of our topic and to examine the current state of research, we engaged with readings regarding fluency ideologies as well as bi- and multi-lingual experiences. Such research provided context that informed our later analyses and conclusions.

For example, we found in several articles (Zubrzycki 2019; King 2013) that self-perceived fluency had the potential to give rise to shame or embarrassment in being unable to match the proficiency of others who may be exhibiting native-level fluency. Such ideologies create the daunting expectation that fluency necessitates a native-level mastery of a language. In addition to these academic sources, we found similar ideologies being proliferated through less formal means, such as YouTube videos. One video from Ted-Ed discussed the benefits of bilingualism to our brains, and in doing so put forth the concept of a “balanced bilingual,” which they describe as an individual who has equal proficiency in their languages. The video puts this idea forth, however, in order to make the point that the majority of bi- and multi-lingual speakers use their languages in different proportions and in varying scenarios. We found that videos such as this help to contribute towards a less stringent narrative of fluency that could lessen the shame caused by self-comparison to native speakers. 

Figure 2; Ted-Ed. (2015). A screenshot from the Ted-Ed video discussing bilingualism and how it may affect an individual’s brain.

This left our group wondering whether such ideologies would be found amongst our participants, and what factors would lead to the formation of the expectation to be natively fluent. Overall, these initial investigations revealed to us that there are certainly links between linguistic identity and fluency self-perception. Our goal through this project was to contribute to this existing pool of knowledge and to provide a voice for our participants to express their unique ideologies.

Methods

Using semi-structured interviews, comprising of 12 standardized questions, we decided to take an ethnographic approach to our data collection. Through this process, we searched for self-perceptions of fluency, past language acquisition environments, as well as any current language ideologies regarding themselves. This methodology was deliberately chosen in order to produce consistent, qualitative data while also providing room for our participants to elaborate upon concepts and topics of their choosing. When permission was granted, we recorded the interviews for the purpose of deeper analysis as well as direct quoting in our project. Our participant pool were undergraduate college students, aged 18 to 22 years old.

Some of the questions that we asked were as follows: “In what circumstances / how often do you use this (these) language(s)?”, “How do you define being “fluent” in a language?”, and “Was it important to your parents/community that you were fluent in this language? What about you?”

Results and Analysis

Our data provided us with different viewpoints and ideologies regarding bilingualism and multilingualism. However, 60% of our participants defined fluency as the ability to express feelings and complex ideas, beyond the introductory phase in the language they speak. Some participants were more descriptive, stating that the ability to speak about specific things, such as the country’s government system, or even cultural idioms or slang. Some were less specific, stating that if you can get by in daily scenarios, you are fluent. 

Figure 3; Laxamana, Nessa. (2024). A graphic showcasing how our participants defined fluency.

We also were able to discover different values that our participants held knowing their other language(s). 77% of our participants stated that they used their language to communicate with their family members, which is why they were able to become fluent in their language. This shows that language serves as a communication between different generations of people, for example between grandkids and grandparents.

Figure 4; Laxamana, Nessa. (2024). A pie chart illustrating when and where our participants use their non-dominant languages.

We interviewed those born in and outside the U.S., and one interviewee stated that being fluent in that language makes them feel more connected to their culture as seen in EX. 1. However, the variation in answers slightly differed between those born in different countries and those born in the U.S. For those born outside the U.S., they stated that their fluency in the language was a way to connect them back home. For those born in the U.S., they stated that fluency in the language was influential in how connected to their culture/mother tongue.

EX. 1

Discussion and Conclusion

At the center of our research was an investigation into the factors that make up and influence linguistic identity. We ultimately align our definition of linguistic identity with a reading from our initial research (Dressler 2014, p. 43), which argues that “linguistic identity can be expressed in terms of expertise (i.e. linguistic competence), affiliation (formal or informal connections), or inheritance (familial connections).” None of these factors were considered to be mutually exclusive in our research. As previously exemplified, the linguistic identities of our participants were commonly observed to be in line with more than one of the pathways mentioned above. Most importantly, our research brought about more understanding of how people’s various reasons for their language fluency are intertwined largely with their understanding of culture and belonging. Language and communication with others are important to keeping cultures and traditions alive, it serves as a sense of cultural connection for most. With our findings, we discovered an insight into how language fluency, ideology, and culture intertwine with one another.

References

Dressler, R. (2015). Exploring Linguistic Identity in Young Multilingual Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 32 (1), 42. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1198

King, K. A. (2013). A Tale of Three Sisters: Language Ideologies, Identities, and Negotiations in a Bilingual, Transnational Family. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2013.746800

Ted-Ed. (2015, June 23). The benefits of a bilingual brain – Mia Nacamulli [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmOLN5zBLY

Zubrzycki, K. (2019). Am I perfect enough to be a true bilingual? Monolingual bias in the lay perception and self-perception of bi- and multilinguals . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(4), 447-495. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0095

 [/expander_maker]

, , , , , ,

Profanity Amongst Undergraduate Students

Sociolinguistics

Jesus Nocelotl, Fernanda Madrazo

For most people, college can be a difficult and exciting journey within one’s life. The new experience of living on your own, independence and responsibility of forming your own decisions, and for many, the chance to make and begin new meaningful friendships. Oftentimes, in communities that foster a sense of group identity and culture, such as college, and especially for young adults, the formation of friendships and relationships starts with interaction and language between individuals. Language is an essential aspect of our everyday lives, proven to be an effective way of communicating with others and a tool for forming relationships through shared experiences and identity.

The importance of social interactions in a college aged environment is of great significance, as many young adults see college as a new chapter within their life and an opportunity to form new bonds. Especially in the age of social media, college students often resort and feel the need for social and group identities to create friendships. One of the most commonly observed uses of language in college environments is the use of profanity to communicate between individuals. Profanity is commonly used in conversation as a measure to emphasize meaning, common slang, or a sense of group identity. For our group’s research project, undergraduate students and their prevalent use of expressing profanity in active conversation was used to analyze deeper meanings between language and social identity. Throughout our findings, we observed the most commonly used phrases and made relevant connections to age, group identity, and especially gender identity, to support and provide deeper meaning to the importance of language, young adult life, and college environment.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

In observed profanity used in conversation, the choice and diction are influenced by the people engaging in conversation and present scenarios. For our research proposal, our group was interested in evaluating how prolific profanity is present in conversation by fellow undergraduate students at UCLA. When deciding on a target population, our group thought that fellow undergraduates would be a good target since we are more likely to relate to and understand undergraduates and their profane word usage. In addition to common relation, it is observed that college-aged students would be most likely to engage in active conversation using slang and profanity1, which would help gather more information and more culturally and generationally relevant profane words. Profane words are of special interest as they often carry more emphasis and meaning within American youth culture, and are especially observed when trying to “fit in” a certain group. Although much can be inferred on the significance of profanity to “fit in”, not much research is conducted on undergraduates’ frequency of profanity in relationship to observed gender groups. Since not much has been researched on the relationship between gender identity and profanity prevalence in college environments, our group decided to shift focus to explore this interesting topic. For our group’s initial hypothesis, we believed that through our findings, we would expect to see undergraduate males engaging in high volumes/cases of profanity within active conversation compared to their female counterparts. Our initial hypothesis was structured around gender roles and through our own shared experiences as young adult undergraduates, where males are often seen as casually expressing profanity and females are more likely to be reserved and professional in their profane word choices.

Methods

To gather information about this research topic, our group decided to conduct an online survey that would be accessible to the target population via social media. The survey was mostly focused on the topic of profanity, and asked what were the most common swear words individuals used and allowed them to elaborate on the scenario where they would be most comfortable using their selected word. Since the survey was already targeted to undergraduate students and required general information such as gender and undergraduate grade level, we included the opportunity for individuals to provide more information if they felt comfortable. Further elaboration included but was not limited to: gender identity, group membership, and race. This elaboration was important to the research project, as it allowed us to understand where profanity and relation sentiment could be applied to, such as Sororities, Fraternities, and group and social identity.

Results and Analysis

Figure 1: Data table displaying the observed frequency of profane word choices submitted by male undergraduate students of varying identities. Information and word columns obtained from our group’s undergraduate survey

The results of our survey yielded a varied spread of words that students self-identified as their most commonly used. As indicated in Figure 1, “fuck” was the most frequently used word, but “bitch” and “hoe” were not too far behind, with 5 and 3 people identifying it, respectively. However, the most surprising aspect of the survey came in the results of the questions where students explained what each word meant to them. Male respondents most commonly ranked “fuck” as their most used word, and said they used it with friends as a catch-all to mean many different things. However, male-identifying respondents also explained that they believed that the words “bitch” and “hoe” were related to and connotated women. For example, “A female” or “a rude person, usually a woman tbh. like when my boss is being a pain, “shes such a bitch”’ were two responses given by men who completed the survey. The majority of men who completed the survey answered in similar ways, saying that the meaning they gave to these words align with the original view which centered around patriarchal and misogynistic views on gender roles.

Figure 2: Data table displaying the observed frequency of profane word choices submitted by female undergraduate students of varying identities. Information and word columns obtained from our group’s undergraduate survey

On the other hand, Figure 2 demonstrates that female-identifying respondents use the words “bitch” and “hoe” more frequently than other swear words. Overwhelmingly, the meaning ascribed to these words is positive. For example, respondents said, “just means like “girlll”, or “bitch is either a positive or a negative thing. my best friend is my bitch (positive)… i rarely use it in the negative context. it can also be a positive general exclamation of support, like if a friend does something they’re proud of or wears a nice outfit and i want to show encouragement.” Women use these words in the context of friendship, endearment, or as a way to show sisterhood. They have redefined what the words mean and reframed them in a positive way that uplifts and supports other women, instead of denigrating them as men might intend the words for.

Discussion

The results of the research we conducted were fairly surprising to us. We expected there to be a difference in usage of profanity between genders, but the questions that we asked as follow-up in the survey were very enlightening. We discussed the results in a comparison to racial slurs that have been reclaimed throughout history. Racial minorities used slurs that were originally demeaning to them, and now use them in a context that expresses solidarity, unity, respect, and understanding within their own communities. The results that we obtained from our research could point toward a similar trend in college students when it comes to words which typically denote negative attitudes toward women. The female culture in college and in young people is reclaiming the meanings of these words in a similar fashion in order to empower women and reframe traditionally gendered views. We would like to see this research continued on a much broader scale, encompassing students in different regions of the United States, and also expanding toward different age groups. Further research can be done to expand understanding on how changing gender roles can be reflected in individual meaning given to the words in common vocabularies.

References

Güvendir, E. (2015, March 16). Why are males inclined to use strong swear words more than females? an evolutionary explanation based on male intergroup aggressiveness. Language Sciences. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000115000194

Howard University News Service, Haynes, A., NewsVision, H. U., Miles, P., Thomas, V., Steib, A., Alabi, N., Pierre, A., & Harris, T. (2010, January 31). Profanity among college students. Howard University News Service. https://hunewsservice.com/news/profanity-among-college-students/

National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport, Babushko, S., Solovei, L. (2019). What Makes University Students Swear. Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University of Ukraine. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1305437.pdf

The University of Mississippi Undergraduate Research Journal, Knirnschild, J. (2019) “The Gender Differences in Perceived Obscenity of Vulgar, Profane, and Derogatory – Language Usage among U.S. University Students,” The University of Mississippi Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol 3, Article 4 /https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/v iewcontent.cgiarticle=1050&context=umurjournal#:~:text=Men%20have%20been%20found%20to,with%20women%20being%20scrutinized%20more

Wong, S. C., Teh, P. L., & Cheng, C.-B. (2020). How Different Genders Use Profanity on Twitter? International Conference on Compute and Data Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1145/3388142.3388145

 [/expander_maker]

, ,

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

Sociolinguistics

Tina Festekdjian, Krunali Mehta, Mark Keosian, Tatiana Akopyan

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

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

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

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

Methods

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

Results and Analysis

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

Table 1: Cultures of Respondents

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

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

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

Table 3: Preference for words/actions in romantic relationships

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

Table 4: Cross-Cultural Text Messages

Discussion, Conclusion, and Contributions

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/expander_maker]

, , , ,
Scroll to Top