Speech Style

In-Person vs. Digital Communication Styles Among Classmates

Megu Kondo, Devina Harminto, Yixing Wang, Yinlin Xie, Batool Al Yousif

In the rapidly evolving landscape of communication, the distinction between in-person and digital communication has become a focal point of linguistic and sociocultural studies. This project delves into the nuanced differences in language use, expression, and understanding across these two modes of communication. The purpose of this study is to investigate how individuals adapt language styles, tones, and dialects between in-person and digital communication. Additionally, our study aims to explore these preferences specifically among classmates, shedding light on the nuances of their communication choices. By examining various linguistic features such as informality, use of emojis, turn-taking, and the adaptation to the absence of non-verbal cues in digital platforms, this study illuminates how digital communication often necessitates a shift from traditional language norms observed in face-to-face interactions. We designed a survey using Google Forms for accessibility and ease of distribution and collected data from 30 college students (18-22 years old) who engage in both in-person and digital communication.

Introduction and Background

In the evolving landscape of communication, the distinction between in-person and digital interaction has become a key area of sociolinguistic study. This project investigates how language styles, expressions, and understandings are adapted between these two modes of communication, particularly among college students. The study examines linguistic features such as informality, emoji usage, and turn-taking, shedding light on the nuances of their communication choices.

Traditionally, in-person communication has been valued for its richness and immediacy. This mode allows for a wealth of non-verbal cues such as gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voice, all of which enrich the communication experience and help in accurately conveying emotions. Face-to-face interactions also foster a sense of connection and immediacy, which are often crucial for forming strong interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, digital communication offers unparalleled convenience and flexibility. Platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, and WeChat have revolutionized how we interact, making it possible to maintain relationships over long distances with ease. The digital transformation of communication has brought about significant changes in the linguistic practices of individuals, particularly young adults. The incorporation of multimedia elements such as images, videos, and emojis attempts to bridge the gap in emotional expression that the lack of physical presence creates. However, these elements, while helpful, often fall short of fully replicating the subtleties conveyed through face-to-face interactions. The gap highlights the potential for misunderstanding and the need for enhanced digital literacy in order to navigate the complexities of modern communication.

The primary focus of this study is to assess the preferences of college students (aged 18-22) who regularly engage in both in-person and digital communication. It aims to document their perceived advantages and drawbacks of each mode, particularly in terms of emotional expressiveness and the potential for misunderstandings. Additionally, the study delves into the phenomenon of code-switching — altering one’s language, tone, or style according to the communication platform — which reflects broader cultural identities and adaptability in digital spaces.

Methodology

To examine the differences in communication styles between in-person and digital interactions among college students, we conducted a thorough survey of students aged 18-22. Our methodology ensured that we collected data from a diverse and representative sample, which is critical for drawing meaningful conclusions.

The survey was created with Google Forms, leveraging its accessibility and ease of use to reach a large audience. We divided the survey into three major sections: demographics, communication preferences, and emoji usage. The demographics section gathered basic data such as age, nationality, and primary languages spoken. The communication preferences section explored the participants’ preferred modes of communication, the differences in word and phrase usage between these modes, the ease of conveying emotions, and their awareness of changing language styles or tones. The final section focused on emoji usage, asking about frequency, meanings, and emoji-related misunderstandings. We ensured a diverse participant pool by distributing the survey through social media platforms and student groups, which reached students from a variety of cultural backgrounds and academic disciplines.

Figure 1. Example of a survey question from the section on communication preferences.

The survey responses were automatically compiled into a Google Sheets spreadsheet, allowing for efficient organization and preliminary analysis. We calculated frequencies, percentages, and averages for the quantitative data to summarize demographic information and communication preferences, giving us a clear picture of the data’s major trends and patterns. We used thematic analysis to examine qualitative data, particularly open-ended responses about emoji usage and communication preferences. This process involved coding the responses and identifying common themes, which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the participants’ experiences and perceptions. We used this methodology to gain a thorough and nuanced understanding of how college students navigate the complexities of in-person and digital communication. By analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, we were able to identify key trends and patterns in communication styles, providing valuable insights into the changing landscape of digital communication. The use of advanced data analysis tools and rigorous thematic procedures ensured that our findings were robust and reflective of the diverse experiences within our sample. This methodology not only provided a strong framework for our research, but it also ensured that our findings were based on a diverse and representative sample, adding to the larger conversation about language use and social interaction among young adults.

Analysis and Results

We were able to attain a total of 30 participants, whose ages were between 19 to 26. Figure 2 shows that the majority of participants were Asians at 73.3%, and the other 26.7% of the participants were American. The results of the survey garnered a better understanding of how college students prefer in-person communication over online conversation.

Figure 2. Chart detailing answers to the question “What is your nationality?”

Figure 3. Chart detailing the responses to the question “What are your preferred social media platforms?”

Figure 3 shows that Instagram is the most popular social media platform among college students with 80%. 24 participants use Instagram to communicate with others since Instagram is very common among the younger generation; people can post pictures and send each other direct messages. 13.3% of the participants like to use WeChat, which is because some of them are international students who can easily communicate with their friends in China through the platform.

Figure 4. Chart displaying whether respondents prefer to talk to classmates online, in person, or either/both.

The data from Figure 4 shows a strong preference for in-person communication among participants, with 50% favoring this way over online interactions or a combination of both because they feel more productive communicating in person. On the other side, 23.3% prefer online communication, reflecting a significant proportion that values the convenience and accessibility of digital platforms. Meanwhile, 26.7% of participants are comfortable with both ways, suggesting a flexible communication preference that could be influenced by situational factors.

Figure 5. Chart displaying respondents’ feelings about how easy it is to convey emotion through text vs. in person.

In-person communication is generally considered to be more effective in conveying emotions than text-based communication, with 80% of respondents preferring face-to-face communication. Only 10% of respondents believe that online platforms are effective in conveying emotions, and online platforms are likely to use GIFs and emojis. This suggests that digital interactions are not perceived to be enough to express emotional states, which may lead to a lack of empathy in conversations. Face-to-face interactions remain crucial for a deeper emotional connection, underscoring the limitations of digital platforms in replicating the richness of in-person exchanges.

Figure 6. Chart representing whether respondents believe emojis can lead to misunderstandings.

43.3% of respondents believe that emojis can lead to misunderstandings, while the same percentage of respondents said they do not. This polarization highlights the ambiguity of emojis, which may be interpreted differently depending on individual circumstances and cultural backgrounds. The remaining 13.3% respondents were unsure of their impact.

Figure 7. Question from emoji usage portion of survey.

Based on the data collected from our survey, it is evident that emoji interpretations vary significantly among users. An analysis of the responses revealed divergent interpretations of several emojis. For instance, the smiley emoji 😃, conventionally associated with happiness and positivity, was perceived by some participants as conveying creepiness. The skull emoji 💀, which typically signifies extreme laughter, frustration, or affection according to Apple’s official description, was interpreted by respondents as representing extreme fatigue or exhaustion, akin to the expression “I am so tired, I am dying.” Moreover, it was also seen as indicating laughter, albeit more intense and devoid of any undertones, compared to 😭. Notably, the 😭emoji has lead to the most misunderstanding in their online conversation compare to others. 😭, which Apple describes as depicting a face with an open mouth, wailing, and shedding streams of heavy tears, symbolizing inconsolable grief or intense emotions such as uncontrollable laughter or overwhelming joy, was commonly misinterpreted. Participants reported using it in adverse situations, with connotations such as “yikes” or “can’t believe my bad luck,” “need help,” and some even perceived it as laughter accompanied by a sense of embarrassment. The findings from our survey underscore the complexity and variability in emoji interpretations among users, which can be quite different from what they are officially meant to represent. This can sometimes lead to confusion in online conversations. It’s important to remember these differences when using emojis, suggesting a need for greater awareness of contextual differences in emoji usage to avoid misunderstandings and make sure our messages are clear.

For additional insights and nuances, the context of the communication also appears to play a critical role in the preferred mode. For instance, for quick updates or logistical arrangements, digital communication is often favored for its efficiency. However, for more complex discussions or sensitive topics, in-person interactions are preferred due to the richer, more nuanced exchange they enable. It is also worth noting that some students reported a gradual shift in their preferences towards digital communication as they adapted to the constraints imposed by recent global events such as the pandemic. This adaptation process reflects the dynamic nature of communication preferences in response to external changes.

Based on the data, the majority of college students still prefer and find it more effective to communicate in person, particularly for emotional interactions. The findings indicate that although some students recognize the advantages of online communication, most still believe that in-person contact is more beneficial, especially when it comes to expressing emotions, and students feel more productive since people can get through everything right away. This outcome contradicts our hypothesis, highlighting the complexity of communication preferences among college students. Further analysis shows that communication preferences may vary significantly based on factors like the student’s academic major, cultural background, and prior exposure to diverse communication platforms.

Discussion

Our findings contradict the idea that generation Z is used to being on online communication platforms. In the article by Janssen (2021), generation Z is often referred to as “digital natives.” They are considered the first generation to grow up entirely in the digital age, influencing their communication habits significantly. They are described as “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games, and the internet. Texting and instant messaging are preferred over traditional communication methods like phone calls and emails. Generation Z uses smartphones heavily for personal communication, often choosing texting or messaging apps over voice communication. Despite their preference for texting, generation Z adapts to professional communication norms. For example, they use email extensively at work, despite rarely using it in personal contexts. This indicates flexibility in their communication styles, adapting to different linguistic expectations based on context. Surprisingly, our findings are totally opposite from this perspective of generation Z.

For the limitations of the study, while our study focused on college students aged 18-22, this demographic may not fully represent the broader population’s communication preferences. The age group and educational environment might influence communication styles more specific to this demographic, such as familiarity with digital platforms or developmental aspects related to social interactions. Additionally, the study relies heavily on self-reported data, which can introduce bias. Participants might respond in ways they perceive as socially acceptable or based on their aspirational self-image rather than their actual behavior. This can affect the accuracy of data concerning preferred communication modes and the effectiveness of emoji usage in conveying emotions.

The phenomenon of code-switching, where individuals adapt their language based on the audience’s cultural and linguistic background, further illustrates the adaptability required in digital communication and highlights the ongoing evolution of language use on these platforms. “Another study conducted by Alfaifi (2013) on intrasentential CS in Facebook comments written by 10 Saudi Arabic-English bilinguals found that intrasentential CS was used with gossip and humor, English was used for academic and technical terms, and Arabic was used for religious topics” (Elhija 357). Digital communication often sees a higher incidence of code-switching, where bilingual or multilingual speakers switch between languages or dialects depending on the audience, topic, or platform. While this can showcase linguistic flexibility, it also highlights the challenges of maintaining cultural nuances in digital communication, which may not always provide the contextual cues necessary for appropriate language use. This underscores the persistent value of traditional communication methods in an increasingly digital world and suggests that digital platforms still need to evolve to support the subtleties of human emotion and expression fully.

Conclusion

Our study began with the hypothesis that college students would prefer online communication over in-person interactions, primarily due to the flexibility and reduced social anxiety that digital platforms are presumed to offer. This hypothesis was rooted in the belief that the modern digital environment, with its asynchronous communication and absence of physical presence, might alleviate the pressures associated with face-to-face interaction. The data, however, painted a different picture. Contrary to our expectations, 50% of the participants clearly preferred to communicate with their classmates in person, appreciating the depth of emotion and clarity that comes with real-time, face-to-face interactions. Only 23.3% expressed a preference for online communication. This finding suggests that despite the convenience of digital platforms, they are insufficient for fulfilling all communicative needs, especially those that involve emotional depth and nuance.

The results of our study provide a nuanced understanding of how college students navigate the complexities of digital and in-person communication. While digital platforms offer undeniable convenience and flexibility, our findings suggest that they do not fully replicate the emotional richness and immediacy of face-to-face interactions. Half of the participants expressed a preference for in-person communication, particularly valuing its effectiveness in conveying emotions — a fundamental aspect of human interaction that digital platforms have yet to fully capture. Moreover, our investigation into emoji use revealed a balanced scenario: emojis enhance textual communication by adding emotional depth, yet they also lead to misunderstandings in nearly half of the cases reported. This indicates a significant gap in how emotional nuances are perceived and understood in digital contexts. By realistically assessing these results, we acknowledge that while digital communication technologies have transformed how we connect and interact, they are not a complete substitute for in-person interactions. Instead, they are a complementary medium that requires further refinement to meet the emotional and contextual needs of users fully. Future research should focus on developing and testing new technologies that can better accommodate the complex dynamics of human communication, bridging the gap between the efficiency of digital communication and the emotional depth of face-to-face interactions. As a result, this study not only challenges previous assumptions about digital communication preferences but also enriches our understanding of how young adults toggle between digital and real-world interactions, shaping their social identities and relationships in the process.

References

Brenda Danet, Susan C. Herring, Introduction: the Multilingual Internet, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 9, Issue 1, 1 November 2003, JCMC9110, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00354.x.

Defede, N., Magdaraog, N. M., Thakkar, S. C., & Bizel, G. (2021). Understanding How Social Media Is Influencing the Way People Communicate: Verbally and Written. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 13(2), 1-. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v13n2p1.

Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Granger, S. (2019). “English as a Lingua Franca in Digital Communication: Diverse Voices, Similar Scripts?” Lexis Journal in English Lexicology, 14, 193-217. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.1831.

Elhija, D. A. (2023). Code Switching in Digital Communication. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 13, 355-372. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2023.133021.

Psych Minds. (n.d.). Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face Interactions. Retrieved from https://psychminds.com/communication-online-vs-face-to-face-interactions/.

Schroeder, J. (2019). Two Social Lives: How Differences Between Online and Offline Interaction Influence Social Outcomes. https://escholarship.org/content/qt94n9w8b9/qt94n9w8b9_noSplash_293949a5e051fffc8e1fdcc9ffc168c4.pdf?t=qdtezb.

Zhao, Y. (2021). The Impact of Digital Media on Language Styles and Communication Methods Based on Text, Image, and Video Forms. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378739166_The_Impact_of_Digital_Media_on_Language_Styles_and_Communication_Methods_Based_on_Text_Image_and_Video_Forms.

D. Janssen and S. Carradini, “Generation Z Workplace Communication Habits and Expectations,” in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 137-153, June 2021, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2021.3069288.

Appendix

Our survey link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScCFoDiKMbxxYVWXmxPAEwQIKfTjg8mx1qtZFL9oA55R9WpPg/viewform?usp=sf_link

college students, emojis, Gen Z, social media, Speech Style, texting

Do you LOL out loud? Screen time influence on internet slang irl

Sociolinguistics

Julia Baylon, Rachel Rim, Carolina Guerrero, Hebbah Elokour, and Caelynn Hwang

If you’re a college student reading this, you are a key individual in the composition of the Gen Z identity. Gen Z, today’s 18-23-year-olds, is defined by its fervent slang usage as well as its notorious association with and attachment to technology. Commonly used components of technology in Gen Z include social media platforms, such as Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, TikTok, and Discord. This study investigates the relationship between the two variables of time exposed to social media and slang-impacted conversational speech style. As slang rapidly evolves to shape communication and accommodate the construction and expression of individual identity, we begin to ponder, where does this language style come from, and to what extent does it influence our diction? Through conversational analysis and survey/questionnaire conduction, we hope to understand the explicit impact of social media on conversational slang and whether or not the results support our hypothesis, which argues that greater usage of slang on the internet and/or overall internet presence will result in a higher frequency of slang used in real life.

Our burning question

In a direct relationship with the evolution of social speech, internet slang has transformed from being a marked informal language style to an everyday form of communication. Internet slang influences both the communicative behavior that individuals in society practice along with their daily usage of language. Previous research on first language acquisition reveals that exposure to the respective language is a crucial component to the extent of production ability. Implementing the same argument, we hypothesize that exposure to the internet, where there is an abundance of slang, will affect the frequency that internet-users produce slang in conversation. This study ultimately seeks to understand our proposed research question that asks: Does the time exposed to social media affect an individual’s conversational speech style and does this influence bleed into their different social media platforms varying informality?

How did we approach this?

In this study, undergraduate university students will be the target population; the age range is between 18 to 22 years old. Data collection will occur in two parts, first, case studies of three to four recorded conversations, each at least 15 minutes long, will be observed to determine the frequency of slang words used by each participant. The latter half of the data collection will comprise a self-report survey, in which the participant will disclose their social media, respective user handle, and average screen time for each platform. The survey will then prompt participants to reflect and report individual uses of abbreviations, acronyms, and other slang. It concludes with a free response question of whether they think that internet slang influence has a positive or negative impact on speech.

Ultimately, we aimed to examine any correlations between screen time, app usage, self-reported analyses of slang used in real life, and actual usage of slang in real life. The participants involved in this study were unaware of the purpose of the study beforehand, as well, to elicit as natural-sounding conversation as possible. Furthermore, the participants were all friends of the co-authors, to hopefully eliminate any biases potentially introduced by the onset of an “interview-like” setting. The participants were all also friends of the co-authors since during quarantine we were admittedly unsure how to go about encountering people we didn’t already know and recording natural conversations between them.

Our Findings

We asked individuals if they used Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. If they answered “yes”, they reported their average weekly screen time based off their devices’ reports or guestimate.

Figure 1: Self-reported screen time. * Reported additional socials. Only Subject F reported screen time for Facebook (2 hrs)

We asked the participants if they used any other socials not mentioned in the survey and, if the did, to list them and report their screen time.

Figure 2: Additional socials. Only the subjects who reported any screen time are displayed.

Each of the 10 subjects was asked to assess whether they used Internet slang in their spoken language. The results are displayed here in this pie chart, with the overwhelming majoring responding “yes.”

Figure 3: Self-reported usage of slang in everyday speech

Each of the 10 subjects was asked to assess whether they substituted words in their spoken language. Results appear to be mixed, but again with the majority indicating that they do so at least “Sometimes.”

Figure 4: Self-reported usage of abbreviations in everyday speech

Although Subject A(she/her) had a pretty high average screen time (see Figure 1), the frequency of internet slang used in speech and posts is very little. Looking through her different social media platforms we found that in 2020, 0% of her Instagram posts, 0% of her LinkedIn posts, and 2.5% of her Twitter posts contained slang. About 45-55 minutes of recorded speech were collected for Subject A; this data was collected in the form of a phone call with a friend and the conversation topics were school, quitting a part-time retail job, a trip to a museum, and apartment life. The results showed very little slang used (3 instances) in the form of emphasized agreement. When the friend expressed being happy living away from home and great dislike at going home for long periods of time, Subject A said “Facts! Period.” There was just one other instance of internet speech used but it was within the same conversation. While analyzing the recorded speech, we were surprised that, in the conversation about the job she hated and quit or the conversation about her trip to a museum, she did not use any slang. The tone of the first was annoyed/frustrated, while the second was very emotional and exciting. However, the Subject used the slang when the tone of the conversation was more neutral; perhaps it was the realization of the neutrality and therefore it was an effort to make the conversation more lively, or it just so happens that she thinks moving out and getting an apartment was the best decision of her life and gets excited when others feel the same. The interesting part was that after the recording was taken and the nature of the experiment revealed, Subject A laughed and expressed that she gave us a lot of material but was surprised when informed that she had only used slang 3 times. This overestimation of slang was seen among the other participants as well (see Figures 3 and 4). In the post-conversation survey, when asked if the influence of internet slang had a positive or negative effect, she answered,

“I think a little bit of both. It’s fun to use and say when with friends or in public. It also helps to reduce tension in conversations or with strangers. However, it is embarrassing and worrisome when people only speak like that or use the slang in essays, emails, etcetera.”

Additionally, Subjects E(he/him) and H(he/him) were also of note due to their significant presence on gaming platforms such as Discord (see Figure 2). During roughly 17 minutes of recorded speech, we were surprised to learn that there was little slang used (sick made an appearance a few times, as well as the occasional expletive), given that the gaming culture has evolved to contain speech community-specific language, which was confirmed in the post-conversation study and their Discord posts. Although their slang was not as active in their other social media platforms, Subject E had 68.7% of posts show slang and Subject H had 31.8% of posts show slang on their Discord (ACM Studio). This large difference between them can be attributed to Subject H’s position of co-presidents of ACM Studio, so his posts tended to be announcements, therefore, a bit more formal. The context of the conversation was generally relaxed and took place while cooking dinner. The topics of conversation strayed away from gaming topics, as there was a third individual present (not included in the study, as she is a co-author of this blog) who isn’t as big in the gaming community. Instead, the conversion-focused on classes, general Instagram-related topics, career focuses, and the like. However, in the post-conversation “debriefing” survey, the participants indicated a higher usage of gamer slang when talking to other gamers/about gaming-related topics. This included words such as pog, gg, F (..to pay respects), and broken (as in someone or something who is unfairly overpowered). As was discovered with Subject A, Subjects E and H also overestimated the extent to which they used slang in their everyday speech, indicating on the post-conversation survey that they believed their speech to “often” or at least “occasionally” use slang words.

The larger sociolinguistic picture

When trying to rationalize how little slang was used by the subjects, the words of sociolinguist Vera Regan came to mind. During her TEDxDublin, “What your speaking style, like, says about you” talk, she discusses how people’s language reflects their values, their goals, and their perception of themselves (2014). So, although Subject A is constantly exposed to internet slang, she will only choose the words that best represent her, as she is right now and who she wants to be in the future. As researchers, it highlighted for us how language is not only a tool for communication but also a form of creative expression that can hint at identity markers (like where we work, where we are from, our interests, etc.) like our style and choice in clothes.

In conclusion, throughout our study, we came to three main observations. The first observation states that some participants may have overestimated the extent to which they use slang in their speech. According to Kim and Ra, a higher frequency of the use of slang in one’s speech might be highly correlated to the limited means of communication that is available to reflect or express emotions, whether it is in written text or on social media (Kim and Ra, 2003). On the other hand, in real life, conveying emotions can come in the forms of facial expressions, voice tones, etc. Future studies investigating the effect of the use of emojis and uppercase letters would be interesting and may be useful to expand on the topic. Based on the data that we collected, our second observation stated that gender has little to no observable variance in our results. Our last observation indicates the conclusion that the topic of the conversation only seems to apply to the usage of speech in specific contexts. For instance, the speech observed of participants during playing a certain online game has sparked specific slang used in that specific game or common around social media platforms.

For future direction, it would be interesting to perform a study relating to specific speech communities. Our study unintentionally tapped on the gamer community, and an in-depth study on the usage of gamer lingo exclusively, correlated to the context in which it’s used (both online and in real life) could provide more detailed insight.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge everyone who participated in our study, especially the conversation participants who, after agreeing to participate, were told: “We’re gonna record our conversation for a bit. Don’t worry about it, okay? And no, sorry, we can’t tell you why until after. Just talk normally.” and then had to deal with the resulting confusion for a few minutes after.

References

An H. Kuppens (2010) Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure, Learning, Media and Technology, 35:1, 65-85, DOI: 10.1080/17439880903561876

Kim Y.S., Ra DY. (2003). Constructing an Internet Chatting Dictionary for Mapping Chatting Language to Standard Language. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2713. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45036-X_72

TEDx Talks. (2014, November 21). What your speaking style, like, says about you | Vera Regan | TEDxDublin [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/jAGgKE82034

Marked, Slang, social media, Speech Style

Heroines in K-Dramas are Now Changing: How and Why?

Sociolinguistics

Dowon Yoon

When we think of K-Dramas, we can easily think of the Cinderella story: a poor heroine meets an extremely rich hero and becomes a modern princess. A famous screenwriter named Eunsook Kim always fascinates numerous viewers by entertainingly telling this kind of story. When I looked into her most famous works, Lovers in Paris (2004) and Goblin (2016), I discovered that the speech patterns of heroines have changed over time even though the setting of the Cinderella story remains the same. I analyzed dialogues from two dramas, and the analysis showed that a heroine from recent drama Goblin speaks in a more dominant way than a heroine from the older drama Lovers in Pairs. It shows that Kim reflects the change in women’s speech behavior in her script. This reflection is very important because it is a mirror of the time which demonstrate the change in women’s speech behavior in the real world.

Different social roles for males and females create different essential ways of thinking, and eventually, they lead to the difference in pronunciation, sentence constructions, and many other linguistic components. According to Lakoff (2004), the speech patterns of men are naturally more dominant than women. Based on women’s usage of tag questions to get confirmation and assurance by male’s opinion, he argues that women are subordinate to men during the conversation. On top of the theory of Lakoff, Men and women are expected to use a different style of language in Korean culture. For instance, because of the influence of patriarchal culture, females use more polite language than males, but the expectation towards femininity underlies behind it.

However, by comparing two different K-Dramas, Lovers in Paris (2004) and Goblin (2016), I observed that a heroine Euntak from the Goblin has dominant speech style just like men while a heroine Taeyoung from the Lovers in Paris still uses the traditional subordinate speech style of women. This is important because the change of speech patterns of two heroines may reflects women from the real world also use the dominant speech style in today’s society and the differences between men and women’s speech behavior may reduced in these days.

To demonstrate that the differences between dominant speech style of men and subordinate speech style of women are now reduced in these days, I compared and contrasted dialogues of Taeyoung from Lovers in Paris (2004) and Euntak from Goblin (2016). They are in a similar situation where they both had to depend on extremely wealthy heroes, so it is very interesting to see the difference in their speech behavior.

By comparing two dialogues, I realized that Taeyoung tends to be interrupted by the hero during a conversation, while Euntak tends to interrupt the hero more. According to Sohn (2006), interruptions and overlappings can be a signal of power since they are primarily viewed as impolite behavior and “powerful people are more likely to feel warranted to interrupt powerless people than vice versa.” In the dialogue from episode 2 of Lovers in Paris, Giju, the rich hero in this drama, comes to Taeyoung’s house as a surprise after they meet at the bar by coincidence (Korean in bold italics):

In this dialogue, they do not communicate with each other, but just says what they want to say. In this unilateral conversation, Giju simply conveys what he wants to do and does not pay attention to what Taeyoung says as he interrupts while she is still talking at line 2. He is very dominant and leads the whole situation by almost demanding her to head out for a cafe. Meanwhile, Taeyoung is completely and helplessly led by Giju in the conversation as Giju keeps brings up what she did not expect at all. Lines 3 and 5, she reacts by saying, “Huh?” and “What?”, which shows that she is very surprised by what Giju brings up and the only thing that she can do is reacting to it. Although Giju interrupts her and even tries to take her outside her house, she never interrupts him and asks what he is going to talk about nor try to continue what she was going to say.

However, if we look into the dialogue of Angel of Death and Euntak in Goblin, we can observe that the heroine Euntak is not subordinate to the male character like Taeyoung in Lovers in Paris. In this conversation, Euntak meets the Angel of Death while she is with the Goblin, the rich hero in this drama. Euntak is scared of the Angel because she thinks that the angel came to take her to the afterlife.’

In this dialogue, Euntak interrupts the angel and leads the conversation by asking back to him at line 4. Even in the situation where her life is threatened, she bravely stands against the angel. Although she was with the Goblin, she did not depend on him. According to Sohn (2006), women tend to avoid interruptions and overlapping. In other words, Euntak’s speech style is dominant just like traditional men.

Through comparing two dialogues, we found an interesting change in the usage of interruptions by heroines, which shows that Eunsook Kim made a change in the speech behavior of heroines; they used to have the subordinate speech style, but they now use more dominant speech style. In the script, she may reflect that women’s speech behavior has changed over time. Whether her dramas are a mirror of the time or viewers get influenced by her drama, it is worth looking back at our speech behavior and think about which speech style we want to use for our daily conversation.

References

Kim, E. (Writer), & Lee, E. (Director). (2016). Chapter 2 [Television series episode]. Goblin. Seoul: tvN.

Kim, E. (Writer), & Shin, W. (Director). (2004). Chapter 2 [Television series episode]. In Moon, J. (Executive producer), Lovers in Paris. Seoul: SBS.

Lakoff, R. (2004). Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. Oxford University Press.

Sohn, H. (2006). Korean Language in Culture And Society. University of Hawaii Press.

gender differences, Media, Speech Style