EVALUATING THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS SEEN IN TIKTOK

SLANG

A Thesis by

Abigail Elizabeth Mackey

Bachelor of Arts, Wichita State University, 2021

Submitted to the Department of English

and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts

May 2023
© Copyright 2023 by Abigail Elizabeth Mackey
All Rights Reserved
EVALUATING THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS SEEN IN TIKTOK
SLANG

The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content,
and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Arts, with a major in English.

Mythili Menon, Committee Chair

Thomas Boynton, Committee Member

Lisa Parcell, Committee Member

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to my advisor Mythili Menon, who has guided me through five years of

study and learning and ignited a passion for linguistics in me that will never waver. Her support

and guidance throughout not only this thesis, but my entire time at Wichita State University, was

invaluable. Many thanks also to committee members T.J. Boynton and Lisa Parcell, for their

time and expertise in this unusual topic. Many thanks also to the entirety of the Wichita State

University English department, the 6th floor folks, including Rebeccah Bechtold, Darren

DeFrain, Carrie Dickison, and so many other wonderful people.

Thank you also to my family and friends, who have always stuck by my side through this

turbulent journey and encouraged me even when I was ready to give up. Thanks especially to my

mother, Erin, and father, Michael, for their roles as my teachers as well as my parents and for

making me into the scholar I’m proud to be today. I can only hope they are just as proud.

iv
 ABSTRACT

This study will evaluate the perception of slang terminology seen on the massively

popular social media site TikTok and whether said terms are appropriate in certain contexts. This

is alongside some terms that have existed for years, and that show signs of entering the English

lexicon as formal, or ‘standard’ English, despite their former standing as immature slang. First,

100 TikTok videos were viewed using a new account created for study purposes, as well as

another 100 videos on an existing account. A selection of slang terminology seen on these

TikToks was then provided to 26 participants and they were asked to rate the terms using two

Likert scales. In the first task, participants were asked to determine whether terms were

understood as a slang term, a standard/usual term, or both, as well as whether they were

appropriate to use in certain contexts. In the second task, participants then evaluated a selection

of sentences and determined whether the sentences are grammatical or not. Every term presented

to the participants were noted as being understood, and semantic analysis revealed that sentences

intended to be grammatical or ungrammatical were noted as such. Further analysis revealed that

older terms like [wanna] and [gonna] could be going through significant morphological change,

while less popular terms might be used infrequently due to instances of usage considered

appropriate being hyper-specific. This implies slow but tangible shift in English grammar.

v
 PREFACE

When I initially considered what my research interests were, I first concluded that I was

ultimately fascinated by the concept of linguistic evolution. I thrive with the idea that the way we

speak English today is not the same English we spoke fifty years ago and will not be the same

English we speak fifty years from now. Countered with the idea of a standardized version of

language, I realized that linguistic evolution could have been stifled or overlooked as it occurred

not because we were unaware of a shift, but because formality dissuaded the prospect of a shift at

all. But why? Why deny linguistic evolution, especially if that evolution makes self-expression

easier, or includes a community that our language did not have the means of including before? I

wanted nothing more than to answer these questions and learn more about how linguistic

evolution is occurring in the modern era.

I am both an educator and also chronically online. That is, I have taught English at the

middle school, high school, and college level, while also maintaining a regular presence on

social media accounts using a name different than that on my birth certificate so that I can

maintain a social life separate from my students. I am not the only educator who has done this;

on TikTok alone, there is a massive amount of teachers, current and former, who use social

media to make friends and vent frustrations. Furthermore, I get my news from that application, as

well as Twitter. The service Discord is my primary application for conversations with friends.

Facebook is how I connect with family I cannot see regularly. I use the internet- and social

media- as much as is expected for a young woman my age. I am far from the only young person

on the internet, and I first noticed slang terminology seeping into everyday conversation in

myself, my students, and my friends, and I wanted to see how widespread the phenomenon had

gotten.

vi
 Most research regarding language on social media revolves around Twitter, the most

populated social media website, and I thought it would be useful to evaluate another website’s

linguistic properties. I chose TikTok for three reasons. First, my own personal usage of the

application had yielded language that I would not think was possible prior to my linguistic

studies, and I wished to evaluate whether this was a universal experience for everyone using the

app. Second, the video format appeared to make conversation and creation at a face-to-face value

more possible, which could have led to linguistic evolution that the text-heavy Twitter could not

consistently provide. Third, TikTok is often cited as the stomping grounds of delusional

teenagers, the most disregarded group in society. This made it ripe for information that older

generations may disregard due to the application or language being ‘immature’ or ‘stupid’. This

is unfortunate because these teenagers will eventually be our adults, and their language is just as

worth evaluating as that of an adult, especially if it is being developed as a response to authority

figures in their lives.

My data sample was not large enough to paint the clearest picture of linguistic evolution

throughout the United States, however I truly think it is indicative of the fact that more research

into this field needs to be done. The presence of morphemes that do not have immediate,

concrete explanation implies that society has reached a point in linguistic evolution that could

separate generations, and the internet is the primary cause of it. I am advocating for social media

websites beyond those that have been commercialized to be subject to the same amount of

research as Twitter, and for our understanding of how conversation on the internet to be

reevaluated just as often as conversation between physical parties. What we are seeing in our

university students could eventually be seen in our workforce as well as their children, and this

could be similar in other universities outside Wichita State University. I hope that my research

vii
encourages the evaluation of language we consider nonsense or improbably; that language could

be our clearest vision into how to connect with adolescents of today, as well as how our children

and grandchildren might speak to each other in the future.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Questions ..................................................................................................2
1.3 Needs for the Study ..................................................................................................3
1.4 Terms and Definitions..............................................................................................5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................7

2.1 Cultural Significance of Slang .................................................................................7
2.2 Slang in Social Media ..............................................................................................8
2.3 TikTok’s Rise and Growing Importance ...............................................................10
2.4 Influence of Social Media on Conversation...........................................................12

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................15
3.1 Algorithm Analysis ................................................................................................15
3.2 Lexical Analysis.....................................................................................................16
3.3 Semantic Analysis ..................................................................................................17

4. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................20

4.1 Algorithm Data Analysis .......................................................................................20
4.1.1 Device with No Account ............................................................................20
4.1.2 Device with New Account .........................................................................22
4.2 Survey Results .......................................................................................................24
4.2.1 Demographic Analysis ...............................................................................24
4.2.2 Lexical Data Analysis ................................................................................28
4.2.3 Semantic Data Analysis .............................................................................34
4.3 Overall Results .......................................................................................................37

5. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER WORK ........................................................................38

5.1 Limitations .............................................................................................................38
5.2 Further Work ..........................................................................................................39

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
6. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................41
6.1 Summary of the Study ...........................................................................................41
6.2 Implications of the Study .......................................................................................42

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................44
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................47

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

WORDS UTILIZED IN LEXICAL ANALYSIS BY PART OF SPEECH ..................................16

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS STATEMENTS AND GRAMMAR EXPECTATIONS ............... 18-19

MOST FREQUENT CLASSIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE USAGE IN COMPANY BY

SLANG TERM ........................................................................................................................ 31-32

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Chart showing instances of noted slang frequency during first algorithm analysis ...............21

2. Chart showing instances of noted slang frequency during second algorithm analysis ............23

3. Distributions of Demographic Data from Qualtrics Survey .............................................. 25-26

4. Participant reaction to the distinction of physical and online friends ......................................27

5. Distribution of data regarding lexical recognition of slang terminology ........................... 28-29

6. Display of total responses for each group in terms of terminology acceptability ...................31

7. Results of semantic analysis by response quantity ..................................................................35

xii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The concept of language is one that envelopes much of our everyday lives. Humans are

genetically engineered to communicate, be it verbally or via signage, and their ability to adapt to

new linguistic situations is a paramount feature of the species. One’s linguistic features can

become so engrained in them, that any sort of shift or change can seem alien. However, with the

rise of the internet and social media, there has been a massive number of blooming and growing

communities made up of people all around the world with new and evolving languages and

language patterns. With the pandemic leaving long-lasting impact, it is once again time to

evaluate how language is shifting, and slang is the first avenue scholars must take to determine

how it is doing so. Slang has existed in language since its conception. Human connection

requires a differentiation between casualness and formality, and slang is a technique that assists

in separating the concepts. Historically, humans do not communicate with their bosses or

teachers in the same manner that they would their parents, a lover, or a friend.

The ways in which people interact with their acquaintances are more important to analyze

than formality for two primary reasons. First, the way people act around their friends and close

relatives is most indicative of their honest selves. Code-switching, the act of altering one’s

mannerisms to best fit certain situations, is a common practice that is well known by

psychologists. Code-switching appears to be most common in work and academic environments,

especially by those seen as lesser or subordinate. Analyzing the language people use when

addressing others in a humorous or casual sense allows for a clearer perception of language

people want to use, rather than language they feel obligated to use. Second, formality is often

1
passed down throughout all stages of academia in what appears to be an unchanging state. The

reason for this could be the heavy emphasis on written language in academic settings. For

example, concepts such as contractions (don’t, shouldn’t, etc.) are considered informal and rude

in formal writing even though they are incredibly common in both spoken formal and written

informal language. Due to the emphasis placed on texts for their lasting nature, especially when

it comes to historical significance, formal language is difficult to use as an indicator of linguistic

shifts.

I hypothesize that we are experiencing a linguistic shift in what is considered acceptable

English, in both written and spoken form. The community of TikTok users is being analyzed

specifically because the platform has become exceedingly popular. What was once the stomping

grounds of adolescent dancers has become a community full of people of all walks of life. With

so many different types of people interacting with one another on a regular basis, linguistic shifts

are inevitable. However, this can also result in new terms coming and going at rapid speeds-

terms that were considered popular three years ago are very rarely uttered in 2023. Still, the

words and terms that have stuck in the English lexicon for elongated periods of time are the

signifiers not only of new nouns, but new grammatical patterns that could become intrinsic to

native English speakers.

1.2. Research Questions

The research questions for this analysis revolve around the concept of TikTok slang

becoming a normalized aspect of informal conversation due to the widespread influence of its

community, and how that might influence how formal language in conversation is utilized and

understood. They were developed with the desire to evaluate linguistic patterns in slang, any

2
shifts in syntactic or pragmatic usage, and sociological acceptability. The research questions

(RQ) are as follows.

RQ 1: Does the slang shown on TikTok display a shift in the linguistic properties of the

English language?

RQ 2: Is the slang used on TikTok used in a verbal form the same way it is used in a

written one?

RQ 3: Is slang becoming more acceptable in formal English speech?

RQ 4: Is TikTok’s algorithm encouraging specific terms or grammatical structures when

it recommends content to new users?

1.3. Reasons for the Study

Due to the rapidly changing landscape of English-speaking culture, the line between

informal and formal language is being consistently blurred. What was considered ungrammatical

a century ago is a regular feature of the English language today. This does not just affect English

vocabulary, but dialect, accent, and grammatical implications as well. The usage of English by

adolescents and young adults specifically is often stereotyped as informal and incorrect, brushed

off by non-academics as being nonsense that is not worth evaluating. This disvalues both the

presence of older adults on TikTok, but also the importance of generational influence on

language development. The young people using these words now are our future workers, parents,

and academics. While they will likely use their own formal language in instances such as the

above, it is important to evaluate what that formal language may look like.

3
 Furthermore, expanding internet slang studies beyond the typical hemisphere of Twitter

allows for the analysis of language evolution in larger forms of media. One of the most notable

aspects of Twitter is that it was designed to host statuses under 120, later 240 characters. This

meant that deletion and shortening were almost a requirement to convey an entire thought

through a tweet, especially before the invention of threads. TikTok initially allowed for videos

up to one minute in length before increasing that limit to three minutes for the average user.

Additionally, each video has a description and comment section where further communication is

conducted, with information streamlined in a more intuitive fashion than Twitter’s reply system.

TikTok’s comment system also allows for users to make video responses with more ease than

other platforms, adding to the conversational diversity that TikTok allows. Conversational

diversity provides academics with an additional view into how language can and will be used in

different, informal settings.

Because of these differences, along with various financial issues, there is the distinct

possibility that Twitter’s userbase will begin to diminish or shift within the next year or so,

which will have a massive effect on the social media ecosystem. In 2022, Twitter was purchased

by Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, who had no experience in social media upkeep. Many employees

were subsequently fired or quit on their own volition, leaving many functions of the website

currently breaking or broken altogether. This has caused quite a stir amongst internet users and

social media gurus, particularly due to the possibility of security functions no longer operating as

they should. Because of this, many users are migrating to other communities, or their Twitter

experience is being affected due to bans or suspensions allegedly implemented by Musk himself.

Therefore, it is crucial that academics expand their focus in analyzing internet language, as the

possibility of applications such as TikTok outnumbering Twitter’s userbase grows by the day.

4
1.4. Terms and Definitions

The definition of slang in this instance is any terminology that is altered or crafted for the

express purpose of inserting humor or detailing an emotion, depending on the context (Green,

2014). Many slang terms are colloquialisms or exclamations, typically used to intensify a

situation, be it for attention or expression. Due to the nature of how slang develops and spreads,

some terms that originated as AAVE terminology are included in the definition, as well as older,

deletion terms such as ‘wanna’ and ‘gonna’. The term ‘nonsense word’ is a term designed to

separate ‘proper’ slang and gibberish. In other words, a nonsense word is a collection of

morphemes without any evident meaning. Both terms will be used separately from each other to

help determine how these slang terms that seemingly popped out of nowhere have their place in

syntactic structure.

This study primarily focused on young speakers of social media due to the method of

outreach. Many of the survey participants are young undergraduate students, though some older

participants are expected as well. All participants will be students at Wichita State University,

though the survey will not be limited to Kansas natives. An ideal data spread will contain data

gathered from English speakers from across the country, to take dialectal differences into

account. This will also allow for a wider comparison of dialect types and cultural linguistic

phenomena to common slang terms. This could result in a lack of age and socioeconomic

variance, though there will likely still be instances of older participants from the working class

due to the student body of the participating university.

It is important to note that TikTok slang does not solely exist on TikTok. Rather, this

term encompasses slang terms that have seen popularity on the platform. Defining the term this

way allows for an open-minded evaluation of where these terms could have originated, and what

5
impact their cultural and etymological origins have on their usage. Slang terms were chosen

based on these factors: terms had to contain at least one morpheme that altered the base meaning

of the word, terms had to be used on TikTok in videos, video descriptions, or comments, and

terms had to have some pragmatic benefit with their usage (typically via humor). Term

popularity will be assessed via survey.

6
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Cultural Significance of Slang

In a technical sense, slang is created when a new word is created, or an old word is

adjusted to mean something that fits the context of the time, typically in a humorous or

exaggerated fashion. For example, the word ‘issues’ is a word that has existed in the English

lexicon prior as a word that worked as a synonym for ‘instance’, albeit with a negative

connotation. Because of its usage in the psychological field to describe a person who has mental

or emotional difficulties, it was adopted as a slang term by young people to mean self-imposed

problems, likely that the person with ‘issues’ caused for themselves (‘you’ve got issues’

translating to ‘you are tied to an amount of drama that I do not want to deal with’) (Blake, 2019,

p.45). Both types of slang creation are equally popular, as seen with terms such as ‘lit’, an old

word that now can mean ‘exciting’, or ‘blorbo’, a new word that can mean ‘object of platonic

attraction, particularly from a caregiver’.

Slang has existed in human language approximately as long as language itself has

existed, though it is often regarded as vulgar or crude, a sign of a lack of class, intelligence, or a

mixture of the two (Green, 2014). Slang is referred to as a ‘counter-language’ due to its usage by

those who wish to challenge the idea of the societal, or conversational, norm (Green, 2014).

Despite this, slang has been used in conversation for as long as humanity has had the ability to

craft new language. Specifically, slang is created in environments where the presence of a power

party and/or a standard version of a language implies a requirement to conform, especially if that

conformity would result in a lesser quality of life for the community creating it. Equally though,

7
the authority or power party must allow the presence of slang, even if the intention is to later

separate or exclude people based on their language usage (Coleman, 2012). In short, the purpose

of slang is to create a divide between the old and the new, the powerful and the underdog, as the

people considered the ‘average men’ craft their own identity separate from those oppressing

them.

The community that creates and utilizes the most slang is undoubtedly the young people,

as they are most often looking for any form of cultural divide between them and the authority

figures that control so much of their lives. They are also the group that is most often in each

other’s presence. For example, an office building could be the primary workplace of people from

a variety of generations, but a secondary school or university consists primarily of people within

four to six years of each other. The average college freshman as of 2022 is between the ages of

eighteen and twenty-four years of age, culminating in a total of nearly thirteen million people all

together (Hanson, 2022). Thus, many people of the same age together create a strong and distinct

culture, especially when paired with the rapidity of fads and trends. To fit in, usage of the

cultural jargon is a necessity (Green, 2014).

2.2. Slang in Social Media

As previously discussed, slang is intended to connect people of a similar ilk as well as act

as a counter-language against those in authority. Typically, students who develop such specific

slang will grow out of it, unless a certain term becomes extremely popular, typically those used

in other forms of media (groovy, cool), or those that result from some form of linguistic

alteration (‘want to’ becomes ‘wanna’ through conjunction and deletion) (Green, 2014).

However, the advent of the internet resulted in a permanent hub where like-minded individuals

could find people with whom they have a lot in common and are also the same age. No longer is

8
hyper-specific slang limited only to one group of university students who all used it and

eventually grew out of it as they were removed from their environment. Now there was an

avenue for people to maintain these hubs- and this language- long after they graduated.

This language can be considered mass-produced or simply trendy, as users often pick up

on these terms to contribute to some popular trend going around on the internet at the time. This

is typical of most forms of mass communication through social media. The name of the game is

to have as many people as possible interact with you or your posts, for means of popularity and

of business. The advent of comment sections and status updates have opened people up to a wide

variety of communicative possibilities, and these possibilities influence what is posted and

considered popular in the first place (Manovich, 2009). This style of communication has evolved

into a concept known as ‘microblogging’, where users will update their audiences with short but

frequent posts involving their daily lives or interests. Communication in front of an audience is

meant to leave a quick impact, just long enough that the user leaves a ‘like’ or comment to

engage the original author.

A well-known impact of microblogging is the evolution of hashtags, which are short,

trendy phrases that a user can click on and search for other posts that use the same phrase to

define themselves. This gained initial popularity on Twitter, which limited users to 120

characters to communicate with in its infancy. Even now, Twitter allows a maximum of 240

characters in its tweets. Users are forced to get their messages across quickly without an

overabundance of buzzwords, and hashtags were used to fill in the gaps of communication

(Zappavinga, 2014). This has greatly affected how internet language is evolving, as many users

have migrated from Twitter to Tiktok, or use both sites simultaneously. This necessity for

shorthand can lead to more contractions or deletions in a person’s language so that they can get

9
an idea across as quickly as possible. Referring to earlier discussions of how slang that uses

linguistic alteration tends to remain in the public conscious, this can affect how many words we

see remain in peoples’ lexicons.

2.3. TikTok’s Rise and Growing Importance

During the early stages, TikTok was known as Musical.y, and was specifically intended

to host videos of its users dancing and lip-synching to popular songs. Around the same time, a

video-sharing program known as Vine was gaining cultural significance, more so than Musical.y,

due to its 6-second video platform. Despite the limited timeframe in which a person could

record, many users found the format accessible, since the editing software was built directly into

the program. Users did not have to have any video editing skills to use the application, they

simply had to understand how to use their phones. Several notable celebrities, such as Logan and

Jake Paul, Nash Grier, Lele Pons, and Shaun Mendes, began their careers on Vine. After Vine

was shut down in 2016 due to a lack of support and payment for its users, they began to hunt for

similar services (Broznya, 2022). Musical.y’s short video format attracted users, and some began

to migrate to the platform.

TikTok gained significant notoriety during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the

world was placed on lockdown and turned to the internet for much of their social interaction.

TikTok specifically allowed for users to connect with others with similar interests and identities

during a time when everyone was separated, leading to a wide variety of cultures and sub-

cultures. This has become so prevalent that the application and its communities have become “. .

. embedded into our personalities, muddying where our online activity ends and where our

offline lives begin” (Boffone, 2022, p.6). Everywhere you go, you are likely to see the influence

of TikTok, be it in people singing singular portions of trending songs or doing some form of

10
dance, which has helped to bridge the gaps of the loss of community that the pandemic brought

with it. This has both positive and negative effects, ultimately culminating in the fact that the

influence of TikTok is present in our offline lives.

This is not dissimilar to the rise of other digital communities, some of which got their

start when physical communities were displaced by major events such as war or a national

disaster. Often during these times, digital communities seek comfort in the sharing of ideas that

go against the wide-spread authority, namely politicians, that may be spreading, withholding, or

manipulating information for political gain (Evans, 2013). In the case of TikTok, the pandemic

began during the year of a particularly contentious election in the United States during an era

where politicians were trusted with a grain of salt. TikTok proved to be an easily accessible area,

both in terms of content creation and consumption, for the community to both comfort and

inform one another of the goings-on relevant first to the pandemic, and later to the election. This

growth would continue, with verifiable news stations such as The Washington Post, CNN, and

ABC News eventually making their own accounts to best distribute their journalism to this

demographic.

As of January 2023, TikTok has approximately one billion registered users and is one of

the most popular social media platforms of this day and age (Boffone, 2022). Users of all ages

use TikTok for a variety of purposes, such as keeping up with and contributing to news and pop

culture. Sub-cultures and countercultures spread rapidly on the application as more and more

young people contribute to the algorithm of the website, which is designed to curate content that

appeals to the specific user’s tastes, otherwise known as the ‘For You’ page. With the large

number of communicative options for its users to utilize, including comments, livestreaming, a

11
direct messaging system, and the videos themselves, the application has become a social media

option that rivals those of Facebook and Twitter, two of the juggernauts of the industry.

The application, however, is not a linguistic utopia of continuous language

breakthroughs, as the presence of the algorithm combined with human behavior results in some

limitations. First, for a video to appear on someone’s For You page, it must achieve one of two

results. The video must either be overtly successful, having already received a large amount of

interaction, or the user must have actively sought out the content regularly enough for the

application to recommend similar material (Omar & Dequan, 2020). This skews the slang that

sticks around long enough to remain in public consciousness towards people who are already

successful, which is a narrow few. While this is the natural state of slang, it does rely on a set of

users who all have the similar intent of ‘influence’ their audiences to spread certain topics and

popularize them.

2.4. Influence of Social Media on Conversation

Building on the effects of social media on how language is developing, another key

component to consider regarding social media is the effect technology has on conversational

norms. The lack of immediate feedback that results from the time spent waiting for a message to

send results in two things- extra time spent formulating responses and a lack of immediate

response, resulting in assumptions of what said responses could be. Additionally, the messages

could be purposefully unclear, depending on the intent of the speaker, resulting in vague

semantic puzzles that users must discern the meaning of without the helpful context clues of

expression or body language. This is most common in status messages, or messages that are not

directed at one specific person, but at a wider audience. Many people will attempt to offset this

with acronyms, emojis, or more recently, tone indicators. The problem with this is that the use of

12
emoji and acronyms in language is its own type of dialect, and might not be immediately

understood, clouding the intended meaning even further (McCulloch, 2019).

Anonymity plays another large role in online communication. While videos are

incredibly popular, they are typically one-sided. Most conversation is performed with one or

more participants using entirely text. This is done either by conversing via a text messaging

service (i.e., WhatsApp, GroupMe, Facebook Messenger, etc.) or via a comment-reply system

present on most content-sharing websites. When one’s identity is removed from the discussion,

they are more likely to disclose information that they might not if their legal name is attached to

the message. Therefore, if the participants in the conversation do not know each other outside of

the platform, particularly if they go by usernames that do not reflect their legal names, then the

possibility of the participants partaking in behaviors that they would not partake in in face-to-

face conversation increases (Ma et al., 2016). While the video feature of TikTok helps to

mitigate some of this anonymity, this does not account for interactions in comments or direct

messages with people who the user has never met.

The prevalence of advertisement on social media similarly affects how slang and

language is interpreted, as well as how it falls in and out of popularity. Social media is one of the

most effective means of engaging one’s audience, especially if the advertising is presented in a

manner that is entertaining to the viewer. However, there is the risk of the type of advertising

disturbing the audience or being considered inappropriate to the viewer considering the context

of both the advertisement and the website it is being hosted on. Most social media websites

involve immediate and direct interaction with some group of followers no matter whether the

user posts casually or is a form of influencer. Other websites are more centered around individual

13
relaxation, and there is a separation between content creator and follower, and thus the content

used to advertise to the audiences must be altered (Voorveld et al., 2018).

TikTok specifically is a combination of both types. The comment system, personal

messaging system, and ease of use with the video editor means that anyone can be a casual user

or an influencer on a spectrum of usage. Advertisers also have access to these tools, which they

can use to appear more personal to the audience. This runs the risk of backfiring when slang and

topical pop culture enters the equation. Advertisers will attempt to follow the trends of the time

without being privy to the lifecycle of said trend, as advertisements take significantly more time

to create than a casual post. This could result in the same sort of negative emotion that Voorheld

and their fellow researchers determined was a possibility if the intent of the users and the intent

of the advertisement did not align.

Lastly, the aspect of migration deserves analysis. When discussing linguistic migration

on social media, we are not just describing migration between physical areas, but also different

online communities. The nature of social networking means that new opportunities to connect

people appear regularly and rapidly, especially as people get used to the idea of their phone

being constantly on, meaning that their social batteries are constantly going. People who have

used Facebook or Twitter for years begin to see text posts raving about Snapchat, Discord, or

TikTok, and migrate there to keep up with the trends, and may or may not remain there long-

term. Their social spaces are evolving and expanding in this way. This, in turn, affects how

people interact with their social circles outside of the internet, especially if their ‘real life’ friends

and their ‘internet’ friends are the same people, as is common with most (Hinton & Hjorth, 2013,

p. 126-127). Language is moving rapidly not only between different websites, but between

different realities, these being the digital and physical spaces.

14
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Algorithm Analysis

Understanding how TikTok perpetuates certain language ideologies first involves

understanding how TikTok assimilates its users into any sort of linguistic community. An

analysis of TikTok’s algorithmic features was performed in two steps. First, a device with no

account history of TikTok had the application installed and 100 videos were analyzed for slang

language. No personal information was collected by the application at this time due to the lack of

any sort of account creation or email provided. A collection of the discovered slang terms during

both sessions were logged in a Microsoft Excel sheet and evaluated for frequency, both actual

terminology and what part of speech that term is being utilized as. This evaluated the ‘default’

language that TikTok would show a prospective user as they advertise the community and how

communication is handled. A laptop running Firefox’s private browser mode, which uses and

saves none of the user’s information, as well as a tablet that had never had TikTok installed on it

before, were used for this section and data was taken by hand.

Second, a brand-new account was made on a separate device and the process of watching

and evaluating the language of 100 TikToks was repeated, complete with a second data

collection separate from the first. The account was made using a birthday in 2003, simulating the

average age of a TikTok user, though no interests were noted so that the algorithm is as unbiased

as possible. Every tenth video was ‘liked’ by the account to simulate mild community

interaction. The data collected using these two methods were compared for any differences in

language appearance and usage. This helped to inform whether the algorithm affected the

15
language presented to new users. This process was unrelated to the human subject analysis and

performed as a separate experiment.

3.2. Lexical Analysis

Using a Qualtrics survery, participants were provided two Likert scales (1 to 5) that asked

them to review certain slang terms according to certain criteria. The list of terms used is provided

below, first as a word bank, and then numbered according to their order in the bank and Qualtrics

survey.

(1)

TABLE 1:

WORDS UTILIZED IN LEXICAL ANALYSIS BY PART OF SPEECH

Assumed Nouns Assumed Verbs Assumed Adjectives Assumed

Exclamations
(T5) mood (T1) wanna (T4) cringe (T3) hella

(T15) meme (T2) gonna (T7) Sus (T8) pog/poggers*

(T17) sewerslide (T6) adulting (T8) pog/poggers* (T11) F

(T20) chungus (T9) yeet (T10) lit (T12) L

(T22) eeby-deeby (T14) ratio (T18) spicy (T13) W

(T24) boomer (T16) unalive (T19) thicc (T21) pspspsps

(T25) zoomer (T23) blep (T30) scrungly

(T26) karen (T33) vibe* (T32) clutch

(T27) bby

(T28) bae

16
TABLE 1 (continued):

WORDS UTILIZED IN LEXICAL ANALYSIS BY PART OF SPEECH

(T29) Bestie

(T31) blorbo

(T33) vibe*

(* indicates that word could be used in both instances)

The first scale had participants noting whether they understood certain words by their

typical dictionary definition, their definition when used as slang terminology, or both. This was

implemented due to the presence of slang terms that are derived from common words found in

both formal and informal English, such as ‘spicy’ and ‘based’. Fluent English speakers were

expected to understand the dictionary definition of these types of words, and thus have a double-

sided view on whether these terms are acceptable in informal English (i.e., is it acceptable to use

the term ‘spicy’ as an adjective to mean flavorful and hot as well as an adjective that means

seductive).

The second scale asked participants to evaluate whether these terms would be appropriate

to use in conversations with different sets of people, such as immediate family, coworkers and

classmates, physical friends, online friends, romantic partner, and family outside immediate. The

purpose of this scale was to determine whether participants made a distinction between informal

language between certain sets of people, and which of the words were acceptable to use between

different groups, particularly those that interact with the participants in a formal setting such as

work or school. Furthermore, this exercise helped to determine whether online companions are

17
communicated with in the same manner as people that the participants interact with in the

physical world where immediate feedback is present, and anonymity is impossible.

3.3. Semantic Analysis

The final set of tasks participants performed involved utilizing a selection of the slang

terms previously provided and assessing their usage in sentences. Participants were prompted to

determine whether the grammar in the sentences are or are not grammatical based on the usage

of the slang term. The sentences were crafted with the intent of some being grammatical and

others not to evaluate whether the participants’ assumptions of how the terms are meant to be

used align with the researcher’s assumptions, as well as with each other. This helped to evaluate

whether or not there is an inherent grammar to this slang terminology, whether or not the

assumed grammar is different between varying groups, and whether or not the terms being used

really can be considered ‘nonsense words’. The sentences utilized in the survey, as well as their

assumed grammaticality, are noted below.

(2)

TABLE 2:

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS STATEMENTS AND GRAMMAR EXPECTATIONS

Assumed Grammatical Assumed Ungrammatical Grammar Expectations

Q1 I went to go see that movie [lit] = positive

you recommended to me,
it was lit! Thanks for
telling me about it!
Q2 Just yeet that into the [yeet] = to throw
trash, I haven’t worn it in
months.

18
TABLE 2 (continued):

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS STATEMENTS AND GRAMMAR EXPECTATIONS

Q3 This drink smells really [sus] = shortening of

sus, I can’t wait to drink it! [suspicious], root word
meaning does not match
context
Q4 That poggers boss of mine [pog] + [-er] + [s] = positive
gave me a raise after I exclamation made adjectival
worked extra hours for her. with [-er] (i.e. become more
[pog])
Q5 Jackson is the blorboest in [blorb] + [o] = object of
the whole school! (platonic/romantic)
attraction, word is a noun as
opposed to an adjective
Q6 I’m gonna go out for [gonna] = [go + -ing] + [to],
dinner tonight, do you alternatively [gonna] is its
want to come? own lexical term with
similar meaning
Q7 This shirt is a little tight, I [thick] + [c] = large, cannot
feel kind of thiccy right be combined with [-y],
now. emphasis added with
additional [-c]
Q8 My baby cousin is so [scrung] + [ly] = adjective
scrungly, I love him so meaning adorable
much!
Q9 Mafuta looks really spicy [spicy] = attractive, leaning
in that hoodie, it’s really on sexual, spicy is not
bad. synonymous with a negative
reaction

19
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. Algorithm Data Analysis

The following data analysis was conducted after two separate sessions of collection to

eliminate bias or impatience. Both sessions were conducted in March of 2023 and were

conducted in one sitting each.

4.1.1. Device with No Account

The analysis yielded forty-four different slang terms across one hundred TikToks, the

terms being a mixture of terms that have existed in internet culture for a while along with some

newer terminology. Much of the content presented was professionally filmed, either by

professional influencers or other networks. Six of the terms could be considered curses, while at

least eight can be immediately attributed to African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The

most frequent term that was heard was babe/baby, a positive term that refers to a romantic

partner, with eleven instances noted. Most terms only had one or two instances, as noted in the

following figure.

20
 (3)

Instances of Slang Occurence by Individual Term - Session A

N = 44
30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Figure 1. Chart showing instances of noted slang frequency during first algorithm analysis; Non-
English TikToks not noted.
Notably, forty-six of the TikToks were classified as ‘non-English’. This meant that there

was not enough English data to glean any influences on the English language. With nearly half

of a new user’s influence being content that does not utilize English, this implies that non-

English content is being recommended at a near-similar frequency, which is impressive for a

user joining from America. The effects that this could have on linguistic development are

unclear, but an entirely new benefit of exposing users to a variety of languages outside of

English is not to be dismissed.

Furthermore, much of the slang found in the device without a TikTok account is slang

that is already common in the English lexicon. Terminology such as ‘bro’ and ‘babe’ have

existed for years and are not generally considered TikTok slang. No one community was pushed

either, with many of the videos being rather generic to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

21
This implies that the algorithm is attempting to show new users’ content that aligns closer to the

videos they might be shown on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Very likely, this is used as an

attempt to make the transition between social media sites easier on the user, and therefore

encourage migration. More importantly, this implies that someone who might regularly use slang

developed on TikTok would have to have already begun the process of assimilating into the

culture to be exposed to the language. This will inform the following algorithm analysis, as the

speed of that assimilation may be able to be calculated.

4.1.2. Device with New Account

The selection of TikToks that appeared in this set were noticeably different from those

from the previous data collection session. Firstly, only two of the TikToks had been created or

published by a non-American, and the two that did not fall under this category were of Scottish

and British make. While a location was not specifically inputted during account creation, the

application recognized that the account or the device was American in origin and appeared to

accommodate that. The device did not seem to know where in America the user originated, and

so no one type of American culture was hyper-focused on. The cultures that were most often

seen were Southern and Northern- any presence of Western, Eastern, Midwestern, Cali, or New

England-specific content was not noted.

Second, the content was significantly longer and more personable. While the content of

the first data collection was incredibly generic, focusing on AI or mass-media content, the

content of the second data collection contained more story-time or conversational content, where

the user speaks directly to the camera as though they are speaking to a friend. A much wider

variety of slang terms was also present, with a total of sixty-two terms noted. While most terms

22
were still only heard once, more of the slang terms were noted as having been repeated, as

displayed in the figure below.

(4)

Instances of Slang Occurence by Individual Term - Session B

N = 62
45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Figure 2. Chart showing instances of noted slang frequency during second algorithm analysis;
Non-English TikToks not noted.
Another thing to note was the increase in animal-related videos, which either contained

commentary of the animal’s activities by the creator, or voice/text interpretations of what the

animal might say if they could speak. These videos contained slang terms that did not appear in

any other video type, such as ‘dis’, ‘dat’, and ‘hecc/heccin’’, spellings that can almost be

considered representative of a toddler’s speech. The voices used to describe or mimic the

animals were oftentimes squeaky or childish to express fondness or cuteness. This does imply a

relation between nonsense words and animals, not as a way of insinuating that they are

unintelligent, but as a way of making them appear cuter and more desirable. The detriment of

23
this is that it gives these nonsense words another layer of immaturity when reviewing them

through an academic lens.

4.2. Survey Results

In total, the Qualtrics survey used to analyze both the lexical and semantic implications

of TikTok slang received twenty-six applicants. The applicants were all students at Wichita State

University, and the survey was entirely voluntary. Additionally, all participants were required to

have used TikTok in the last three months, ideally on a regular basis. This became an inclusion

factor to ensure that all participants had recent experience with the culture of the application.

While participants were asked how they used the application, as a creator, a consumer, or both,

utilization of the application was not listed as an inclusion or exclusion criterium.

4.2.1. Demographic Analysis

Out of the 26 participants, the vast majority exist in the power party of their section

(white/Caucasian, heterosexual, cisgender). The question that received the largest variation was

that of class, with nine participants noting that they were considered middle class, six noting that

they were considered working class, and three noting that they sat somewhere in-between. This

data is charted in the figures below.

(5)

24
 Age Distribution Race/Ethnicity
Distribution

White/Caucasian
Black
Latino/Latina
Middle Eastern
Asian
Inuit/Indigenous
Pacific Islander/Hawaiian
18-20 21-13 24-26 27-9 30+ Other

Gender Distribution Sexuality Distribution

Cisgender Male Cisgender Female

Transgender Male Transgender Female Heterosexual Homosexual
Non-Binary/Agender Genderfluid Bisexual Asexual
Other Prefer not to Say Pansexual Other

Figure 3. Distributions of Demographic Data from Qualtrics Survey

25
 Socialeconomic Distribution

Working Low-Middle Middle Upper Prefer not to Say

Figure 3 (continued)

In terms of internet and TikTok usage, over 90% of participants noted that they use the

internet at a minimum of four hours a day, with 38% of participants using it at least eight hours a

day. Out of those hours, 75% of participants dedicate 1-3 of those hours to TikTok usage. Every

participant noted using TikTok to watch videos (as is the purpose of the application), though

only 29% of participants noted that they regularly engage with the content they watch by liking

or commenting, with ten out of 25 mentioning that they regularly ‘like’ videos, and only two

mentioning any regular commenting. Furthermore, most participants mentioned sparse

communication with others via TikTok, being less than one hour of total communication time a

day. This implies that there is a disconnect between general viewers of the content on TikTok

and actual communication, which means that while terminology is being heard, it is not being

recommunicated in the same sphere by the casual audience.

Regarding content creation, around 15% of responses noted that they created content and

posted it on TikTok. Specifically, there were five responses noting that they created and posted

videos, and one response noting that they livestreamed content to a live audience. One

26
participant mentioned that they livestream on the application despite not making mention of

creating and posting videos. Regardless, this is novel content being added to the application, and

thus they will be counted as a content creator, resulting in about six content-creators total. It is

unsure whether there is a link between these creators and the two participants who mentioned

communicating with others on TikTok for 1-3 hours a day. There is a distinct possibility that the

participant who mentioned livestreaming does so for at least one hour and counted this as an

hour of communication, which is correct in a sense. However, the nature of livestreaming, where

one voice speaks to a conglomerate of texts, still implies a disconnected communication that is

missing the typical back-and-forth of conversation.

(6)

Participant Reaction to the Distinction of Physical and Online

Friends

Definitely Not Probably Not Might or Might Not Probably Yes Definitely Yes

Figure 4. Participant reaction to the distinction of physical and online friends

When participants were asked to note if they made a distinction between online friends

and physical friends (friends they know primarily online or primarily in-person respectively),

results were tended to lean towards participants making the distinction, likely due to a lack of

face-to-face conversation, as well as physical distance. All but one of the content creators noted

27
that they would make a distinction between an online friend and a physical one, which could

imply the envisioning of a larger conglomerate audience, as discussed previously when

evaluating livestreaming and communicative possibilities. These results do lead to the possibility

of language being restricted to use with these online friends and not being reproduced in physical

spaces, which slows linguistic spread to people outside of the specific TikTok community,

though it also discounts how many people follow or interact with people they consider ‘physical

friends’ on TikTok.

4.2.2. Lexical Data Analysis

Below are figures showing the distribution of lexical recognition of the slang terms

compiled in Table 1.

(7)

Distribution of Lexical Recognition T1 - T11

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Slang Definition Usual Definition Both

Figure 5. Distribution of data regarding lexical recognition of slang terminology

28
 (8)

Distribution of Lexical Recognition T12 - T22

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Slang Definition Usual Definition Both

(9)

Distribution of Lexical Recognition T23 - T33

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Blep Boomer Zoomer Karen Bby Bae Bestie Scrungly Blorbo Clutch Vibe

Slang Definition Usual Definition Both

Figure 5 (continued)

29
 The results of the first lexical task were surprisingly varied. Participants noted

recognition of a wide variety of terms, with each term getting at least one vote in the ‘slang

definition’ category, including those that were particularly niche. Four of the thirty-three terms,

(T1, T2, T5, T18, T24, T29, T32, and T33) received higher ratings of ‘both’, i.e., being

recognized by both its denotative and modern connotative meaning. Every other term received

equal or higher ratings of being recognized only by the slang definition. This makes sense for

terms such as T8, T9, T22, and other words that are theoretically novel, but this seems to also

apply to some words that had pre-existed, such as T4, T10, and T26, as well as the terms noted

by singular letters (T11, T12, and T13). This could be a result of misunderstanding on the

participant’s end, or a preference towards using the term as a slang word. A lack of literacy could

also be the culprit, though it is more unlikely considering the sample.

Only one term, T2, received a higher rating of being recognized by the denotative, or

‘usual’ definition, though T1 came close. As the oldest and most common slang terms heard

outside of social media, these results display the possibility that the morphology of the words is

shifting away from being contractions of two words into one morphological combination that

introduces the suffix [-na]. The suffix replaces the meaning of [to] and condenses a phrasal verb

into a singular combination. The shift allows for T1 and T2 to go from reading as

[wan.na] = [want + to], [gon.na] = [go.ing + to]

to

[wan.na] = [want + -na], [gon.na] = [go.ing + -na]

The results of the second Likert scale, which asked participants to note which terms

would be appropriate to use in certain companies, resulted in a much larger differentiation. Most

30
responses mentioned all types of friends, with online friends just barely receiving more votes.

The data spread is visualized in the figures below.

(10)

Total Responses for Each Group in terms of Terminology

Acceptability

Immediate Family Online Friends Physical Friends

Coworkers/Classmates Romantic Partner Family Outside Immediate

Figure 6. Display of total responses for each group in terms of terminology acceptability

(11)

TABLE 3: MOST FREQUENT CLASSIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE USAGE IN

COMPANY BY SLANG TERM

T Most Frequent Classification

T1 Physical T12 Online Friends T23 Online Friends

Friends
T2 Physical T13 Online Friends T24 Online Friends,
Friends Phys. Friends
T3 Physical T14 Online Friends T25 Online Friends
Friends
T4 Online Friends T15 Physical T26 Physical
Friends Friends
T5 Physical T16 Online Friends T27 Online Friends
Friends

31
TABLE 3 (continued): MOST FREQUENT CLASSIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE USAGE IN

COMPANY BY SLANG TERM

T6 Immediate T17 Online Friends T28 Romantic

Family Partner
T7 Online Friends T18 Online Friends T29 Physical
Friends
T8 Online Friends T19 Physical T30 Online Friends
Friends
T9 Online Friends T20 Online Friends T31 Online Friends

T10 Online Friends T21 Online Friends T32 Physical

Friends
T11 Online Friends T22 Online Friends T33 Physical
Friends
Most of the participants noted that they would utilize this type of terminology in familiar

company, including both online and physical friends, even though the sample proved indecisive

about whether they would or would not distinguish the two. This could be due to the fact the

concept of separating friendships based on presence in physical or online spaces is not typical for

Gen Z participants, though the variability in responses to the prompt asking participants whether

they would differentiate between the two makes this unclear. Participants also noted that use of

this style of slang in conversations with immediate family was generally acceptable. This is

likely due to the familiarity amongst the conversing parties, as well as an assumed equality. A

friend or sibling group has developed a certain level of trust and comradery, whether it is due to

similar life experiences or a shared childhood, which might result in increased slang usage,

especially if the group shares the same authority figures. While a notation of ‘immediate family’

could mean a sibling or sibling group, young adults 18 or over might also be developing a friend-

like relationship with their parent(s), which could also result in increased slang usage in

conversation to find common ground and assimilate.

32
 Two of the three slang words chosen to be appropriate for use with family outside of

immediate, such as grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins, were T16 and T17, both of which

are classified as censored words. That is, they were developed so that the words [kill] and

[suicide] could be utilized on TikTok without being buried by the algorithm, which attempts to

filter out words it considers profane. This is notable because, although the censored words are

humorous in practice, they may or may not be being utilized outside of the algorithm for the

purpose of discussion with family members that are not immediate, or that they do not interact

with frequently enough to develop that form of closeness and/or trust. It is unknown if age was a

factor in the participants’ assignment of this language as appropriate, but in the case of the

elderly or children, censorship might be a factor in discussing- or refraining from discussing-

darker or profane topics around them using direct language.

Lastly, the two words that received a frequency rating aside from a group of friends, T6

and T28, deserve analysis due to their lack of consistency with the other terms. T6 is [adulting], a

verb that implies multiple actions, typically those expected of a productive adult member of

society. This term was noted as being appropriate with immediate family the most, which could

be a result of young adults and their parents as the young adult attains more and more

independence by accomplishing these tasks. [Adulting] is also often used by older generations,

such as young Gen X or older Millennials, which could also explain the increased usage. As for

T28, [bae], the reasoning for overall usage with one’s romantic partner is simple to deduce; the

word is a term of endearment for one’s romantic partner. Usage as a nickname or general term of

endearment is expected, as it proves participants understand the context and meaning of the term.

T28 also received similar amounts of responses as to its appropriateness around physical and

33
online friends, cementing its position as a casual word that has assimilated into several kinds of

conversation.

These instances could also be seen as language being developed for specific contexts,

particularly that of T6. This is an instance seen in other languages, where singular words

encompass the meaning of several English words. Examples of this are Hygge in Danish, which

means a particularly cozy or comforting instance where one feels at peace, or Iktsuarpok in Inuit,

which means a feeling of positive or negative anticipation when awaiting someone’s presence

(International House, 2018). This aligns with the fact that [adulting] does not necessarily mean

one specific action. Rather, in encompasses any action that one could take as an adult in society.

As for [bae], the possibility of it encompassing a larger meaning is less likely, though it could

refer to a specific relationship type. More research would need to be performed to confirm or

deny this.

4.2.3. Semantic Data Analysis

The data for the semantic tasks displayed that there was general agreement from the

participants about which sentences were grammatical and ungrammatical. Statements that were

designed to be ungrammatical were often perceived that way. However, statements that were

designed to be grammatical often received more of an opposing answer than those that were

ungrammatical, implying a wider perception of the phrases generally being ungrammatical. The

presence of ‘guessed’ answers is not immediately visible, but participants could have conflated

the exercise examining their informal language with a ‘test’ where there is a ‘correct’ answer.

Only two of the presented statements received five or more responses of ‘unsure’, as detailed in

the following figure.

34
 (12)

Results of Semantic Analysis by Response Quantity

20

15

10

0
Grammatical Ungrammatical Unsure

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Figure 7. Results of semantic analysis by response quantity.

The statements that received the most definitive ratings, Q3, Q6, Q7, and Q9, all

contained instances where the slang term used maintained correct syntactic usage (i.e. sus =

adjectival), but the meaning was flipped to be opposite of the assumed correct meaning (i.e. sus

having a positive meaning). The slang terms selected for those statements were also those that

instances of face-to-face reproduction has already begun in adolescents, including [gonna],

which is incredibly common. This implies that face-to-face conversation has not replaced, or

even necessarily become equal to text conversation, which supports previous psycholinguistic

theories of expression and body language being pivotal components in language development.

With videos, this reproduction could be more likely, but engagement appears to be just as

necessary. One cannot develop meaning and context without receiving some form of engagement

back to confirm or deny their novel language.

35
 The statements that garnered the most confusion, Q5 and Q8, contained particularly niche

language, [blorbo] and [scrungly]. Q5 was intended to be ungrammatical, assuming that [blorbo]

is typically used as a noun as opposed to an adjective. Q8, on the other hand, was intended to be

grammatical, assuming [scrungly] is adjectival as noted by the suffix [-ly]. While Q5 was still

considered to be ultimately ungrammatical, Q8 received more ‘unsure’ ratings than any other

response. Even more specifically, one participant noted that they chose unsure because they “. .

.[think] scrungly is limited to fictional characters.” implying that the term could be exclusionary

to specific parties, and that the term used to test the word’s semantic meaning was not specific

enough. It could also be an instance of a word being developed to encompass multiple word’s

worth of meaning, such as [adulting]. Q8 still received a slightly higher rating of grammatical

over ungrammatical, however the results are still varied enough to result in a lack of clarity

regarding the term’s intended usage. This could also imply that the term is so new that no overall

meaning has been determined yet, at least in the wider community.

Finally, most of the participants who answered that they were ‘unsure’ as to the

grammaticality of a sentence stated that they were so because they did not understand what the

slang term meant and were hesitant to judge its usage. This implies that the presentation of the

survey as research done by a professional scholar could have triggered feelings of being watched

over by an authority figure, making it so that there was no bond of trust, despite the offered

anonymity. This could answer the question as to why slang terms are not being reproduced; there

needs to be a level of trust and security present for speakers to feel comfortable attempting to use

slang terms such as the ones they are unsure of. While a level of context was given for

participants to extrapolate a possible meaning of the slang term, the trust required to attempt the

word was not.

36
4.3. Overall Results

While there is no overwhelming evidence of sweeping linguistic change in these results,

there are several points of evidence that point to general understanding of most of the presented

terminology, both lexically and semantically. Most slang terminology is still utilized in groups of

friends, those on equal level with one another, though more and more people appear to be using

slang terms in conversations with immediate family. Face-to-face conversation encourages usage

and reproduction of novel language, particularly those with familiar company, which supports

the idea that slang only thrives in environments of community against authority. Niche language

was recognized by some, but not all, of the participants, indicating that their morphological

forms have meaning, but that meaning is not widespread. Some niche language might be limited

to hyper-specific contexts, which can limit reproduction.

Morphological evolution is present, particularly in slang terms that have existed for a

while such as T1 and T2, [wanna] and [gonna], which are showing signs of transcending usage

as contractions to being their own standalone terms that replace phrasal verbs. Similar

morphological evolution is present in terms such as [pspspsps], which does not have an

immediate vowel nucleus in any of its syllables, and [bby] and [scrungly], which could imply a

morpheme of [-y] to mean adorable or desirable. Alterations of preexisting words seem to be the

most preferable slang terms to use in a variety of contexts, and are generally more well known,

and thus there could be an increased instance of nouns and verbs with added morphemes to

imply a certain emotion or state of being, representing this evolution of the English language that

was originally sought after.

37
 CHAPTER 5

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER WORK

5.1. Limitations

This research relied on a small sample size all consisting of a selection of students from

the same university, many who likely grew up in the state that the university resides in. The

university is one that has several commuter students who attend classes but live off campus,

which contributes to a limited sample. The sample also primarily consisted of white,

heterosexual, cisgender individuals, which skews the cultural impact towards that group.

Particularly with slang, having more individuals who speak AAVE would be invaluable because

much modern slang is lifted from AAVE, especially as Black content gets popular on the

internet. Similarly, more participants that identify as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community

would be invaluable for a similar reason, with terminology often popularized by the gay

community especially.

Another limitation was the lack of ability to provide context, particularly during the

semantic analysis. As seen with Q6, at least one participant implied that confirmation as to

whether the ‘Jackson’ character was real or fictional would have resulted in an adjustment of

answer. Similarly, Q9 contained the word [bad], which could be perceived as a slang term

meaning ‘cool’ by older generations, despite maintaining its denotative meaning in younger

generations. Providing context for the terminology surrounding the slang terms would allow for a

clearer interpretation of whether a sentence is considered grammatical, as well as giving the

researcher a clearer interpretation as to why a sentence would be considered grammatical or not

by the participant.

38
5.2. Further Work

A wider sample size of English speakers would be greatly beneficial to this type of

research, particularly if the sample contained a wider variety of ages. Adolescents especially are

critical to any discussion about slang and language development, as they are often coming into

their own as people and seeking new manners of self-expression. Middle-aged and elderly

samples would also be useful as a means of judging how far slang influence is spreading, as well

as allowing for a compare-contrast model to be constructed around generational linguistic

differences. This could be expanded by introducing face-to-face conversations into the analysis,

giving participants certain topics to discuss, and seeing how they interact with family members

versus strangers of a variety of ages. This could allow for a more natural simulation of how these

words are used in context.

Similarly, analyzing the usage of TikTok slang in the context of schools and universities,

as well as medical institutions could be beneficial in determining how this form language could

connect authority figures and the adolescents they are meant to care for. It has already been

determined that slang terminology is more likely to be used in trusted and familiar company. It

has also been determined that the usage of slang by those that the community deems

‘commercialized’ (typically extended to older generations) is off-putting and makes them

undesirable to converse with. Therefore, the usage of slang by caregivers could result in either a

stronger connection with those they are meant to be caring for, leading to a higher likelihood of

adolescents trusting them when tasked with learning or medical care. Alternatively, caregivers

can learn what the words mean, but learn to avoid using them to maintain a trusting relationship

with those in their care. Either result could be beneficial to the wider populous, especially if it is

understood at a scientific level.

39
 Finally, analyzing other social media websites that have adopted some of TikTok’s style

of media and analyzing whether the language is consistent with what we see from TikTok users

to would allow for an assessment of migration and further evolution. YouTube, Instagram, and

Facebook especially have adopted a method of video sharing incredibly close to TikTok’s

through YouTube Shorts, Instagram Stories, and Facebook Watch respectively. All programs

involve sharing and watching videos that are typically less than three minutes total, and all share

very similar features. Popular TikToks have been known to have been reposted on these copycat

sites sometime after going viral. It would be interesting to analyze whether these communities

are interpreting and reproducing the same slang terms as those on TikTok, as well as whether the

meaning changes with the shift in both website and target demographic.

Of course, continuous research on TikTok could be made challenging should U.S.

congress pass laws banning the application from providing service throughout the United States,

much to the chagrin of content creators that regularly use the application. Due to the amount of

data the application logs and keeps on all 150 million of its users, rising levels of addiction in

adolescents using the app, and the fear that the algorithm is being influenced by TikTok’s

Chinese parent company, congress has begun hearings on whether the application should still be

legal on American soil (Pogue, 2023). Should this ban come to pass, further experimentation like

what has already been done and proposed would be required to analyze the linguistic

ramifications of the sudden dissolution of a community that large. This would take place months

to years after the application was banned, and again if the application was at all reinstated. This

also fails to take any resulting language development from the community being scattered, such

as how preexisting social media applications would accept the rush of displaced TikTok users, or

whether a new social media site would be created altogether.

40
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Summary of the Study

Algorithmic analysis of TikTok as both a new account user and someone exploring the

application for the first time reveal that TikTok attempts to assimilate new users into the culture

of the application as soon as possible, ideally when they know where the new account holder

lives as well as how old they are. Engagement on the new account further compartmentalizes

users into specific subcultures where more language can be heard, exemplified when the new

account began encountering more of the same terms alongside novel ones. Devices without an

account are shown incredibly generic content that tends to use either languages other than

English or no language at all outside of the tags and descriptions, which implies that outsiders

are not exposed to TikTok’s language without already being involved in the community.

Therefore, TikTok users are the primary source of migration, and language needs to be recreated

in face-to-face settings to continue to spread.

The survey revealed that all slang terminology was recognized by at least one participant,

as well as the fact that there is an apparent agreed grammar, though it is still relatively new and

subject to alteration. Slang terms recognized more frequently (typically those that have existed in

the English lexicon for some time) showed both an agreed grammar as well as signs of new

morphemes used to set them apart from any formal counterparts. Some slang terms appeared to

be more popular in specific instances, such as T6, T28 and T30, while others seemed preferable

in more generalized usages. Several participants noted fear using words that they did not

understand the meaning of, which could have been influenced by the assumed presence of a

41
researcher. Generally, most new slang terminology followed the agreed origins and popular uses

of slang, while older slang seemed to be more widely accepted outside of any pleas against

authority.

6.2 Implications of the Study

While it is at a slower rate than first hypothesized, language is evolving to include new

morphological combinations that encourage deletion/substitutions as well as terminology to refer

to hyper-specific instances. While it is most common in the younger generations, as the age gaps

between friend groups shorten, or even as the younger generations grow up, this language could

become more widespread. While there is a chance that many of these words could be lost to

time, the morphemes developed for them may not, and that they will be present in both formal

and informal language going forward. Society is slowly but surely reaching a point where most

of its workforce and leaders have grown up with social media as an ever-present factor in their

lives. Even though TikTok is relatively young, it’s large userbase filled with a variety of people

young and old prove that anyone can assimilate to a digital community, and therefore its

language, which can then theoretically enter physical conversation as friend groups grow up and

broaden. Social media will likely never go away, and thus it is best to evaluate how it could

change society as we know it.

Based on these results and the implications that result from them, it could take anywhere

from ten to thirty years for this linguistic shift to be more obvious, at which point there will be

more linguists who have also grown up with social media fluency. It is reasonable to hypothesize

that there will be many more studies on how language from certain social media groups affect

our societal lexicon whether TikTok maintains its standing as a social media powerhouse, or

even continues to exist. The effects of this type of social media usage have displayed noticeable

42
effects on the English lexicon as well as its grammar, and that is not something that appears or

disappears overnight. American society will continue to see the effects of TikTok slang

terminology on its language for years to come, especially as more and more of one’s online life

begins to intersect with their physical one.

43
BIBLIOGRAPHY

44
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blake, B. J. (2019). English Vocabulary Today: Into the 21st Century. Routledge.

Boffone, T. (Ed). (2022). TikTok Cultures in the United States. Routledge.

Broznya, E. (2022, August 3). Why Did Vine Shut Down? A Deep Dive Into the Beloved Short
Form Video App. PureWow. https://www.purewow.com/entertainment/why-did-vine-shut-
down.

Crystal, D. (2020). Let’s Talk: How English Conversation Works. Oxford University Press.

Coleman, J. (2012). The Life of Slang. Oxford University Press.

Evans, K. (2013). Re-Thinking Community in the Digital Age? In K. Orton-Johnson & N. Prior
(Eds.) Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives (pp. 79-94). Palgrave Macmillan.

Green, J. (2014). Language! 500 Years of the Vulgar Tongue. Atlantic Books.

Hanson, M. (2022, July 26). College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics. Education
Data Initiative. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics.

Hinton, S. & Hjorth, L. (2013). Understanding Social Media. Sage Publications.

International House. (2018, July 11). 10 words that don’t exist in English. International House
World Organization. https://ihworld.com/news-blog/ih-blog/10-words-that-don-t-exist-in-
english/

Manovich, L. (2009). The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass
Cultural Production? Critical Inquiry, 35(2). 319-331.

McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. Riverhead
Books.

45
Omar, B. & Dequan, W. (2020, March 12). Watch, Share, or Create: The Influence of Personality
Traits and User Motivation on TikTok Mobile Video Usage. International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technology, 14(4). 121-137. DOI: 10.3991/ijim.v14i04.12429

Pogue, D. (2023, April 2). Why TikTok faces bans in the U.S.. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-tiktok-faces-bans-in-the-u-s/

Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bonner, F. (2018). Engagement with
Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of Platform Type.
Journal of Advertising, 47(1). 38-54. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754.

Zappacigna, M. (2014, May 1). Ambient Affiliation in Microblogging: Bonding around the
Quotidian. Media International Australia, 151(1). 97-103. DOI:
10.1177/1329878X14151001.

46
APPENDICES

47
 APPENDIX A

SPRING 2023 LEXICAL AND SEMANTIC USAGE OF TIKTOK SLANG TERMINOLOGY

SURVEY

Demographics

1. What is your age?

2. What is your race/ethnicity?

3. What is your sexuality?

4. What is your gender identity?

5. What is your socioeconomic status?

TikTok Usage Evaluation

6. How many hours a day do you use the internet in any capacity?

7. How many hours a day do you use TikTok in any capacity?

8. How many hours a day do you communicate with others over TikTok?

9. How do you interact with TikTok? Select all that apply.

10. Do you make a distinction between friends you’ve made online and those you’ve met in

person?

Lexical Analysis

11. Review the list below. Select which words you recognize by their usual definition, by

their slang definition, or both.

12. In which company are the following words appropriate for formal conversation?

Semantic Analysis

48
13. “I went to go see that movie you recommended to me, it was lit! Thanks for telling me

about it!”

14. “Just yeet that into the trash, I haven’t worn it in months.”

15. “This drink smells really sus, I can’t wait to drink it!”

16. “That poggers boss of mine gave me a raise after I worked extra hours for her.”

17. “Jackson is the blorboest in the whole school!”

18. “I’m gonna go out for dinner tonight, do you want to come?”

19. “This shirt is a little tight, I feel kind of thiccy right now.”

20. “My baby cousin is so scrungly, I love him so much!”

21. “Mafuta looks really spicy in that hoodie, it’s so bad.”

22. If you said ‘unsure’ to any of these questions, please explain why.

49
 APPENDIX B

TABLE RECREATIONS OF LIKERT SCALES USED FOR LEXICAL ANALYSIS

SCALE A

Slang Definition Usual Definition Both

Wanna O O O

Gonna O O O

Hella O O O

Cringe O O O

Mood O O O

Adulting O O O

Sus O O O

Pog/Poggers O O O

Yeet O O O

Lit O O O

F O O O

L O O O

W O O O

Ratio O O O

Meme O O O

Unalive O O O

Sewerslide O O O

Spicy O O O

50
 Thicc O O O

Chungus O O O

Pspspsps O O O

Eeby-Deeby O O O

Blep O O O

Boomer O O O

Zoomer O O O

Karen O O O

Bby O O O

Bae O O O

Bestie O O O

Scrungly O O O

Blorbo O O O

Clutch O O O

Vibe O O O

SCALE B

Immediate Coworkers/ Physical Online Romantic Family

Family Classmates Friends Friends Partner outside
immediate
Wanna O O O O O O

Gonna O O O O O O

Hella O O O O O O

51
 Cringe O O O O O O

Mood O O O O O O

Adulting O O O O O O

Sus O O O O O O

Pog/Poggers O O O O O O

Yeet O O O O O O

Lit O O O O O O

F O O O O O O

L O O O O O O

W O O O O O O

Ratio O O O O O O

Meme O O O O O O

Unalive O O O O O O

Sewerslide O O O O O O

Spicy O O O O O O

Thicc O O O O O O

Chungus O O O O O O

Pspspsps O O O O O O

Eeby-Deeby O O O O O O

Blep O O O O O O

Boomer O O O O O O

Zoomer O O O O O O

Karen O O O O O O

52
 Bby O O O O O O

Bae O O O O O O

Bestie O O O O O O

Scrungly O O O O O O

Blorbo O O O O O O

Clutch O O O O O O

Vibe O O O O O O

53