Makes sense. It has been well documented by linguists for decades that women both communicate more than men and also on average use a bigger vocabulary to communicate more precisely. Teenage girls in particular spend more time together than older women, as they don't yet have things like work and parenting to distract them.
It makes sense that the majority of linguistic innovations comes from the most capable practitioners.
> use a bigger vocabulary to communicate more precisely
I contest this point. Dumping /dev/random to stdout does not imply more meaningful communication. I know many people who are fond of saying a lot of words whilst saying nothing at all.
(In my headcanon "super" had come into common use ca.2000, but now I see it was already extant at least two decades earlier: "It's like so bitching 'cause like everybody's like super-super nice")
You might also be interested in Dr Geoff Lindsey's video on 'vocal fry'[0] which is a linguistic phenomenon also associated with young women (although it isn't that simple). Dr Lindsey's channel is totally bitchin' like you wouldn't believe. You'll love it! I'm sure.
With all due respect, I regret to inform you that your linguistic trendiness has been mogged (blud is seething rn) and your sanity fanum taxed by W rizzlers ong fr fr so scuff no cap
It basically says both trendiness and sanity has been robbed away by "W rizzlers" a.k.a. "someone with lots of charm and charisma" (by Gen Z and Alpha standards), and the addressee ("blud") is frustrated ("seething") by the fact. Also, I often see such usage of the parentheses above in memes like this.
Didn't you read the article? No cap is out. Even I, a middle aged ex-hipster knew that. ;) (I know, emojis are so over)
I was in Paris and somebody was complaining that that the kids were saying "en vrai" all the time. I explained to her that it's "for real" which is one of my favorite 200x era hip hop phrases.
Most slang goes way back. "Cool" is 1930s black jazz culture, and now every white grandma say it without it even sounding odd.
>Often slang has originated from marginalised groups such as the queer community or POC (People of Colour).
And that hasn't changed, that is still exactly the case. When it's not 4chan lingo (which mostly stays in text/image form), it's AAVE. Not sure why it's always "Gen Z" or teenage girls getting credit for this.
Just look at their list of phrases that are "in":
Phrases that are "in"
>Bet — 'I'm down'. For example, if someone asks you to go out for dinner, you say 'bet'
>You devoured/ate — said in response to someone succeeding with style
>Full send — not caring, just going for it
>Slaps — If something slaps, it's really good (normally in a food context)
>Ceebs — a variation of CBF [can't be f*ked]
>Ick — a sudden feeling of grossness, often about a person's behaviour or mannerisms
out of these, only "Ceebs" (sounds like the a twist on "can't be arsed") and "Ick" aren't AAVE.
And the list of phrases that are "out":
>No cap — the truth
>Lit — something is great, but now considered very "2017-2018"
>Fam — used in reference to friends
>Slay — used when someone performs well, but considered dated and you'd only use the term ironically
When I worked in Japan, I heard much comment about linguistic innovation among teenage girls. I had the impression that it was more extreme in Japan than other countries, but maybe not.
With linguistic change driven mostly by females, I wonder what this indicates about societies that are or were linguistically conservative, also whether there was a difference between literate and pre-literate societies.
More tangibly, kawaii culture is one of the most influential cultural revolutions to ever emerge primarily from teenage girls; so Japan is indeed a great example here.
So I am guessing if we teach teenage girls (and future mothers) nonviolent communication, we will have peace in our communities in a couple of generations?
This is a dark view on non violent communication. I don't think it is as useful as it's proponents says, but surely you give it way more power and intent that those techniques really have, no ?
You can argue whether it is manipulative, but you can not deny "the intent" here. You you read up technique and then apply it, the conscious intent is 100% there. You made an active choice and went out of your way to enact it.
I can deny the intent to be exploitative and coercive.
Really I don't see how. I would like an example, i have learned sales techniques and to me even sales techniques, who are multiple order of magnitude more manipulative imho, aren't really coercive . Also, sales techniques works way better on persons not aware of them, non-violent communication mostly work if both persons use it (that makes it way less actionable than it's proponents affirm), which is to me the opposite of exploitative.
> (…) position yourself as close as possible to a group of young women and then shut your eyes and listen.
Like a cartoon character faking being asleep. Yes, I’m sure those teenagers won’t find that creepy or weird at all and will continue speaking as if you weren’t there.
Though in fairness, they’re quoting a woman. Maybe the interviewer was also a woman and they were really speaking one-to-one, not thinking that specific section would be quoted.
I was almost surprised that anyone printed that 'advice' but then I remembered it's ABC News Online, Australia's most trusted news service. It's probably a misquote and/or the person who they thought they were quoting actually died three years ago and had a completely different name.
In any case, barf me out. No way. Gag me with a spoon.
It makes sense that the majority of linguistic innovations comes from the most capable practitioners.