Accepting youth terminology in China

ABSTRACT

Youth terminology, largely invented and spawned by social networks spanning the ages of adolescence to young adulthood, embodies a connotative reality that, at times, extends well beyond the conventional use of the language. This study investigates the acceptance degree of youth terms across different age groups in China. It adopts language ideology as the theoretical framework and combines it with Bronislaw Malinowski’s language value. The researcher gets responses (N = 226) among people aged from 10 to 70 with a high level of acceptance towards youth terminology in Chinese society generally. It reveals that the underlying language ideology, alongside the specific meanings or concepts emblematic of such ideology, significantly influences acceptance levels. Notably, individuals between 40 and 70 years preferred terms imbued with positive connotations that resonate with their life experiences. Youth are more concentrated on whether terms can help them express themselves effectively and effortlessly, as they coined youth terms.

KEYWORDS:

• Acceptance degree
• China
• language ideology
• language as an action
• youth terminology

Introduction

Youth terminology, the terminology used by people from roughly 10 to 30 years old, is coined by young people and does not correspond to the meaning of the traditional lexical collocation. The terms come from the practice and accidental incidents of young people’s language speaking and using while they go viral and are committed widely by youth.

In the current scholarship, ‘youth slang’ and ‘teenage slang’ are the objectives that researchers focus on and have strong similar features with ‘youth terminology,’ but the functions are various. As Mattiello (2005) described, the intention behind slang is not to deliberately exclude undesirable individuals from conversations or mutual comprehension. However, the concept of depending on a shared feeling of unity and acceptance is a natural desire among teenagers and young adults. This contributes to the major gap between youth terminology and slang, as terminology is another way for young people to communicate and chat instead of secretly conveying. However, these characteristics serve as essential initial components for comprehending the informal essence or societal limitations of these terminologies or slang (Fajardo, 2018). That aims to establish or strengthen social identity within a group or align with a prevalent trend or fashion in society (Eble, 2012). In this study, the term ‘youth terminology’ is defined as the widely used ‘youth slang’ in intergenerational communication for its coined population and outsiders while achieving the communication purpose, which differs ‘terminology’ per se from ‘slang’.

When youth terminology, expressing and communicating, social acceptance, is a vital factor to decide whether it will be kept and used by people or discarded. As different age groups reflect or contain their own respective ideologies, and hence the extent and propensity of acceptance of youth terminology is predicated on age group. Thus, it is essential to get the extent of acceptance of youth terminology as it reflects the ideology of the society as a whole across ages. I thus have seen it as significant to investigate the ideologies of respective groups of people towards youth ideologies. In this way, I have sought to document and, to an extent, cluster these ideologies, in order to develop an understanding of these ideologies and hence attitudes towards youth language in China.

Here, I asked the following main question: To what extent and in which ways do the ideologies of different age groups in China represent the effectiveness of language-as-action based on youth terminologies? To respond to this, I separated the study into two parts. In the first part, I draw on a theoretical framework of language ideologies to determine and cluster the ideologies of respective age groups towards the youth language in China. Following this, I examined and talked about whether older age groups accepted or rejected youth language. This was based on how these groups perceived the use of specific youth terms. I specifically looked at whether there was a tendency to accept or reject these terms among older individuals. For this, I draw on a Malinowskian framework of language as an action.

This paper provides an insightful view of how youth terminology represents young people’s actions and ideas based on the term themselves. In a broader context, responses and reactions of other people of different genders, classes, and ages of youth terminologies reflect the Chinese language ideology and how it shapes their actions and language using and speaking. It can be taken as a footstone to study the languages of specific communities and how they interact with the language ideology in China.

Literature review

The following literature review parts discuss different aspects of youth language and ideologies. I mainly focus on two aspects: language ideologies across generations, and language ideologies in use under Chinese context.

Language ideologies across generations

French philosopher Destutt de Tracy coined the term ‘ideology’ over 200 years ago, to refer to a then new field of study analysing ideas (Van Dijk, 2006). Ideology has been posited as a distinctive sub-discipline within zoology that acknowledges the unique status of humans as creatures possessing the capacity for ideation, constituting the substance of what may be termed our cognitive faculties (Silverstein, 1992). Woolard (1998) concludes that the notion of ideology exhibits four categories of meaning: a) mental concepts and beliefs tied to subjective experiences and consciousness, b) its connection to the experiences and interests of particular social groups, c) its direct association with positions of power in social, political, and economic spheres, d) distortion, illusion, error, mystification, or rationalization (p. 7). She notes a major distinction between the second and third meanings of focus above, which respectively represent the neutral and critical connotations of the term. This divide is significant. Van Dijk (2006) also points out that the daily usage of ideology accompanies a negative meaning – the origins of this unfavourable connotation can be traced back to Marx-Engels, who believed that ideologies represented a type of ‘incorrect awareness’ or ‘delusion’ (p. 728).

More specifically to language, Silverstein (1979) clarified that ‘language ideology’ refers to the beliefs that people have about language, which they use to rationalize or justify the way language is structured and used. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) gave special importance to ‘language ideology as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk’ (p. 55). Bilik (2019) states that language ideology involves all aspects of human society and reflects the interests of different communities and classes, as well as the process of talk and negotiation among them (p. 185–186).

Woolard (2020, p. 1) notes that the terms ‘language ideologies,’ ‘linguistic ideologies,’ and ‘ideologies of language’ refer to the same area of study and are often used interchangeably. Woolard (2020) mentions that language ideology research involves the exploration of the linguistic assumptions that are present in social judgements, in order to expose how evaluations of individuals may actually be based on their language usage. Language ideology is not only about ‘language.’ The concept of it involves perceiving and carrying out connections between language and aspects such as one’s group and individual identity, aesthetics, moral values, and epistemology (Woolard, 1998). In this study, language ideology, based on the interpretation by Silverstein (1979), refers to people’s beliefs about (youth) language, which reciprocally reinforce their acceptance and usage of it.

Ideologies shift across generations, as they do in many other ways. The Millennial generation, born between 1981 and 1996, largely exhibits flexible ideologies and practices (Purba et al., 2020; Sulaiman & Al-Muscati, 2017; Ukhtin et al., 2021). For instance, Ukhtin et al. (2021) study the Twitter users of the Millennial Generation in Indonesia. They find that their language style is divided into four categories: ‘namely formal, consultative, casual and intimate’ (p. 150). Furthermore, nearly 70% of them adopt casual language in their communication.

Generation Z, also labelled Zoomer, refers to individuals who were born from the late 1990s to the early 2010s, and more specifically, from 1997 to 2012 (Dimock, 2019). As Törőcsik et al. (2014) write, the connection between generations is established through shared life experiences, common values, and collective memories, where ‘the study of generations is grounded on the difference in value orientation’ (p. 24). Cohort experiences can influence value orientations, while shared beliefs and behaviours also contribute to shaping these collective experiences. For instance, the Baby Boomer and Generation Z cohorts may exhibit differing attitudes towards science and technology due to their distinct historical backgrounds and living conditions. However, it is important to note that value orientations can also vary across different regions and cultures.

These value orientations affect communication between different generations. For example, Venter (2017), researching the communication divide between Generation Y and the Baby Boomer generation, notes that the internet has brought about a significant transformation in interpersonal communication, where the traditional mode of face-to-face communication has been largely replaced by computer-mediated communication (CMC). She concludes that in CMC, the significance of messages is frequently weakened due to the absence of nonverbal cues and social presence. Yet, the communication patterns of Generation Z have been significantly influenced by CMC, due to the increased prevalence of the internet. Anderson (2022) starts with the phrase ‘OK boomer’ to explore intergenerational communication and concludes that ‘OK boomer’ was portrayed as a demagogic form of communication that strengthened stereotypes about people based on their age, which also exposes the conflict and opposition of ideology in and across generations. According to Tagliamonte (2016), young people’s language on the internet does not constitute a degradation of grammar in the context of internet language, though it has some shortened words, icons, and acronyms. On the contrary, the younger generation is adeptly manoeuvring through a complicated assortment of recently developed written communication styles, and have full mastery over each of them.

The language and ideology distinction not only appears across generations but also within the Generation Z group. In Sapkota’s (2022) study, the language utilized in birthday greetings is scrutinized to understand how Generation Z justifies social power. The analysis explores how power dynamics impact the formation of messages in language, as well as societal and cultural structures and relationships. The study reveals that language in Facebook birthday wishes primarily aims to facilitate self-expression and social interaction.

Drummond (2016), focusing on race, finds that young individuals from different ethnic backgrounds often appear to use a form of language referred to as ‘ghetto grammar’ or ‘Jafaican’ (Johns, 2012, cited in Drummond, 2016, p. 2). These expressions are often associated with the idea of sounding black in mainstream social media in the UK. Drummond notes that young people offer fresh perspectives on language that contradict the media’s common portrayals. They are using previously linked ethnic language features in new ways, showing that ethnicity may not matter to them when it comes to language.

As shown above, the younger generation uses social media and the internet as both communication media and language corpus, which assist them in coining, conveying, and practicing language freely. These effects of communication and social interaction all together aid in the integration of the youth into different contexts across generations, races, and even cultures. The youth community exhibits an open and flexible language ideology and usage at a level greater than that of older generations, a divide which has also motivated the emergence of a significant gap between the youth and older generations. Though the youth community largely exercises and adopts inclusive language ideologies that may or may not emanate from outside of youth communities, language usage and ideology internal to the youth community continue to at times raise conflicts across generations.

Language ideologies in use under Chinese context

Chinese language exhibits complexity in the early 20^th century. During this period, China was significantly impacted by the October Revolution in Russia, which in turn led to the emergence of the May Fourth Movement. The intellectual class, in order to save the country from peril, opposed the old ways of thinking, rejected Confucianism, advocated the use of vernacular Chinese, and promoted Western-style democracy and science (Bilik, 2019). In this context, there emerged a debate over classical and vernacular language, which is also a dispute over language ideology. The innovators advocate the introduction of new ideas, the use of everyday language spoken by the people, and the adoption of vernacular Chinese styles; while the conservatives criticize the use of vernacular language as vulgar and defend the dignity of classical Chinese (Chen, 1983).

As a multinational country, 55 ethnic minorities have so far been identified by the government, and ‘more than 120 languages are spoken’ in the People’s Republic of China (Bilik, 2019, p. 185). After the founding of the PRC, a series of ethnic policies were formulated by the state, which established language policies and educational guidelines for ethnic minorities. Supporting systems for minority schools and administrative institutions were established. ‘Each ethnic group has the freedom to use and promote their own language and writing system’ (Law of the People’s Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy, 1984), reflecting the unique language ideology with Chinese characteristics as a comprehensive representation of Chinese cultural, political and ethnic situations. The Law of the PRC on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language adopted in (2000) (Chapter I, Article 8) reaffirms that ‘all ethnic groups have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages.’

Language ideology directly relates to metasemantics, or to explain speech events through glossing; the focus is on the meaning of language itself, or the semantics of the language, as the subject of analysis (Silverstein, 1976) and metapragmatics, which will influence language teaching without a doubt. Han and Cassels Johnson (2020) observed something interesting about language policy and ideology in China: In the past, the language policy in Xinjiang has favoured the use of Uyghur as a medium of instruction. However, there has been a shift in recent years towards prioritizing the Chinese language proficiency of Uyghur youths. This change is aimed at reducing social and political tensions and encouraging national harmony. They reveal ‘how policies have shifted towards favoring and promoting Putonghua (only) as the lingua franca (p. 1)’. It seems that the language ideology of Chinese as the main body still affects the development of minority languages, despite the apparent policy support.

According to the search results from the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, since 2012, the Chinese official government has started to release the Top 10 Chinese Media Buzzwords (2020b) or Top 10 Trending Chinese Internet Phrases (2020a). As such, youth terminology and internet language are widely used in Chinese people’s daily lives, while people have their own preferences and internal ideology for the choice and use of these terms. However, the above current scholarship shows that few attempts have been made to develop youth terminology in China, and the language ideology underlying it still waits to be explored. This research provides fresh thoughts on this issue and tries to reveal the language ideology behind these terms.

Methodical framework

Research design

Research design, as a schema of a study, lays the foundation for research. Hence, this research chooses mixed-method (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) as the research design, which suits the study to combine the descriptive and quantitative analysis. The acceptance degree of youth terms requires the utilization of quantitative methods while the analysis adopts descriptive and content analysis approaches. Moreover, the grounded theory is applied based on the interviews as a supplement to the qualitative approach.

Theoretical framework

The language under investigation in this study is Mandarin, which holds the status of the official language of mainland China. This research adopted a perspective on language ideology based on Silverstein (1979) that conceptualized it as the constellation of beliefs held by individuals from various generational cohorts concerning particular terminologies used by the youth. It mutually reinforces the acceptance and usage of youth terminology. The extent to which these multidimensional terminologies are accepted or rejected by different generations may serve as an indicator of their underlying ideological stances. Therefore, the degree of acceptance or resistance towards these youth-specific terminologies is posited as a manifestation of the generational ideologies, reflecting broader attitudes and beliefs through their reactions to these linguistic expressions.

To develop a strong theoretical framework, the research adopted language ideology (Silverstein, 1979) as the basement and combined it with Bronislaw Malinowski’s language value of language as an action (Duranti, 1997) to strengthen the research. As Malinowski went beyond mere questioning by mastering the language of the people he studied (Duranti, 1997), he not only skilfully applied the theory of the subject in the fieldwork, but also learned the local language and used it to ask questions and make ethnography. Duranti (1997, p. 215) concluded that two major ethnographic language values of Malinowski are ‘(i) the notion of context of the situation and (ii) the view of language as a mode of action’. He uses language action to ‘grasp the native’s point of view, his relations to life, to realize his vision of his world’ (Bilik, 2019, p. 134; Malinowski, 1922, p. 25). It can be concluded that the study of youth terminology is a homogeneous study of the youth’s actions, under Malinowski’s language value.

Research instrument

I developed a questionnaire to explore people’s responses about their acceptance of youth terms (The questionnaire is shown in the Appendix) in the following parts: (I)Profile of Respondents; (II)Young People’s Terminology Identification; (III)Acceptance Degree of Young People’s Terminology and Factors; and (Ⅳ)Analysis of Respondents. Gender and age range are needed for the respondent’s profile. According to the definition of Generation Z mentioned previously, the person who was born between 1997 and 2012 (Dimock, 2019) is now aged 11–26. As the age range is close to 10 to 30, this research defines this age group as ‘youth’. The ‘adults and elders’ group refers to the age range from 30 to 70. The intended groups are standardized by age groups from 10 to 70, which each 10 years age divides a group to stand for a generation. I clustered youth terminologies through online interviews with more than 100 young generation people to gather and verify the most often used terms by youth as the studied terms. The interview is semi-structured with the following questions: 1. When you communicate with people much older than you, do you sometimes find it difficult to communicate? 2. Have you experienced that sometimes older people can not understand the term you use, but your peers can? 3. What some of these terms do you use quite often during your communication? Extending from the Top 10 Chinese Media Buzzwords (2020b) or Top 10 Trending Chinese Internet Phrases (2020a) mentioned before, I note that youth terminology constitutes the majority of the items in the lists, not all of them according to the interviews. I selected 20 items that come from Chinese media buzzwords and my interviews of the youth that represent youth terminology, which I presented in Table 1. These 20 terms are highly appeared and used by the respondents during the initial interview, at least mentioned by more than 70% of interviewees. After the interview audios were transcribed, I applied NVivo 14.0 to code these terms respectively. Then, I have divided the following terms into five categories: politics, business, internet, game, and daily lifestyle and habits, based on their sources applying a grounded theory approach.

Table 1. Twenty youth terminologies.

No.	Original youth terminology	How these terms can be expressed in English	Interpretation
Politics (P)
1	学习新思想，争做新青年	Learn new ideas, be new period youth
Business (B)
2	疯狂星期四V我50	Crazy Thursday, Treat Me 50
3	拔草	Pull up seeds	No longer long for or remove from the shopping cart
Internet (I)
4	么么	Mo Mo	A mimetic word for kissing to express gratitude or show intimate relationships
5	YYDS		The greatest of all time
6	Vlog/Plog/Vibe
7	Emo		Down in the dumps
8	家人们	My family	Dear you or friends
9	奥利给	Ao Li Gei	Awesome
10	栓Q	3 Q	Speechless
Game (G)
11	6		Impressive. However, when people express continuous ‘6’, e.g. 666/666666, it sometimes indicates satire
12	破防	Break the defence	Overwhelmed
Daily Lifestyle and Habits (DLH)
13	划水	Row your boat	Slack off
14	依托答辩	Peace of shirt	Piece of shit
15	躺平	Lie flat	Refuse to rat race but has own lifestyle
16	早八	Morning eight	8 a.m.
17	夺笋	Grab bamboo shoots	Tart and mean/bitterly sarcastic
18	废话文学	Nonsense literature	What speaks and writes is meaningless
19	XX死	V. to death, e.g. laugh to death	#19 and #20 both represent the depth of the degree
20	XX发财	V. till making a fortune

In the next part, respondents need to show their familiarity with the listed items without explanations of terms, as they only need to identify them based on their degree of familiarity via a 5-level Likert Scale. For the young generation whose age range is from 10 to 30, they need to tell their ideas of where these terms come from as an added question. The following section explains the concept of each item to help them give the extent of acceptance. It consists of three levels of acceptance: 1 ~ 5 showing respondents’ levels of acceptance, 0 standing for unacceptance, and −1~-5 telling their rejection of the terms’ usage. This kind of setting can give a more direct and clear acceptance level of the youth terms. Then, respondents are asked to explain their motivations for accepting or unaccepting reasons on the perspectives of society, communication, and aesthetics or affection. There is a point at which language begins to become accepted and researcher wants to find the reason behind their evaluations of terms. Hence, respondents’ self-analysis is added as well to find out the ideological connection among their behaviour, the choice, and acceptance of youth terminology. The final part of the questionnaire gives reasons at a deeper aspect of youth terms acceptance level based on respondents’ self-analysis per se. Through SPSS 26.0, the internal consistency alpha coefficient for the scale about youth terminology identification in Part(II), Question 4, demonstrated strong reliability with a value of α = 0.959. The scale in Part (Ⅳ) is divided into ‘willingness’ and ‘frequency’ parts, with a value of α = 0.674 and α = 0.810, respectively.

Data collection

Data collection through the questionnaire and interactions and engagements with the community. I published the questionnaire online through the Chinese social media platform, WeChat. The data collection lasts for half a month. It gets 228 responses with 2 invalid ones. I also interacted with nearly 20 respondents who left their contact information (as an optional part of the ending in the questionnaire) and discussed with them through interviews based on their questionnaire responses. However, due to the limitations of the anonymous questionnaire, I cannot expand the interview to all the respondents. As presented in Table 1, the youth terminology also involves several English language-based terminology. Hence, this research attempts to locate factors that influence the emergence of these language ideologies and some ways in which they interact and shape people’s choice of utterances and terminologies in both the English and the Chinese languages. To this, I adopt a qualitative descriptive analysis. Acceptance degree is analysed through collected data with quantitative analysis. The reflection and interaction between ideology and terms is discussed via descriptive analysis. I then expand on this theoretically.

Ethical considerations

The study follows closely to the line of ethical principles. All information and responses are anonymous and no sensitive information is collected. At any time of the research process, the ethics issue is the top priority and consideration.

Results and discussion

Respondents’ information

The questionnaire survey got 228 responses in total with 2 invalid responses. As shown in Table 2, respondents are divided into different age groups with a 10-year age gap each from age 10 to 70. Basically, respondents cover all the age ranges listed.

Table 2. Age range distribution of respondents.

Age Range	Group	Number	Percentage
10–20	Youth (194)	104	46.02%
20–30		90	39.82%
30–40	Adults and elders (32)	14	6.19%
40–50		9	3.98%
50–60		7	3.1%
60–70		2	0.88%
Total	226

Youth terminology identification

Youth terminology identification refers to the respondents’ familiarity with the 20 listed terminologies and shows in descending order according to the score on the five-level scale in Table 3. The construct validity of these selected youth terminologies is corroborated through the empirical data obtained, indicating a notable average score of 3.81. This figure is markedly higher when juxtaposed with the scores attributed to adults and elders, which are documented in Table 4, possessing a considerably lower average of 2.47. Such a disparity underscores the prevalent familiarity and utilization of these terminologies predominantly within younger cohorts. Furthermore, an examination of the preference distribution across the initial three strata of the scale – emphasizing varied frequencies of usage despite acknowledgement of the terms – reveals a substantial aggregation, accounting for 94.31% among the youth vis-à-vis the elder cohorts.

Table 3. Youth respondents’ degree of familiarity with terminologies.

Terminology	I know nothing about it and do not use it.	I do not know, but I use it.	I know it but rarely use it.	I know it and sometimes use it.	I know it and use it almost daily.	Average
#16	5(2.58%)	0(0%)	26(13.4%)	47(24.23%)	116(59.79%)	4.39
#19	12(6.19%)	1(0.52%)	26(13.4%)	49(25.26%)	106(54.64%)	4.22
#11	7(3.61%)	4(2.06%)	39(20.1%)	47(24.23%)	97(50%)	4.15
#15	7(3.61%)	1(0.52%)	34(17.53%)	85(43.81%)	67(34.54%)	4.05
#4	7(3.61%)	1(0.52%)	56(28.87%)	56(28.87%)	74(38.14%)	3.97
#8	9(4.64%)	1(0.52%)	58(29.9%)	51(26.29%)	75(38.66%)	3.94
#12	7(3.61%)	3(1.55%)	55(28.35%)	65(33.51%)	64(32.99%)	3.91
#13	6(3.09%)	2(1.03%)	63(32.47%)	61(31.44%)	62(31.96%)	3.88
#10	7(3.61%)	3(1.55%)	62(31.96%)	59(30.41%)	63(32.47%)	3.87
#5	7(3.61%)	0(0%)	69(35.57%)	55(28.35%)	63(32.47%)	3.86
#7	5(2.58%)	2(1.03%)	67(34.54%)	64(32.99%)	56(28.87%)	3.85
#3	7(3.61%)	1(0.52%)	71(36.6%)	69(35.57%)	46(23.71%)	3.75
#14	14(7.22%)	2(1.03%)	79(40.72%)	36(18.56%)	63(32.47%)	3.68
#2	6(3.09%)	3(1.55%)	82(42.27%)	59(30.41%)	44(22.68%)	3.68
#6	15(7.73%)	2(1.03%)	62(31.96%)	70(36.08%)	45(23.2%)	3.66
#20	10(5.15%)	3(1.55%)	83(42.78%)	47(24.23%)	51(26.29%)	3.65
#18	9(4.64%)	1(0.52%)	101(52.06%)	44(22.68%)	39(20.1%)	3.53
#17	13(6.7%)	3(1.55%)	108(55.67%)	37(19.07%)	33(17.01%)	3.38
#9	8(4.12%)	5(2.58%)	117(60.31%)	35(18.04%)	29(14.95%)	3.37
#1	15(7.73%)	7(3.61%)	100(51.55%)	41(21.13%)	31(15.98%)	3.34
Sum	176(4.54%)	45(1.16%)	1358(35%)	1077(27.76%)	1224(31.55%)	3.81

Table 4. Adults and elders familiarity with terminology.

Terminology	I know nothing about it and do not use it.	I do not know but I also use it.	I know it but rarely use it.	I know it and sometimes use it.	I know it and use it almost daily.	Average
#15	7(21.88%)	3(9.38%)	6(18.75%)	11(34.38%)	5(15.63%)	3.13
#3	10(31.25%)	2(6.25%)	7(21.88%)	9(28.13%)	4(12.5%)	2.84
#11	10(31.25%)	2(6.25%)	7(21.88%)	10(31.25%)	3(9.38%)	2.81
#13	7(21.88%)	3(9.38%)	14(43.75%)	8(25%)	0(0%)	2.72
#8	10(31.25%)	1(3.13%)	13(40.63%)	5(15.63%)	3(9.38%)	2.69
#12	9(28.13%)	1(3.13%)	14(43.75%)	7(21.88%)	1(3.13%)	2.69
#20	7(21.88%)	2(6.25%)	18(56.25%)	5(15.63%)	0(0%)	2.66
#9	8(25%)	1(3.13%)	17(53.13%)	6(18.75%)	0(0%)	2.66
#1	8(25%)	4(12.5%)	14(43.75%)	5(15.63%)	1(3.13%)	2.59
#5	9(28.13%)	2(6.25%)	17(53.13%)	3(9.38%)	1(3.13%)	2.53
#19	9(28.13%)	4(12.5%)	15(46.88%)	2(6.25%)	2(6.25%)	2.5
#4	9(28.13%)	5(15.63%)	14(43.75%)	3(9.38%)	1(3.13%)	2.44
#18	11(34.38%)	2(6.25%)	14(43.75%)	4(12.5%)	1(3.13%)	2.44
#7	10(31.25%)	3(9.38%)	17(53.13%)	1(3.13%)	1(3.13%)	2.38
#10	14(43.75%)	2(6.25%)	13(40.63%)	1(3.13%)	2(6.25%)	2.22
#6	14(43.75%)	4(12.5%)	10(31.25%)	3(9.38%)	1(3.13%)	2.16
#17	13(40.63%)	4(12.5%)	14(43.75%)	0(0%)	1(3.13%)	2.13
#16	14(43.75%)	4(12.5%)	12(37.5%)	1(3.13%)	1(3.13%)	2.09
#2	14(43.75%)	7(21.88%)	10(31.25%)	1(3.13%)	0(0%)	1.94
#14	18(56.25%)	3(9.38%)	9(28.13%)	1(3.13%)	1(3.13%)	1.88
Sum	211(32.97%)	59(9.22%)	255(39.84%)	86(13.44%)	29(4.53%)	2.47

In Table 4, the data indicate that 42.19% of adults and elders are unfamiliar with the terminologies in question. Consequently, this group appears to encounter youth terminologies as novel concepts and terms, which suggests that their receptivity towards these terminologies is likely to manifest with a greater degree of objectivity during the evaluative phase.

Social acceptance of youth terminology

Before talking about the acceptance degree, it is vital to analyse the sources of the youth terminology, as it ties with the language ideology. In the methodology part, the researcher divides the terminologies into five parts: politics, business, internet, game, and daily lifestyle and habits. As for the young people’s responses, they will be more specific on the sources in Table 5. They are allowed to give multiple responses to the sources of the given terms. The internet serves as a pivotal platform in the genesis of youth terminologies, with an overwhelming 92.82% of such linguistic innovations being attributed to its influence. This encompasses not only the broader digital landscape but also specific segments within it, such as live streaming platforms and online gaming environments. These areas are particularly fertile grounds for the emergence and dissemination of new terminologies among youth. An intriguing aspect of this dynamic is the relative insularity of terminology creation from broader cultural influences. While one might anticipate that cultural factors would play a significant role in shaping the development of new terms, evidence suggests that these factors are not primary drivers in the initial creation of youth terminologies as culture holds the least influential factor, with only 24.86%. Instead, cultural influences become more apparent in subsequent stages, specifically affecting the selection, adoption, and acceptance of these terms among wider users. This distinction underscores a nuanced relationship between culture and language evolution in digital contexts, where the immediacy and global reach of the Internet can foster linguistic innovation that, while rapidly disseminated, may initially bypass traditional cultural gatekeeping mechanisms. Thus, while culture undoubtedly informs the broader linguistic landscape, its impact on the genesis of specific terms within youth terminologies appears to be more indirect, or ideologically influencing, exerting influence primarily through patterns of usage and acceptance rather than direct creation.

Table 5. Youth’s opinions about where these youth terminologies come from.

Sources	Number	Percentage
Social Media Platform	168	92.82%
Internet Live Streaming	132	72.93%
Lifestyle or Habits	112	61.88%
Hot Spots of Society	106	58.56%
Cell Phone Application	73	40.33%
Game	62	34.25%
Culture	45	24.86%
Others	0	00.00%

Table 6 shows the acceptance score of the two groups. The score evaluation here appears to have three approaches: −5 ~ −1 represents their rejection of the terminology, 0 shows do not accept, and 1 ~ 5 means they accept and support the terminology’s usage and spreading. Youths (M = 2.55, SD = 0.53) have a significantly higher acceptance of listed youth terminologies than adults and elders (M = 1.79 SD = 0.70), t(38) = 3.87, p < .001.

Table 6. The extent of acceptance of listed youth terminologies.

Terminology	Acceptance Score			Category
	Youth	Adults and Elders	Average
#1	2.55	2.81	2.58	P
#12	3.02	2.75	2.98	G
#3	3.01	2.69	2.96	B
#15	2.82	2.56	2.78	DLH
#13	2.43	2.38	2.42	DLH
#8	2.89	2.34	2.81	I
#9	1.38	2.22	1.5	I
#16	3.73	2.16	3.5	DLH
#6	3.38	1.78	3.15	I
#20	2.34	1.59	2.23	DLH
#5	2.57	1.59	2.43	I
#4	2.8	1.56	2.63	I
#7	2.49	1.53	2.35	I
#10	2.26	1.5	2.15	I
#11	2.09	1.47	2	G
#17	1.87	1.47	1.81	DLH
#18	2.27	1.41	2.15	DLH
#2	2.33	0.97	2.14	B
#19	2.6	0.91	2.36	DLH
#14	2.11	0.09	1.82	DLH
Average Score	2.55	1.79	2.44

Terminology #1, distinguished as the sole one deriving from the political domain, secures the most pronounced endorsement from the cohort comprising adults and elders. This particular term exhibits a substantial correlation with the Communist Party of China, a factor that, according to the insights gleaned from Table 6, is paralleled by the high valuation of the sentiment ‘I like Chinese culture’ among them. Such findings underscore a profound symbiosis between the ideological orientations of this group and their linguistic preferences. The data elucidates a clear linkage between the political allegiances and cultural affiliations of the adults and elders and their favourable reception of terminology that resonates with these ideological underpinnings.The acceptance of terms categorized by the areas of internet and daily lifestyle and habits has a major distinction between the two groups. Drawing upon Malinowski’s conceptualization of language as constitutive of action (Duranti, 1997), it becomes evident that Generation Z, or the youth of today, is maturing within the evolutionary trajectory of the Internet. This immersion in digital culture profoundly moulds their linguistic expressions, lifestyles, and ideological frameworks. The omnipresence of the Internet in their formative years facilitates a unique socio-linguistic environment that deeply embeds internet-derived lexis, narratives, and value systems into their daily interactions and self-conceptions. In stark contrast, individuals from older generations – adults and elders – occupy a markedly different position with respect to the digital age. Their engagement with the internet, tends to be peripheral, rendering them more as observers or external participants rather than integral constituents of this digital milieu. Consequently, their linguistic practices and ideological stances are influenced by the Internet to a considerably lesser extent. This divergence in digital engagement and its resultant impact on language and ideology significantly contributes to the widening chasm between these cohorts.

The data presented in Tables 7 and 8 elucidates a significant divergence in the daily Internet usage patterns across different age groups, revealing that 82.99% of younger individuals, ostensibly Generation Z, engage with the Internet for a minimum of two hours each day. This figure starkly contrasts with the 46.88% reported among the older demographic. Consequently, this near twofold discrepancy in engagement rates underpins a discernible aversion among the adult cohort towards the linguistic constructs prevalent on social media platforms, attributing their disfavour to the extensive time their younger counterparts dedicate to these digital environments, which they perceive as disproportionately influenced by social media content.

Table 7. Adults and elders respondents’ social and interactional evaluation of their own behavioural patterns.

Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Average
Frequency
I like Chinese culture	2(6.25%)	1(3.13%)	3(9.38%)	6(18.75%)	20(62.5%)	4.28
I often get hot topics from apps.	2(6.25%)	1(3.13%)	10(31.25%)	10(31.25%)	9(28.13%)	3.72
I want to communicate.	2(6.25%)	0(0%)	8(25%)	17(53.13%)	5(15.63%)	3.72
I check social media daily.	2(6.25%)	5(15.63%)	14(43.75%)	7(21.88%)	4(12.5%)	3.19
I’m online >2 hours daily.	5(15.62%)	2(6.25%)	10(31.30%)	11(34.38%)	4(12.50%)	2.9
I often play online games.	8(25%)	10(31.25%)	6(18.75%)	5(15.63%)	3(9.38%)	2.53
Willingness
I like to know and learn new things.	4(12.5%)	0(0%)	11(34.38%)	11(34.38%)	6(18.75%)	3.47
I often discuss what I see/hear online.	4(12.5%)	2(6.25%)	11(34.38%)	11(34.38%)	4(12.5%)	3.28
I don’t resist stepping out of my comfort zone.	4(12.5%)	1(3.13%)	13(40.63%)	11(34.38%)	3(9.38%)	3.25
Sum	33(11.46%)	22(7.64%)	86(29.86%)	89(30.9%)	58(20.14%)	3.41

Table 8. Youth respondents’ social and interactional evaluation of their own behavioural patterns.

Items	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Average
Frequency
I check social media daily.	3(1.55%)	1(0.52%)	21(10.82%)	56(28.87%)	113(58.25%)	4.42
I like Chinese culture	4(2.06%)	1(0.52%)	26(13.4%)	48(24.74%)	115(59.28%)	4.39
I’m online >2 hours daily.	4(2.06%)	6(3.09%)	23(11.86%)	52(26.8%)	109(56.19%)	4.32
I often get hot topics from apps.	4(2.06%)	1(0.52%)	25(12.89%)	68(35.05%)	96(49.48%)	4.29
I want to communicate.	8(4.12%)	4(2.06%)	50(25.77%)	63(32.47%)	69(35.57%)	3.93
I often play online games.	17(8.76%)	23(11.86%)	41(21.13%)	40(20.62%)	73(37.63%)	3.66
Willingness
I like to know and learn new things.	3(1.55%)	3(1.55%)	20(10.31%)	74(38.14%)	94(48.45%)	4.3
I often discuss what I see/hear online.	7(3.61%)	8(4.12%)	33(17.01%)	65(33.51%)	81(41.75%)	4.06
I don’t resist stepping out of my comfort zone.	6(3.09%)	9(4.64%)	46(23.71%)	66(34.02%)	67(34.54%)	3.92
Sum	56(3.21%)	56(3.21%)	285(16.32%)	532(30.47%)	817(46.79%)	4.14

Further examination of specific terminologies, notably those tagged as #5, #7, and #10, which incorporate English expressions, reveals a pronounced reluctance among adults and elders to embrace such linguistic innovations. This hesitance is corroborated by social and interactional analyses, suggesting a limited propensity among these groups to venture beyond their linguistic comfort zones or to assimilate a novel terminology. This trend ostensibly reflects a broader ideological resistance to the encroachment of new cultural elements, particularly those demanding an investment of time and effort, with technology and the English language emerging as focal points of resistance. Moreover, the dataset indicates a categorical rejection of terms associated with negative connotations – abuse, filth, misfortune, or offence – by the older cohorts, particularly those terms enumerated as #14, #17, and #19. This aversion aligns with the cultural proclivities towards avoiding the mention of death and fostering harmony, exemplified by the diminished acceptance of terms like #19, which alludes to death, and #14, characterized by its abusive undertone. Conversely, terminology #20, despite conveying a similar sentiment to #19, elicits a comparatively higher degree of acceptance, underscoring the nuanced criteria guiding lexical acceptance. In the realm of positive expression, terminology #9, signifying ‘Awesome’ or ‘Cool,’ enjoys broader endorsement across age groups, highlighting an underlying preference for linguistics that convey positive ideation.

When addressing terminologies with a business or daily life connotation, there is a noticeable discrepancy in receptivity; #3, being more intertwined with the everyday experiences of the elder group, garners greater acceptance compared to #2. This pattern underscores a nuanced evaluation framework within the elders, prioritizing terms with direct relevance to their lived experiences over those perceived as abstract or extraneous.

Factors influencing youth terminology acceptance

To get the deeper reasons and motives of acceptance or not, it is necessary to explore the sides of communication, society, and aesthetics with regards to youth terminology. Below I discuss the motives of young and older generations for employing or accepting the language of youth communities in China. Here, the motives are several, and each of which, I argue, satisfies a specific purpose.

The data below in Table 9 suggests that social factors can encourage people in older age groups to use the terminology emanating from or pervasive in youth communities, at times when these older age groups observe and interact with the youth groups. The data shows that three quarters of the sample in the older generation groups are motivated to employ the youth terminology by the fact that others also use the language. Especially for intergenerational communication, sometimes the use of youth terminology can make the conversations happen and continue. As Liu et al. (2019) described, ‘Internet slang is a new language with innovative and novel characteristics’ (para.1), and the youth terminology shares the same characteristics with it. It is the production of the youth communication and practice, it will be much easier to express the content via using the youth terminology. And also an emotional factor emerges behind the terminology compared to the use of the same meaning words or phrases.

Table 9. Motives for acceptance of youth terminology.

What are your motives for accepting some or all of young people’s terminology?
Social
Everyone around is using it	159	75.36%
Aesthetic/Affective
I like the meaning behind the/those terminology (terminologies).	115	54.5%
Communicative
Easier to express or convey my opinion	167	79.15%
Others	4	1.9%

The study identifies that a prevailing negative perception towards certain terminologies – characterized by their offensive, abusive, derogatory, or inauspicious nature – serves as a potent deterrent to their adoption, as evidenced by the data presented in Table 10. While the ubiquity of a term due to widespread usage among the populace can initially stimulate its integration into common term, this same factor may ultimately render the term vacuous of substantive meaning. Consequently, when a terminology permeates to the extent of becoming mundane, it loses its efficacy as a linguistic tool for meaningful communication and may no longer merit classification under the ambit of language. Furthermore, the adoption of contemporary youth terminology solely for the purpose of appearing current, devoid of an understanding of the underlying concepts, is deemed not only futile but potentially perilous. Additionally, the discourse brings to light considerations of gender ideology within linguistic practices. An illustrative case is provided by a male respondent’s critique of the terminology #4 (么么, Mo Mo), categorized as emblematic of feminine youth vernacular, which he and potentially others of his gender may eschew. This dimension of the analysis accentuates the nuanced interplay between language, identity, and societal norms, underscoring the complex factors that influence the acceptance and utilization of terminology within diverse demographic segments.

Table 10. Motives for rejection of youth terminology.

What are your motives for not accepting some or all of young people’s terminology?
Aesthetic/affective motives
I dislike the meaning behind the/those terminology (terminologies).	144	68.25%
It is offensive	129	61.14%
Some have very negative connotations	120	56.87%
It conflicts with my beliefs, my culture, etc	44	20.85%
Communicative motives
I can not communicate properly with these terminologies	58	27.49%
They can’t be called languages at all	52	24.64%
Others	8	3.79%

Limitation

Initially, a primary constraint of the investigation pertains to the insufficient sample size, albeit the potential representativeness of the selected respondents. It is advisable for forthcoming research to adopt a more granular perspective. This involves selecting a singular youth vernacular for in-depth examination concerning its genesis, functionality, dissemination, and evolution. Furthermore, the composition of the study’s cohort reveals a disparity in participant numbers between the youth segment and the ‘adults and elders’ group, with a notable paucity in the latter, especially within the age range of 60 to 70 years old, where only two individuals were included. To enhance the precision and objectivity of findings regarding the acceptance levels of youth terminology among the elders, it is imperative to incorporate a broader and more balanced representation of adult and elderly participants.

Conclusion

This investigation delves into the levels of societal receptivity towards various terminologies within China, deducing that there exists a broadly positive predisposition towards youth terminologies across a diverse age range from 10 to 70. Central to this acceptance is the underlying language ideologies, alongside the meanings and concepts that these terminologies embody, which significantly shape the degree of their acceptance. Terminologies that resonate with the everyday experiences and practices of different age cohorts enjoy widespread acceptance, a trend that transcends generational divides. The youth place emphasis on the utility of terms in facilitating more effective and effortless self-expression. In contrast, the adult and elder segments are more attuned to the positive connotations encapsulated within these terminologies, with their choices and utilizations of language being informed by their distinct social and interactional behaviours. This study offers profound insights into the dynamic interplay between youth terminology and linguistic practices within China, highlighting how language ideologies not only foster the adoption and creation of new terminologies but also reflect and influence societal ideologies. Thus, terminologies serve as both a manifestation of prevailing ideologies and a force capable of shaping them. This research offers guidance for ameliorating the communicative divide that exists between disparate generational cohorts, thereby facilitating a more cohesive and effective intergenerational communication. By elucidating the mechanisms through which language and terminology are accepted and assimilated across age groups, this study contributes to the development of strategies aimed at enhancing mutual understanding and fostering a conducive environment for healthy communication practices during exchanges between generations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Questionnaire Survey on the Extent of Acceptance of Youth Terminology in China

1. If you give your consent to participate in this online survey, click on the ‘yes’ option below. If you do not give your consent, click on the ‘no’ option below. By clicking ‘no’ and then ‘next’ you will exit the survey.

如果您同意参加本次在线调查，请点击下面的‘是’选项。如果您不同意，请点击下面的‘否’选项。单击‘否’，然后单击‘下一步’，您将退出调查。

○ Yes 是

○ No (Exit the survey) 否(退出调查)

(I) Profile of Respondents Your personal data is needed in this part. Please write your basic information here.

2. Your gender is

您的性别是

○ Male 男性

○ Female 女性

○ Others _________________ 其他

3. Your age is in the range of

您的年龄范围在()之间。

○ 10–20

○ 21–30

○ 31–40

○ 41–50

○ 51–60

○ 61–70

(II) Youth Terminology Identification

4. Please evaluate the following words or phrases based on your degree of familiarity.

请根据自己的经验完成下列表达的使用和熟悉程度量表。

Table

	I know nothing about it and do not use it. 我完全不知道这是什么，也不会说	I do not know but I also use it. 我不知道什么意思，但我仍会说	I know it but rarely use it. 我知道但很少说	I know it and sometimes use it. 我知道并且有时会说	I know it and use it almost daily. 我知道并且几乎每天都说
家人们 [My family]	○	○	○	○	○
躺平 [Lie flat]	○	○	○	○	○
Vlog/Plog/Vibe	○	○	○	○	○
拔草 [Pull up seeds]	○	○	○	○	○
学习新思想，争做新青年 [Learn new ideas, be new period youth]	○	○	○	○	○
栓Q [3Q]	○	○	○	○	○
XX发财 [V. till making a fortune, e.g. laugh till making a fortune]	○	○	○	○	○
6	○	○	○	○	○
XX死 [V. to death, e.g. laugh to death]	○	○	○	○	○
早八 [Morning eight]	○	○	○	○	○
依托答辩 [Peace of shirt]	○	○	○	○	○
YYDS	○	○	○	○	○
奥利给 [Ao Li Gei]	○	○	○	○	○
疯狂星期四V我50 [Crazy Thursday, Treat Me 50]	○	○	○	○	○
emo	○	○	○	○	○
夺笋 [Grab bamboo shoots]	○	○	○	○	○
么么 [Mo Mo]	○	○	○	○	○
划水 [Row your boat]	○	○	○	○	○
破防了 [Break the defense]	○	○	○	○	○
废话文学 [Nonsense literature]	○	○	○	○	○

5. [This question only can be taken by respondents who choose the age range from 10–20 and 20–30] Where do you think these young people’s terminology widely comes from? (Multiple responses allowed)

你认为这些青年用语来自于哪里？

□Lifestyle or Habits 生活方式或习惯

□Internet Live Streaming 网络直播

□Social Media Platform 社交媒体平台

□Culture 文化

□Hot spots of Society 社会热点问题

□Game 游戏

□Cell Phone Application 手机应用软件

□Others _________________* 其他

(III) Acceptance Degree of Young People’s Terminology and Factors

6. The following is an explanation of the expressions listed in Question 4. Please give your level of acceptance of these expressions according to your own situation. (Note: −5~-1 is opposed to the use of the term, 0 is not accepted, 1–5 is accepted and supported)

以下是第四题所列表达的解释，请根据您自身的情况给出对于这些用语的接受程度。【注意: −5~-1为反对该用语的使用，0为不接受，1 ~ 5为接受并支持该用语的使用】

Table

Terminologies	Acceptance Level Mark
家人们 [My family] (Dear you or friends)	________________________
躺平[Lie flat] (Refuse to rat race but has own lifestyle)	________________________
Vlog/Plog/Vibe	________________________
拔草 [Pull up seeds] (no longer long for or remove from the shopping cart)	________________________
学习新思想，争做新青年 [Learn new ideas, be new period youth]	________________________
栓Q [3Q] (Speechless)	________________________
XX发财 [V. till make a fortune, e.g. laugh till making a fortune] (It represents the depth of the degree)	________________________
6 (Impressive. However, when people express continuous ‘6’, e.g. 666/666666, sometimes indicates satire)	________________________
XX死 [V. to death, e.g. laugh to death] (It represents the depth of the degree)	________________________
早八 [Morning eight] (8 a.m.)	________________________
依托答辩 [Peace of shirt] (Piece of shit)	________________________
YYDS (The greatest of all time)	________________________
奥利给 [Ao Li Gei] (Awesome)	________________________
疯狂星期四V我50 [Crazy Thursday, Treat Me 50]	________________________
emo (Down in the dumps)	________________________
夺笋 [Grab bamboo shoots] (Tart and mean or bitterly sarcastic)	________________________
么么[Mo Mo] (A mimetic word for kissing to express gratitude or show intimate relationships)	________________________
划水[Row your boat] (Slack off)	________________________
破防了[Break the defense] (Overwhelmed)	________________________
废话文学[Nonsense literature] (What speaks and writes is meaningless)	________________________

7. What do you think are the reasons for your acceptance of some or all young people’s terminology? (Multiple responses allowed)

你认为您对部分或所有青年用语接受的原因有哪些？

□Everyone around is using it 周围人都在使用

□I like the meaning behind the/those terminology 我喜欢这个/些用语的含义

□Easier to express or convey my opinion 更容易表达我的想法与观点

□Others _________________* 其他

8. What do you think are the reasons why you do not accept or even reject using some or all young people’s terminology? (Multiple responses allowed)

你认为您对部分或所有青年用语不接受甚至反对的原因有哪些？

□It conflicts with my beliefs, my culture, etc 与我的信仰、文化等相冲突

□I dislike the meaning behind the/those terminology 我不喜欢这个/些用语的含义

□It is offensive 有冒犯的意思

□Some has very negative connotations 有些内涵十分消极

□They can’t be called languages at all 他们根本不能被称作语言

□I can’t communicate properly with these terminologies 使用这些用语无法正常交流

□Others _________________* 其他

(Ⅳ) Analysis of Respondents

9. Evaluate the statement according to your own situation.

根据您的自身情况进行评价。

Table

	Strongly disagree 非常不同意	Disagree 不同意	Neither agree nor disagree 一般	Agree 同意	Strongly agree 非常同意
I’m online >2 hours daily. 我每天在互联网上花很多时间（大于2小时）	○	○	○	○	○
I check social media daily. 我每日浏览社交媒体	○	○	○	○	○
I often get hot topics from apps. 我经常从手机应用了解社会热点	○	○	○	○	○
I often play online games. 我经常玩线上游戏	○	○	○	○	○
I want to communicate. 我愿意与人交流	○	○	○	○	○
I like Chinese culture. 我喜欢中国文化	○	○	○	○	○
I often discuss what I see/hear online. 我经常和别人在互联网上讨论我的所见所闻	○	○	○	○	○
I don’t resist stepping out of my comfort zone. 我并不抗拒走出自己的舒适圈	○	○	○	○	○
I like to know and learn new things. 我喜欢了解和学习新鲜事物。	○	○	○	○	○