ResearchPod Summary
This study investigates the origins and public perception of what is frequently labeled in media and online discourse as TikTok language or Gen Z language. Using a corpus of 178 TikTok videos, the authors employ Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis (CTDA) to examine how users define, contest, and claim ownership of these linguistic features. By centering the perspectives of everyday users, the researchers explore how social media platforms serve as sites of linguistic debate and recontextualization.
The researchers demonstrate that the vast majority of terms identified as TikTok language are, in fact, lexical features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). They identify a clear tension in online discourse: while some users propagate the label of TikTok language, others actively reject it as a form of cultural appropriation. This conflict is analyzed through the lens of White ignorance, where the erasure of AAVE's Black roots allows users to adopt the language for social capital without acknowledging the community of origin.
Furthermore, the authors introduce the concept of linguistic context collapse to describe how social media platforms blur geographically and socially bounded speech communities. They argue that TikTok's algorithm, which prioritizes viral content and creates a feedback loop of engagement, further accelerates this erasure by detaching AAVE features from their historical and social indexicality, reifying them as a novel digital register.
This paper contributes to the fields of sociolinguistics and digital culture by showing how social media platforms act as mechanisms for linguistic appropriation. It provides empirical evidence of how labels like TikTok language function to displace Black varieties of English. By highlighting how users resist this process through hyper-citation and the correction of linguistic misinformation, the study underscores the active, political nature of digital communication and the ongoing struggle for the recognition of Black linguistic agency.
Alex: Words can become more visible online while the communities behind them become less visible. This study finds that much of what users call TikTok language comes from Black Americans, whose connection to those words can disappear.
Sam: So the issue is not just whether social media spreads words. It is who gets recognised when those words spread. Whose research are we discussing?
Alex: It is an observational study by Christian Ilbury and Rianna Walcott, published in the Journal of Sociolinguistics. They examine videos debating whether supposedly new internet language is actually African American Vernacular English, or AAVE. That is a rule-governed English variety associated with Black American communities.
Sam: For researchers studying digital culture or language change, that makes naming part of the problem, not just description.
Alex: Labels can assign credit to a platform while obscuring a community. We will follow how the authors assembled the evidence, what users disputed, and where the explanation remains a proposal rather than a demonstrated mechanism.
Sam: What was missing from earlier research? Appropriation of Black language did not begin with TikTok.
Alex: The authors place this in a long history of appropriation through music, film, advertising, and everyday interaction. Earlier research also challenged claims that digital communication creates entirely new language varieties. Features advertised as novel often have older histories elsewhere.
Sam: Then what does studying TikTok itself add, beyond another example of an old pattern?
Alex: Users can publicly challenge the label while it circulates. The authors study those challenges alongside descriptions presenting the language as generational or platform-specific. Their contribution is both that account of the dispute and an explanation of how online circulation can detach words from their communities.
Sam: How did they find the videos? A personalised feed could shape which side of this dispute a researcher sees.
Alex: They spent six months observing the app. Each author used a new research account, reducing the influence of previous browsing. They began with the same video, then independently followed recommendations and related hashtags.
AI-generated third-party summary by ResearchPod. Not official content or an endorsement by the paper authors or affiliated organizations.
Sam: That gives them a route through the discussion, but not a random sample. What did they ultimately analyse?
Alex: After removing duplicates and unrelated material, they retained 178 videos. The corpus represented 175 creators. Most were based in the United States, with a smaller contribution from elsewhere.
Sam: And were they measuring ordinary speech, or what people said about speech? That distinction changes what the counts mean.
Alex: Mainly what people said about speech. They counted features explicitly identified in the videos as TikTok language, then traced their origins using linguistic scholarship. They also analysed the videos’ arguments, considering captions, comments, and other visual elements. Machine-generated transcripts were checked manually by both authors.
Sam: What is the methodological idea that makes that more than researchers correcting other people’s terminology?
Alex: They centre everyday users as producers of knowledge about language. That approach connects to citizen sociolinguistics: ordinary people investigating and debating language. Their critical framework also asks how users’ beliefs interact with platform design, rather than treating either in isolation.
Sam: Give me a concrete finding. Which words were people putting under the TikTok label?
Alex: The most frequently cited was “periodt,” an emphatic interjection, mentioned forty times. Next came “bussin,” meaning excellent or delicious, with twenty-seven mentions. These are counts within the collected videos, not estimates of how commonly TikTok users say those words.
Sam: And the comparison is against earlier evidence of those features in Black American speech, rather than against another platform?
Alex: Yes. The authors trace all the most commonly cited lexical features to AAVE. Their third most frequent example is “finna,” a contraction of “fixing to,” cited eighteen times. Their finding concerns the origins of features people name, not proof that TikTok never produces linguistic innovation.
Sam: Words are easy to recognise and list. Does that risk reducing a whole language variety to slang?
Alex: The study finds that very imbalance. Users overwhelmingly cite vocabulary, while grammatical features receive little explicit attention. The authors stress that AAVE has systematic grammar. Their example is habitual “be”: “he be running” describes recurring activity, not simply what he is doing now.
Sam: That helps explain why collecting fashionable words is not the same as speaking the variety. What objections did users themselves raise?
Alex: The authors identify connected objections about erasure, inaccurate grammar, and exploitation. Start with erasure: one creator says she assumed a phrase was TikTok language because she had heard it only there. The authors interpret that as evidence that the platform can become mistaken for the source.
Sam: So the phrase keeps its conversational use, but loses its association with Black speakers.
Alex: They call that indexical bleaching: language features losing their social associations as they spread. They argue that relabelling them as TikTok language can further erase recognition of their Black American origins. Users rejecting the label connect this to “White ignorance,” understood as socially structured misunderstanding, not merely an individual knowledge gap.
Sam: What does the exploitation objection add? It sounds stronger than saying somebody got the history wrong.
Alex: It concerns unequal benefits and burdens. One creator describes outsiders adopting long-established Black slang, dropping it when it stops seeming fashionable, then mocking Black people who continue using it. The authors connect that complaint to earlier research: outsiders can gain social value without bearing the same racial discrimination.
Sam: But does the article accept every ownership claim made in response? Protecting a community’s language could also produce overly rigid boundaries.
Alex: It explicitly examines that tension under “Overdetermination”: excessive links between linguistic forms and racial categories. Some creators treat Blackness alone as determining authentic use. The authors contrast that with research documenting non-Black speakers whose habitual use is accepted within close Black social networks.
Sam: So someone’s locally accepted speech might be judged differently when a video reaches strangers.
Alex: That is central to the argument. Local recognition does not necessarily travel with the speaker. The authors also find mistaken claims about individual features, including treating “naur,” an online spelling associated with Australian pronunciation of “no,” as AAVE. They interpret such overclaiming as resistance to repeated erasure, without endorsing its accuracy.
Sam: Where does the platform enter the explanation? Showing these disputes does not itself show that an algorithm caused them.
Alex: The authors propose “linguistic context collapse”: distinct speech communities brought into a shared digital setting. People encounter features outside their usual social networks, then associate them with where they encountered them. They argue that personalised recommendations can reinforce the TikTok-language interpretation while making the originating community less visible.
Sam: How far should we trust that mechanism, given the way the corpus was assembled?
Alex: My reading is that the evidence is strongest for the naming dispute and the documented origins of frequently cited features. Discovery followed recommendations and hashtags from a shared starting point, so this is not a representative survey. Nor did the study experimentally compare recommendation systems or track language change over time. The algorithmic explanation remains an argument supported by the qualitative analysis.
Sam: Who should read the full article, and where should they begin?
Alex: Researchers working on digital discourse, language contact, or racialised language should read it. Start with “Metadiscourses of TikTok Language,” then “Overdetermination,” which tests the limits of the ownership claims. Read “TikTok Language and Linguistic Context Collapse” for the broader theoretical proposal. For everyone else: where you first hear a word is not necessarily where that word began.
Sam: A distinction to keep when the next slang explainer appears.