# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
(Entry discusses the first comment posted in the image)

# data[].attributes.body
The use of these emojis is an example of referential communication. The emojis are directly used to convey information about what the person wants to comment. By using an eye emoji and a heart, the person is able to convey that they love her post. I chose this example of emoji use because I thought it was quite interesting and not very typical. There is a running joke on TikTok that the celebrity Lea Michele cannot read. While many people know this is simply a joke and not true, people still like to joke about this idea in her comments. Therefore when people want to comment phrases or sentences on her TikToks, they also provide a translation in emojis so she “can understand” what they wrote since she supposedly cannot read. While the emojis do effectively represent the information the person wants to convey, I do not think it’s necessary for Lea Michele.  But I do think it’s funny!

# data[].attributes.body
In this case, when the person uses the 👋 emoji, they are using phatic communication. By using this emoji, they are opening up the conversation and setting up the conversation structure. The wave is used as a greeting to help transition into what the person wants to talk about next. This is similar to waving hello to establish a connection and build the frame to allow for further conversation besides just a greeting. I actually used this emoji when I was texting my friend. I was at a bubble tea store and it was almost my turn to order but I wasn’t sure exactly what I wanted. Since I was in a rush, I spam texted my friend the waving 👋 emoji to get their attention before sending my text. It was sort of a way to open up the conversation and make sure the recipient of my text was ready to read what I was going to text next

# data[].attributes.body
This emoji is an example of expressive communication because it is a way of communicating the person’s emotional state and feelings. When the person says that the train is running late we are not sure exactly how they feel about this. But when they use the emoji 😡 we can how they feel about it. They are expressing how emotionally they are mad, annoyed, and frustrated that the train is running late. Ultimately, this shows their feelings. I had sent this text to my mother because I had just rushed to get to the train station but the train was running 10 minutes late anyway. I wanted to show that I was annoyed that the train was late. Over text, she could have thought I was glad that the train was late so I wouldn’t miss it, but really I was annoyed because there was no need to rush.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It would be a lie to say that men and women are the same. They are different in terms of their biology, and they show differences, on average, in terms of their personality and interests.

But how might these differences be reflected in their communication styles? New research appearing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology may have an answer.

A team of researchers led by Priyanka Joshi of San Francisco State University examined the degree to which men and women relied on "communicative abstraction" to verbally convey their ideas and emotions. Communicative abstraction, according to the researchers, reflects the tendency of people to use "abstract speech that focuses on the broader picture and ultimate purpose of action rather than concrete speech focusing on details and the means of attaining action."

Interestingly, they found that men were significantly more likely to speak in the abstract than were women.

"One gender difference that has been pointed to anecdotally is the tendency of women to speak about specifics and men to speak about the bigger picture," state Joshi and her team. "Across a series of six studies, we find that men communicate more abstractly than women."

To arrive at this conclusion, the researchers examined the linguistic patterns of men and women in both experimental and field contexts. For instance, in one of their studies, the researchers examined over 600,000 blog posts written on the website Blogger.com to see whether men used more abstract language than women. To do this, the researchers computed abstractness ratings for approximately 40,000 commonly used words in the English language. For instance, words that could be easily visualized, such as "table" or "chair," were given a low rating for abstractness while words that were more difficult to visualize (for example, "justice" or " morality") were given a high rating. They found that men used significantly more abstract language in their blog posts.

The researchers sought to replicate this effect in a real-world speaking environment. To do this, they relied on transcripts from U.S. Congressional sessions spanning 2001 to 2017. They predicted that female members of Congress would, on average, invoke less abstract language than their male counterparts. Again, they found this to be the case. Analyzing over 500,000 transcripts of text delivered by more than 1,000 Congress members, the researchers reported that men used significantly more abstract language in their speeches than women. This was true regardless of political party affiliation and irrespective of Congressional house (House of Representatives or Senate).

What is the source of this effect? The researchers suggest that power differences between the genders - that is, men having more power in society - might be a key determinant. For instance, in a follow-up study conducted with a sample of 300 students from a large west coast university, the researchers manipulated power dynamics in an interpersonal setting to see if this would influence communicative abstraction. Specifically, they assigned participants to play the role of either an interviewer or interviewee. Then, they asked participants to describe various behaviors. They found that participants in the high-power interviewer role were more likely to invoke abstract descriptions of behaviors than were participants in the low-power interviewee role.

The authors conclude, "Across a number of varied contexts we find that men tend to communicate more abstractly than women. We also identify several moderators for this effect, suggesting that it does not reflect a fixed tendency of men or women but rather emerges within specific contexts. We look forward to future research that continues to explore this effect, its basis, and its consequences."
Facebook image: bbernard/Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Men and Women (Sort of) Speak Two Different Languages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It would be a lie to say that men and women are the same. They are different in terms of their biology, and they show differences, on average, in terms of their personality and interests. But how might these differences be reflected in their communication styles?

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how men communicate more abstractly than women. Women tend to speak more about specifics while men speak about the bigger picture. To be more specific, it is found that in blog posts women use more words at a specific level such as “chair” or “table” while men use more words at an abstract level such as “justice” or “morality”. This evidence has been taken from over 600,000 blog posts so I do find this evidence to be convincing. I also feel like I have experienced in my daily life. I have noticed men tend to use bigger more general terms when explaining things as compared to women. The article describes this difference in language between men and women according to a dominance model. A dominance model is the idea that gender differences in language are reflective of different access to power between men and women. Using another study, with 300 participants, the article reflects on how participants in the “high-power interviewer roles” were more likely to “invoke abstract descriptions of behaviors” than the participants who were in the “low-power interviewee role”. This shows how men could have more power in society than women. Therefore this corresponds to them using more abstract words. I do not find this articles to be biased in any way. The author provides evidence of facts in a neutral manner and does not seem to be more defensive towards men or women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following is an excerpt from Amanda Montell's forthcoming book, Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language.

In 2016, I was offered a promo code to test out a new app designed to help young people sound more authoritative. Employing voice-recognition, the product offered exercises challenging users to practice talking without "filler phrases" like you know and like, so they could appear more "articulate" in job interviews and presentations. I remember the app vividly because it launched just a day or two after a pair of media training coaches came to visit the office where I was working as an editor for a digital magazine; they were hired to evaluate the staff's on-camera presences since (in an age when reporters are required to double as "influencers") we were appearing in more videos online. The coaches, who were about my parents' age, conducted a few brief on-screen tests with us, after which they determined that while I scored high on "likeability," I could stand to work on the number of times I use the word like in unrehearsed conversation. "It's distracting, that's all," one of the coaches told me with a good-natured smile. "You're quite engaging otherwise."

Around this time in this mid-2010s, the internet at large was having a collective freak-out over "Valley Girl" speak. Journalists everywhere started cranking out think pieces analyzing characteristics commonly noticed and reviled in young women's speech. Like was a big one, and so was vocal fry, a sound quality where you compress your vocal cords to create a low-energy creaking sound at the ends of sentences. Using hyperbolic internet slang ("OMG, I AM LITERALLY DYING") was also much-critiqued, as was speaking with uptalk, where you end a declarative sentence with the upward intonation of a question.

Making poorly informed, pseudofeminist claims about how women talk suddenly became the trendy thing for brands and magazines to do. In 2014 hair care company Pantene released an advertisement encouraging women to stop saying "sorry" all the time. (Because now not only does your hair need a makeover, so does your speech!) A year later, the Guardian published an article titled, "Young women, give up the vocal fry and reclaim your strong female voice," and Mashable released, "5 steps for, like, literally cutting the word 'like' out of your life."

At the height of this media frenzy, I was a twenty-something female, the very target of these articles and commercials, and I had three concerns: 1) whether or not saying like in excess is really exclusive to young women 2) the purpose it serves, if so and 3) why everybody hates it so much.

When making fun of teenage girls, imitators go for these sorts of phrases: "I, like, went to the movies? And I was like, ' I want to see Superwoman?' But Brad was like, ' No way?' So we, like, left." A Canadian study from 2000 confirmed that most listeners do in fact perceive young women to use like more often than anyone else and that they associate the word with a lower level of education.

Fortunately, there are plenty of language experts who've taken like seriously enough to figure out what it actually is beyond this perception. One of these scholars is Carmen Fought, a linguist from Pitzer College, who says, "If women do something like uptalk or vocal fry, it's immediately interpreted as insecure, emotional, or even stupid." But the truth is much more interesting: Young women use like, vocal fry, and uptalk not as mindless affectations, but as power tools for establishing and strengthening relationships. Saying like "every other word" is in fact not a sign of ditziness, but instead has a unique history and specific social utility. And young women are not the only people who do it-although they do happen to do it most cleverly.

Despite the word's detractors, like is in fact one of the most versatile words in the English language. Alexandra D'Arcy, Canadian linguist at the University of Victoria, has dedicated much of her research to identifying and understanding the many functions of like. " Like is a little word that we really, really don't like at all-and we want to blame young girls, who we think are destroying the language," she explains. But the truth is that like has been a part of English for more than two hundred years. "We can hear speakers today in their seventies, eighties, and nineties around little villages in the United Kingdom, for example," D'Arcy says, "who use like in many of the same ways that young girls today are using it."

According to D'Arcy, there are six completely distinct forms of the word like. The two oldest types in English are the adjective like and the verb like. In the sentence, "I like your suit, it makes you look like James Bond," the first like is a verb and the second is an adjective. Today, these two likes sound exactly the same, so most people don't even notice that they're different words with separate histories. They're homonyms, just how the noun watch (meaning the timepiece on your wrist) and the verb watch (meaning what you do with your eyes when you turn on the TV) are homonyms. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the verb like comes from the Old English term lician, and the adjective comes from the Old English līch. The two converged at some point over the last eight hundred or so years, giving us lots of time to get used to them.

But four new likes developed much more recently than that-and D'Arcy says these are all separate words with distinct uses, as well. Only two of these likes are used more frequently by women, and only one of them is thought to have been masterminded by "Valley girls," aka young Southern California females in the 1990s (the era of Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High). That one would be the quotative like, which you hear in, "I was like, ' I want to see Superwoman.'" As lampooned as it is, pragmatically speaking, this like is one of my favorites because it allows you to tell a story, to relay something that happened, without having to quote the interaction verbatim. For example, in the sentence "My boss was like, 'I need those papers by Monday,' and I was like, 'Are you fucking kidding me?'" you're not repeating what you truly said but instead using like to convey what you wanted to say or how you felt in the interaction. Thanks, Valley girls. This very useful quotative like continues to explode in common usage.

The other like that women tend to use more frequently is categorized as a discourse marker and can be found in contexts such as, "Like, this suit isn't even new." A discourse marker-sometimes called a hedge, or a filler word-is a type of phrase that can help a person connect, organize, or express a certain attitude with their speech. Other discourse markers include just, you know, and actually. As for why young women use the discourse marker like more, scholars have a theory: Studies on adolescent speech indicate that people hedge with like in order to "partially detach themselves from the force of utterances that could be considered evaluative, either positively evaluative of self or negatively evaluative of others." Jennifer Coates, a linguist at Roehampton University, postulates that men might use this type of like less overall due to their choices of conversational subject. "Unlike female speakers, male speakers on the whole avoid sensitive topics," she says. By and large, men do not self-disclose or talk about personal matters as liberally. Thus, the need for this particular hedge does not apply.

There are two last forms of like: one is an adverb, which is used to approximate something, as in the sentence, "I bought this suit like five years ago." As of the 1970s this like has largely replaced the approximate adverb about in casual conversation, and it has always been used equally among men and women (so it isn't hated as much). And last, there's the discourse particle like, which we hear in, "I think this suit is like my favorite possession." This like is similar to the discourse marker, except that it's not used in quite the same way syntactically or semantically; plus, dudes use it just as much as women do (D'Arcy doesn't know quite why that is), though they're almost never ridiculed for it.

Objectively, we can see that using one, two, or all of these different likes in the same sentence isn't inherently bad. As a matter of fact, some studies have demonstrated that speech lacking in likes and you knows can sound too careful, robotic, or unfriendly. Ironically, the number of likes I used in that media training evaluation at work is likely what contributed to my perceived "likeability."

So next time someone accuses you of saying like too much, feel free to ask them, "Oh really? Which kind?" Because D'Arcy says that ordinary speakers tend to buy into the Valley girl stereotype so hardcore, blaming young women for all of these likes, simply because they don't notice the differences among them.

Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language is available for purchase on May 28.
NYLON uses affiliate links and may earn a commission if you purchase something through those links, but every product chosen is selected independently. Want more stories like this? Sign up for our newsletter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sorry, Haters: Using "Like" Is A Sign Of Social Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following is an excerpt from Amanda Montell's forthcoming book, Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language. In 2016, I was offered a promo code to test out a new app designed to help young people sound more authoritative.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how women are often criticized for using more filler words than men. This article does reference specific linguistic features used by women. The most common one being like, but this version of the word like also goes hand in hand with other filler words. For instance, women use words “like”, “just”, “you know” and “actually” . There is no quantitative evidence used, but the article talks about how a Canadian study found that young women use the word “like” more often and its use is associated with a lower level of education. But, other language experts find that the use of the word “like” commonly in sentences is actually used by women as a strategy. The use of this word has a unique history and specific social utility.

The word like can have many different meanings and uses, but the most common by women is as a discourse marker or filler word. Men do not use this use of the word like due to differences in culture between men and women in society. This is an example of the difference model. A difference model is the idea that differences in language according to gender is reflective of different treatment of men and women in society. Women are seen as more personable and and sensitive in society. Women are known for talking more about feelings and are more open to others. Therefore, the use of the word like facilitates in that culture for women because it is a type of phrase that can help a person connect, organize, or express a certain attitude with their speech. Men have the tendency to use this type of “like” less often because thy have a different culture in society. Unlike female speakers, men have a different choice of conversational topics. Male speakers tend to avoid sensitive topics, they do not self disclose much, or talk about personal matters like women do. Therefore, they do not have a need for this type of the word “like” because they are not as personable in their language or at whole in society.

I do not find this article to be biased. I think the author is mainly neutral, but it does seem like she has a tendency to defend women. The author talks about how women are criticized for using the filler word “like” and even includes an example of when her colleagues told her it was distracting. It seems like the author is aware that the use of filler words may not be the most effective in professional scenarios, but she does feel it is important to show that the use of these filler words is beneficial in some cases. For instance women use it to their advantage to seem more personable in conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
So far, I have collected 90 tokens. This is below my goal, but there are more types of data I want to collect. So far, most of my data is pretty much the same and there is not much variety. Most people are around the age of 20 and I have collected in person greetings. But I do have a couple of data collections of greetings used over the phone and I thought it would be interesting to compare greetings used in person to online. I plan on calling people and seeing what they say when they pick up the phone. I also plan on texting people, or going through past texts to see what greetings are used, or if greetings are not used.

# data[].attributes.body
I have selected topic A, greetings. So far, the greetings I have collected include hello, hi, and hey. I am not planning on including “good morning” in my envelope of variation because all of my data has not been collected at the same time. Therefore, the greeting “good morning” does not apply to all situations. So far, I have one greeting that is “Yo” but I am not sure if I should include that in my envelope because that can also be used as a way to grab one’s attention rather than a greeting. Thus far, I have collected almost 40 tokens. These tokens mainly consist of “hi” or “hey”.

One issue I have encountered is a few people pronounce a mix of hi and hey, but I chose to categorize this as “hi”, just pronounced differently. Another data that I found interesting is that in one situation a person said “Hi (name), hey”. This sort of shows that the two are interchangeable. Another issue is many times I forget to write down or remember the greetings used. In order to catch up on tokens, I sat in a cafe last week and kept writing down how people greeted the cashier or their friends.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this example of covert prestige while driving in the city. While stopping at a red light by Popeyes, I saw a sign on the door that said “Hey y’all. We’re open”. Using the variant “y’all” is just one way of addressing people. Rather than using “you all” to address its customers, Popeyes used the non standard variant “y’all” because it’s more positively associates with the customers they want to address. Most stores or businesses simply have signs that say “OPEN” or “CLOSED”. This is less personable towards the customers. Popeyes wants to present themselves as a casual place where anyone is welcome to walk in. Popeyes also uses the variant “hey” as a greeting instead of greetings like “hi” or “hello”. By doing so, they use the more casual variant which will have a better chance of winning over their customers. Some positive attributes of “y’all” is that is casual and therefore feels more personable to the people being addressed. The same can be said of the variant “hey”. This variant is more casual and friendly. It can allow the individuals to feel more comfortable being in that establishment. The variant y’all is mainly used by people who live in southern United States. “Y’all” is less formal therefore, it could have negative associations when one is in a formal situation or trying to get a serious point across. For instance, in a business meeting, it would be more appropriate to use the variant “you all”. The variant “y’all” works for Popeyes in particular because the restaurant wants to attract more casual customers. More people will feel comfortable going to Popeyes because they know there is no judgment or expectations of their customers. Popeyes wants people to know they will be welcomed there and accepted for who they are. Therefore, I think Popeyes is successful in achieving this goal. The fast food chain is thriving across the world and has all different types of customers. There is no stigma surrounding Popeyes about the type of customers they welcome there. Their customer base is diverse and anyone knows they can simply walk into a Popeyes in casual clothing because it is a laid back establishment.

# data[].attributes.body
This image is of a Persian supermarket in Syosset near my same town, Great Neck. This town also has a high Persian population. This store advertisement has some of the words in Farsi, the Persian language, to target the Persian community. Persian ice cream sandwiches are ice cream flavored with rose water, saffron, and pistachios. The ice cream is placed between two waffle crackers/ cookies. This is a very common Persian treat. The advertiser chose to use this language in order to attract the attention of Persians. This food is mainly eaten by Persians, therefore by having the words in Farsi, Persians may think the food is more authentic. Moreover, Great Neck and Syosset are full of many Persian immigrants who may not speak English very well. The sign says Persian ice cream in farsi and English, but in these different languages, the words do not translate exactly the same.The sign says Persian ice cream in English, but “Bastani Noneh” in Farsi. There is no direct translation to English for this Persian word. It basically means ice cream with dough, or breaded ice cream. If the store owner wrote this in English, the American customers would not understand the product. And a Persian customer may not understand what an “ice cream sandwich” is. The shop uses both translations in order to attract a more diverse group of customers. This example shows how different languages have different sets of vocabulary.

# data[].attributes.body
This image is from a local deli in my small town, Great Neck, located on Long Island. The deli in my town is named Deli on the Green in reference to our village Green, or as some others would call it, a park. This choice of language was meant to target the people living in the village of Great Neck. In my community, we use the word “Green” in place of what many other people would use “park”. While I did some research online, I could not find other specific areas that use the word “Green” to indicate an area with grass, trees, trails, and areas for picnics. It seems that in many urban areas, have places called “Green spaces”. These are man made parks for those who do not have access to much nature and greenery, but in my town, this is not the case. We have multiple Green’s that are all natural and preserved to be used by the public. They are real grass and trees and areas for children to play. Our village Green does also have a playground section, but this area is what some people refer to as the “park”. The deli chose to name themselves Deli on the Green, because if they were called Deli on the Park, their customers would be very confused. As there are no parks in Great Neck, but there are Greens. I am not sure how this linguistic choice upon in my town, but this linguistic variant has been used for as long as anyone can remember. I think the word “Green” has been chosen over “Park” due to its connotation. Green symbolizes nature, grass, trees and a sense of naturalness. When I think of a park, I think of something man made, or simply an artificial playground for children to play. But, I am not sure if this connotation came from the fact that I have used the word “green’ in place of “park” ever since I was born, or because there is actually a difference between the two words. This example shows how linguistic variables such as location, can occur in very small towns. Moreover there can be variants that are completely words that do not even sound like each other.

# data[].attributes.body
This week I noticed a that there are linguistic variants in how the word “mayonnaise” is pronounced. Although mayonnaise can be pronounced in 2 different ways, these two pronunciations still represent the same concept of the white creamy spread.  I first noticed these linguistic variants a couple of months ago when my cousin was visiting us from Arizona. While making sandwiches she asked for some "may-uh-naze”. I thought it sounded weird and uncommon for her to pronounce the word that way. I pronounce mayonnaise as “man-aze”. I personally am used to and surrounded by people who do not put an emphasis in the “o”  in mayonnaise while my cousin believed in the opposite. She felt I was ‘botching’ the word by not pronouncing the “o” in mayonnaise properly. It seems that this linguistic variable depends on location and has regional differences. Though there are some slight variations within regions, through research online, I found that the general consensus is that in the West and Midwest, you'll pronounce mayonnaise as "may-uh-naze" while in the North and South, you'll use "man-aze." I don’t think one variant is more acceptable than the other. It is not as if one pronunciation is more formal than the other. I tend to use the shortened variant “manaze”. I  don’t think I would ever change the way I pronounce this word depending on the situation. When using the word “mayonnaise” in a sentence, I probably would not be in a formal setting. Therefore I would not be thinking much about the way I am speaking in a casual conversation, so I wouldn’t really be aware to change the way I speak. The only time I could think of where I would change my pronunciation of this word is if someone is not understanding what I’m saying. “Manaze” seems like the shortened and quicker version of the word. Whereas when someone says “May-uh-naze” they are making sure to put emphasis of each section of the word. So if someone is not accustomed to this variant of mayonnaise I would probably slow down my way of saying mayonnaise and pronounce it as “May-o anise”. I think I use this variant mainly for its convenience. It’s a lot easier and quicker to say mayonnaise as “manaze”. For me it seems proper, long, and awkward to say it the other way. This linguistic variable and its variants are connected to the concepts discussed in class because it is an example of how pronunciation of a sound in a word can be different among different people in different locations. The example I have provided reminds me of the example Professor Laurel gave in class with the word “Kitten”. It was explained how it’s common for people from Long Island to pronounce “kitten” with a glottal stop. This leads to kitten sounding more like “kitt’n” rather than “kit-en”. Both examples of variants have regional differences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know how easy it is to make mayonnaise at home? #mayo #mayonnaise #homemade

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
6 Classic Songs in English With Grammatical Errors - Teachify

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Classic Songs in English With Grammatical Errors - Teachify

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Academia Ingles Sevilla - Feeling bad about your English grammar? We get it wrong too sometimes, here are 6 examples of popular songs with incorrect grammar!

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to speak about the double negative due to an encounter I had last week with an NYU security guard. I while walking into the building I realized I did not have my mask. While handing me a mask the security guard said “don’t say I never gave you nothing”. My friend and I chuckled at his joke, and it did not even cross my mind that the sentence was grammatically incorrect until learning about linguistic differences. While the use of a double negative such as “never” and “nothing” or “ain’t no” is considered wrong, it is still widely used in the English language. Many popular songs by artists including Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, and Pink Floyd use double negatives and they are still considered revolutionary artists with great songs. Those who appreciate art and song making enjoy the flow or feel that a double negative can bring to a song. Initially I assumed that the double negative would be used by those with a lower education, but it actually seems that this habit stems from other languages. For instance, those who speak French, Spanish, or Hebrew constantly use double negatives in their sentences. While it may be grammatically incorrect for English speakers, the use of a double negative makes a sentence grammatically correct in other languages. For me personally, I probably would not even notice if someone uses a double negative. Although saying “ain’t no” in a sentence may be grammatically incorrect, this does not make a sentence impossible to understand. Even with the use of a double negative we are still able to gain a basic understanding of what a person is meaning to say. I do think that in a professional paper or a serious or informative document it is best to steer clear of double negatives. I can see how the double negative is wrong because they cancel themselves out to make the statement positive. This can sometimes cause people to make the wrong assumption. This could make important information misleading or confusing. The avoidance of a double negative can also make one’s statement stronger because it will be more clear and concise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Should You Avoid Using Double Negatives?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should You Avoid Using Double Negatives?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In conversations, a double negative is OK, but can negatively impact your writing. Learn about a few sneaky double negatives and how to avoid them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leaving aside ain't, which is a different issue, the phenomenon called "double negation" is not so simple as it may seem.

Most of the languages of the world use multiple negatives to emphasize the negation, like the (respectively) French, Spanish, and Yiddish examples below:

Je ne regrette rien. 'I don't regret anything' (lit 'I not regret nothing')

No entiendo nada. 'I don't understand anything' (lit 'Not I_understand nothing')

Ikh hob nit kin huyz. (‏איך האָב ניט קין הױז) 'I don't have a house' (lit 'I have not no house')

Using negatives this way is known as Negative Concord. Many English dialects, especially in informal registers, have a negative concord system; one well-known example is AAVE.

But other dialects, including standard whitebread American English, use a different system, called Negative Polarity. Instead of using negative elements in the focus of another negative to reinforce the negative sense, a negative polarity system uses other -- non-negative, but specialized -- elements, called Negative Polarity Items (NPIs), in these positions. From this article:

NPI is a term applied to lexical items, fixed phrases, or syntactic construction types that demonstrate unusual behavior around negation. NPIs might be words or phrases that occur only in negative-polarity contexts ( ever, fathom, in weeks) or have an idiomatic sense in such contexts ( not too bright, give a damn, drink a drop); or they might have a lexical affordance that only functions in such contexts ( need/dare (not) reply); or a specific syntactic rule might be sensitive to negation, like Subject-Verb Inversion with Adverb Fronting in

And then there are several different types of over- and under-negation; there's a big literature on it.

Summary: Not all double negatives are incorrect;
and there's more to negation than you might expect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaving aside ain't, which is a different issue, the phenomenon called "double negation" is not so simple as it may seem. Most of the languages of the world use multiple negatives to emphasize the negation, like the (respectively) French, Spanish, and Yiddish examples below: Je ne regrette rien.