# data[].attributes.headline
Thread on using the Lexis podcast to revise...

# data[].attributes.subject
Thread on using the Lexis podcast to revise...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
If you've got your exams coming up, here are a few revision suggestions based on recent(ish) episodes of @LexisPodcast
— EngLangBlog (@EngLangBlog) May 3, 2024

# data[].attributes.headline
Trendbait and Tiktok - links to the S curve, Guy Deautcher, and change in general

# data[].attributes.subject
Trendbait and Tiktok - links to the S curve, Guy Deautcher, and change in general

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The race to coin new words and phrases is on - on TikTok. They range from "first time cool syndrome," to "the weekend effect" and "dinner and couch" friend.

Keeping track of all this can feel like a wild goose chase, to use an expression credited to William Shakespeare, who introduced countless words and phrases to the English language.

But unlike the Bard's phrases, TikTok slang doesn't seem to have much staying power.

Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke with Rebecca Jennings, senior correspondent for Vox, on the TikTok "trendbait," as she calls it - terms invented by content creators who seem like they're trying a little too hard - and what's driving it all. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation:

Rebecca Jennings: It's sort of like in direct opposition to slang, which is sort of this word or term that spreads organically within particular groups and then, depending on what it is, is co-opted or appropriated by the mainstream. These are sort of a top down thing where it's like, one person really, really wants it to go viral. It's almost like a marketing term. And usually, like, historically, when people coined terms that spread, it's usually the province of journalists or screenwriters, right? It's like, Shakespeare coined a lot of terms and "friendzone" comes from "Friends," I believe. And that's the way things used to work. But now, in this era of social media, when we all kind of have to think like publishing companies or media companies, there's so much competition, and a lot of the times people are hoping that these terms will go viral, and not necessarily for monetary reasons but so that they can say that they did it or that they can be seen as this authority, or as someone who has the power to make something go viral, which I think is really interesting.

Lily Jamali: Yeah, we recently had a former journalist, now venture capitalist, named Christina Farr on our show. And we had a very funny conversation about b2b marketing, that's like businesses catering to other businesses, and how the language that they use is like, almost inscrutable sometimes. And I'm sort of thinking like, where does this all lead, this "trendbait?" Does it get to that point, eventually, where it just doesn't mean anything anymore? Or it sounds like an AI wrote it?

Jennings: Yeah, totally. And like that kind of jargon, I suppose it's useful if this is your literal job, like if you are only talking to people that work in that field. And when you talk about "circling back" and "1,000-foot views" and just like, office culture jargon that I hate, that does have some kind of utility, whereas this is sort of like trying to make something happen, just to say that they did. And I think that's part of why it's so annoying to people. A lot of these words, predictably, don't go anywhere, they end up in this sort of attention economy landfill. And so where we're at now is just like, every week, there's a new term or a new aesthetic or something that goes viral on TikTok. And it's only useful insofar as it can get more people attention because if they make a response video or a stitch or a duet on TikTok, that can help them grow their audiences. But as soon as it's no longer viral, it's just tossed aside. So there's really very little value to most of these.

Jamali: Well, let's circle back, if you will, to TikTok. How unique is this trend bait phenomenon to TikTok itself as a social media platform?

Jennings: I think this stuff has always happened on any social platform. But I think that the difference about TikTok is its ability to speed up the trend cycle more so than any other platform we've ever seen. Very few people go super viral on Instagram and even if they do, it doesn't really spread to every corner of the app. Whereas on TikTok, if something goes super duper viral, and it can be seen by millions and millions of people literally overnight, and those things happen much slower on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, whatever. TikTok literally is like just a pumping machine full of viral videos that are really, really big for a couple of days, and then they kind of are erased from the cultural memory. And that's why so much of culture now feels really sped up, because of TikTok's influence.

Jamali: So I am still, even in the Elon Musk era, stuck hanging out on Twitter. And I wonder if you can draw the comparison to TikTok for me, because there - and this has been the case for a really long time - you see subspaces where people from a shared culture or ethnicity, they have their own jokes, they have their own memes. I'm thinking Black Twitter, that's a great example of this, that make viral content. Is there a similar space on TikTok or does it not really work in that same way?

Jennings: Oh, yeah. 100% There are totally like filter bubbles on TikTok, for sure. Because the algorithm is, as everybody knows, it's personalized pretty much to whoever's viewing it. And so something could be really going viral in your corner of TikTok and then I won't see it. There's obviously some videos will get so viral that everyone sees them but, you know, that's for really really big stuff. But it's all just part of this sort of constant churn of new stuff and I think the reason why so many things get so big on TikTok is because more people are using TikTok than Twitter, but also because like, you're seeing someone's face, it's almost like you're FaceTiming with a friend and so you really come to have these parasocial relationships with someone and you're like, "oh my God, yeah, I do feel like that."

Jamali: Can you tell I'm over 40 and not really on TikTok yet?

Jennings: I mean, stay off. It's probably for the best.

Jamali: Like, please translate this for me. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you translated a couple things for me. Okay, let's start with "girl dinner" and "on fleek." Or, you know, you pick your favorites. What are some terms that we're seeing on this on TikTok?

Jennings: Well, I think "girl dinner" is a really funny example because "girl dinner" started as a joke. You know, this creator was just sort of like, you know, sometimes when my boyfriend's out of the house, and I'll just like put together a plate of whatever's in the fridge and I call it "girl dinner." And then from there, it just completely took off. And I think, you know, it was part of this wave of stuff that was happening last year that was really feeding into this discourse of what girlhood and what womanhood was. And so it sort of played into that unintentionally. And then what happened after "girl dinner" went viral, though, is that all these other girls were trying to make like, "Girl X" go viral. So there was "girl math," "girl hobby," and that started all this other wave of discourse about like the gender essentialist nature of that and meanwhile this poor "girl dinner" girl was like, I was just making a joke. But yeah, that's a big one.

Jennings: And a similar instance happened when last year there was this term that went viral called "quiet luxury." And it was sort of this aesthetic of like, wearing neutral colored basics in an attempt to look wealthy. And then as a joke, this comedian was like, okay, I'm gonna start this new trend called "loud budgeting." I'm just gonna make it very obvious that I am broke and everyone will know. And after that, you saw all these TikTok creators who were either like financial experts or just like want to be lifestyle influencers being like, okay, so this year, we're into loud budgeting, and here's our five tips to loud budget. Like, this is not a real thing that anyone is doing. So it's just fascinating how language works there and how thirsty everyone is to get some attention.

More on this

You can read more of Rebecca's thoughts on the incredible speed at which internet trends seem to live and die these days here.

One recent example of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it lifespan of trending terms: Oxford's 2022 word of the year "Goblin Mode " - when you just decide to be lazy, or self-indulgent - is already a once-popular phrase you rarely hear anymore.

There's also this piece from the New York Times' Melina Delkic on TikTok creators coming up with substitutes for words that could get flagged as violating content moderations rules and cause the algorithm to delay posts. This new lexicon? Yeah, there's a word for it - it's called "algospeak."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will we remember any of the fast-paced "trendbait" slang on TikTok? - Marketplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A look at the life cycle of slang on TikTok, and whether it has any real effect on our culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
AI and accent prejudice? AI's only as good as the input...

# data[].attributes.subject
AI and accent prejudice? AI's only as good as the input...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
West Midlands Police trialled a voice assistant powered by artificial intelligence (AI) in a bid to deal with rising volumes of non-emergency calls.

Sensitive technical details of the plan were erroneously published online in a document seen by the BBC.

It set out potential risks of the AI, including whether the system, dubbed "Amy101", would understand local "brummie" accents.

West Midlands Police has insisted "robust safeguards" were in place.

Based on the tech behind Amazon's popular voice assistant, Alexa, the trial explored how AI could help the force cope with increasing volumes of calls, and potentially offer new services such as responses in different languages.

A document detailing the plan was mistakenly posted online by the office of the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). The document, marked "official sensitive" and with warnings that it should "not to be publicly disclosed", has since been removed.

Amy101 was designed to speak or text-chat in order to deal with callers' enquiries and was expected to handle around 200 calls per day.

The project, a two month proof-of-concept trial, was nationally funded.

It was - the document suggested - the first such project where an AI-powered tool would speak to callers, though other forces were also exploring uses of the tech.

Amy101 had the ability to prioritise vulnerable callers, by looking out for certain keywords - such as those referencing domestic violence - and ensuring they were next-in-line to be dealt with by a human call operator, the document says.

Through speech or text chat it could direct calls, provide advice on issues such as reporting criminal damage, or requesting a crime update.

West Midlands Police told the BBC the trial began on the 19th December 2023 and had now concluded

Its director of commercial services, Peter Gillett, said - by the time the trial started - the force had already improved and was now "one of the top performing police forces for managing emergency and non-emergency calls".

'Brummie' bias

The document - prepared for an ethical oversight committee that advises the PCC and Chief Constable - reveals the potential problems that might arise with Amy101, including whether the tech could cope with the local accent.

"Bias will naturally occur within the "Amy" system based on accents/localisation - for example can she understand "Brummie" accents? And are they treated with equal weighting to different accents in English?" the document asks.

Because Alexa is used globally - coping with a range of accents and languages - it was hoped that this type of bias had been removed. And if calls were not understood they would be transferred to the cue for a human operator.

Mr Gillet said the force recognised that technologies capable of understanding ordinary language were "not flawless", and therefore may struggle with accents.

As a result the force used a "large-scale" system "to mitigate this bias".

Potential issues around safeguarding data were also flagged, including the risk calls would be used to help train the Amazon AI system, called Lex V2, behind Amy101.

Some calls could include personally identifiable information. The document provides the example, "My name is Marc and I want to report my house was broken into....."

The police can, however, opt-out of this kind of training and will do this "where viable", the document says.

The ethics committee also had a number of questions, recorded in its minutes, about Amy101, such as the voice and "gendered name" of the tool. The force responded arguing "humanisation" was needed.

It also suggested officers requested further analysis from Amazon on potential issues "such as regional accent recognition and bias testing".

It's not clear whether the concerns raised in the document ever materialised, though police struck a positive note about the outcome of the trial:

"AI (Artificial Intelligence) does present some potential opportunities for providing a more efficient and robust service", Mr Gillett said.

Now the "proof-of-concept" trial is over, the force would be "sharing the results and outcomes at a national scale", he added.

According to the document the government was also interested in the trial - it said a Home Office team was "keeping a close eye" on it with a view to wider uses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police worried 101 call bot would struggle with 'brummie' accents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
West Midlands Police trialled the non-emergency call-answering AI voice assistant for two months.

# data[].attributes.headline
Really interesting take on the perils of using Tiktok when being a women - some very quotable stuff in here

# data[].attributes.subject
Really interesting take on the perils of using Tiktok when being a women - some very quotable stuff in here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meet Kate, a Penn State student studying biobehavioral health. She's amassed nearly 200,000 followers and 12.1 million likes on TikTok (@kateao4), where she posts videos about everything from pheromones to the art of seduction.

However, almost every time she uploads a new video - no matter what the topic is - she receives at least one comment along these lines:

"For as long as I've been a content creator, people have been commenting on my voice, and it's always men," Kate, a Pennsylvania native, told BuzzFeed. In fact, the controversy around her voice began when she posted a video about her professor baselessly accusing her of plagiarism. Though she had an A in his class, Kate explained, "He didn't believe I was able to write a well-written essay based on whatever 'airhead blonde' stereotype he had of me." In response, she received numerous comments from men claiming they also wouldn't "believe" she was smart or "take [her] seriously" due to her Valley Girl speech, while many women defended her.

To address the comments, Kate posed the question: Why are people - in her experience, particularly older men - so bothered by her voice? Her theory: Because the workforce was male-dominated, hypermasculine speech patterns became standardized as "professional speech." As women become more prevalent in the public sphere, their speech patterns are becoming normalized within professional speech, representing the decline of older, male-dominated forms of communication. She sums up, "[Men are] so lost in the sauce of sexism that they don't even realize the reason they're upset about Valley Girl speech isn't because it's actually annoying. It's because it's associated with young women and femininity, and anything that's not a patriarchal ideology is going to seem stupid to you."

Viewed nearly half a million times, Kate's video received more than 2,000 comments, with many people praising her explanation (and voice) and thanking her for the breakdown. So to learn more and dive deeper into the world of linguistics, BuzzFeed spoke with Meghan Armstrong-Abrami, an associate professor of Spanish Linguistics at UMass Amherst.

While often associated with Valley Girl speech, uptalk has multiple definitions and functions within linguistics, Dr. Armstrong-Abrami explained. One such definition, by Paul Warren, defines it as "a marked rising intonation pattern found at the end of intonation units, and which serves primarily to check comprehension or to seek feedback." However, uptalk conveys a variety of intentions in communication.

Intentions of uptalk - also known as high rising terminals or rising declaratives - include checking, conversation maintenance, establishing common ground, feedback elicitation, hearer involvement, implying questions, reducing social distance, signaling new information, friendliness, solidarity, etc.

Also important to note: Uptalk is not produced in a vacuum. Armstrong-Abrami elaborated, "There is the actual content of the message, the physical gestures (like facial expressions and body movements) that the speaker is producing when the uptalk is uttered, the discourse context of what conversational participants have already said, etc. These also contribute to the way the message is conveyed."

Beyond speech patterns, the Valley Girl, herself, is generally associated with a stereotypical persona - one usually synonymous with "ditzy" or perhaps Cher Horowitz from Clueless. "This definitely makes it obvious that certain speech patterns are tied very closely to the persona of a Valley Girl," Armstrong-Abrami noted.

Nevertheless, uptalk is not a characteristic unique to Valley Girl speech, let alone American English, as Kate indicates in her video. It's actually been documented in at least 14 types of English (including Pacific, Mexican, South African, and Indian Englishes) and 11 non-English languages (including German, Spanish, Japanese, and Arabic). Thanks to cross-linguistic comparisons, it's clear that the social perception of uptalk depends on the particular speech community in question.

For example, Armstrong-Abrami shared that one case found that men who speak Peninsular Spanish (Spanish spoken in Spain) produced significantly more rises than women.

"To my knowledge, Spanish men do not face any social stigma or language policing for this," she added. On the other hand, uptalk does carry social meaning in Mexican Spanish, as it's often associated with fresa-style speech.

When it comes to gender, Armstrong-Abrami stated that a 2015 study - with participants from Southern California and Massachusetts - found "no significant differences in terms of how frequently men used rises when compared to women." In fact, as far back as the 1970s, American English speakers have been using rises to have the effect of, "Are you listening?" Despite this, uptalk is generally associated with women and younger speakers in the US.

"One very important thing to bear in mind here," Armstrong-Abrami remarked, "is that in the field of sociolinguistics, it is widely accepted that women and young women are often the leaders of language change. So if there is something 'new' going on in the language, it's not surprising to find women doing it. However, it seems to be the case that in the process of leading language change, women pay a price in that their speech is overly policed and, in some cases, even pathologized."

So why do people use uptalk? Well, the reason is probably not that simple, Armstrong-Abrami said. (For starters, it emerged in several languages around the same time.) As to Kate's theory that women use uptalk because they're often interrupted, she commented, "It's certainly a reason women could use it if we consider the 'holding the floor' use."

"In that case, they would be implicating that they are not done yet, so it makes sense that women might feel the need to hold the floor if they are used to being interrupted. At the same time, uptalk is pretty clearly used for a variety of other intentions," she continued.

Age and gender also play into the intentions for which speakers use uptalk. While one study found no gender disparity in uptalk to make statements, it did find that women use uptalk twice as often as men to hold the floor. As Kate notes, male politicians often use uptalk but aren't seen as doing so to hold the floor. For example, an analysis of former president George W. Bush's speeches found that his pitch contours would be "called 'uptalk' if produced by a young woman from the San Fernando Valley." Another analysis of former President Barack Obama's speeches found that he used high termination to emphasize information and capture attention. "I have to wonder if that rise was produced by a woman it'd have the same interpretation," Armstrong-Abrami added.

More broadly, in terms of gendered speech patterns and professionalism, she observed, "I think a lot of the aspects that women's speech has been criticized for are related to intentions that show empathy - checking in with the listener, establishing common ground, not committing fully to a statement because you are aware there might be more information you need. This hearer-orientedness may indeed be less common in the speech of men, and maybe there exists an idea that empathy is not appropriate in a professional environment, but that seems like a societal problem to me."

Ultimately, Armstrong-Abrami concluded, "No matter what the phenomenon is - whether it's tag questions in the '70s, uptalk, vocal fry, or the use of 'just' in the past years - women's speech is always viewed negatively. Criticizing the speech of certain groups is still somehow socially acceptable and is a way of passing judgment on those groups. It's the norm that groups that are deemed undesirable by society are judged for their speech patterns, and individuals that deem themselves as authorities (usually self-proclaimed) on speech are able to openly criticize the linguistic features of these groups. As long as our society continues to devalue women (among other groups), we will continue to see women's speech patterns criticized, policed, and pathologized."

As for Kate, in spite of the criticism she receives for her voice, she makes no effort to flatten her speech patterns. "That would be counterproductive in my opinion," she said. "Feminism doesn't mean conforming to 'less feminine' behavior but forcing men to get used to a more female-dominated world. Women should be able to talk the way they normally talk, and men can get over it."

That's why Kate decided to address the comment and make the video in the first place: To combat the perception that things associated with women are less intelligent or silly and to empower women. "It's a result of patriarchy," she said. "I'm tired of seeing women be made fun of for the way that they talk. I hope viewers take away that their Valley Girl voice in no way takes away from the power of their statements. We don't have to keep shrinking ourselves to make men more comfortable. Instead of conforming, it's time that women started punching back."

What do you think about uptalk? Have you been judged based on your voice or speech patterns before? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Woman Went Viral For Explaining Why Men Hate Valley Girl Accents, And It's Deeper Than You'd, Like, Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"They're so lost in the sauce of sexism that they don't even realize the real reason they're upset."

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a very important piece about media bias. I'd read it...

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a very important piece about media bias. I'd read it...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post skewed coverage toward Israeli narratives, according to a quantitative analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Attitudes towards swearing - terrific for pragmatics and language change 

# data[].attributes.subject
Attitudes towards swearing - terrific for pragmatics and language change 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Swearing has become more widely acceptable over the past two decades because it is increasingly used for other purposes than to insult people, linguistics experts have said.

"Fuck" and "shit", the two most commonly used swearwords in the UK, are frequently used to emphasise a point in conversation or to build social bonds, rather than with the specific intent to cause offence, according to academic researchers.

They made the comments after the BBC presenter Mishal Husain swore seven times in under a minute during an interview with the home secretary, James Cleverly.

The broadcaster questioned him on Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday about things he had recently been accused of saying, which included whether he had described a person or a place as a "shit-hole".

Dr Robbie Love, a lecturer in English Language at Aston University, Birmingham, said: "Swearing, as with all language use, is entirely context dependent and context specific. It's what you do with the word and the various functions, as far as performed, that informs the perception of how acceptable it is."

Love said research had found that people commonly swore in casual conversation to express surprise, to create humour, to show solidarity with their peers, or to abuse someone.

But Husain was not doing any of these, he said. "Rather, she's referring to the word that [Cleverly allegedly] used and asking whether he said it. In that context, I would argue that it's more likely to be considered acceptable, than if she suddenly said at the end of the story, 'Well, that was a load of shit, wasn't it?'

"The choice to say it might be part of a strategy to rattle James Cleverly, and not to euphemistically replace that term to force him to acknowledge the reality of that word. But I'm not sure if anybody would genuinely be offended by hearing that word in that context."

Love, who has published studies on swearing trends in informal conversation between the 1990s and 2010s, and the use of the F-word among British teenagers, said most swearwords were becoming less taboo due to the ways in which people were using them.

For example, the F-word was increasingly being used in generic phrases such as "oh, for fuck sake", or "what the fuck?", which had lessened its impact to offend, he added.

"If you break it down and think, if I say, 'who the fuck did that?', as opposed to 'who did that?', what does 'fuck' actually mean? It's just emphasising the general sentiment," he said.

The academic added that this use of the word was happening a lot more now than a few decades ago. "That's good evidence that the specific meaning of that word is falling away, because when people use it, they're using it in these kind of generic ways."

skip past newsletter promotion
Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Love said swearing performed other functions in casual conversation, such as forming social bonds between friends or work colleagues, where its usage signalled a degree of solidarity or social intimacy with the group.

Yehuda Baruch, a professor of management at the University of Southampton's business school, said his research with professionals such as lawyers, doctors and senior managers found swearing was used to create team cohesion, relieve stress and emphasise a point.

Baruch said swearing was also used in a calculated attempt to gain attention, for example, he believed, when the billionaire Elon Musk used the F-word in an interview at the New York Times DealBook summit.

He added: "I'm sure Mishal did it because she wanted to emphasise the point, so that everybody will listen. Forty years ago, she would never do it. But unfortunately, it is effective. This is the new language and we have to live with it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Swearing is becoming more widely acceptable, linguistics experts claim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Swearwords increasingly used for emphasis and to build social bonds, rather than to insult, say academics

# data[].attributes.headline
Great stuff on new word formation processes, for language change

# data[].attributes.subject
Great stuff on new word formation processes, for language change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A student in my graduate seminar recently mentioned seeing her "niblings" at Thanksgiving. Some of the students in my class were clearly familiar with the term. But others frowned, suggesting that they hadn't heard the term before, or didn't know what it meant.

A nibling is the child of one's brothers or sisters. The word is a blend of the "n" in "niece" and "nephew" with "sibling," and it was coined in the early 1950s by linguist Samuel Martin.

But even though it's been around for over 70 years, the word isn't included in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

The most recent crop of terms added to the dictionary includes words like edgelord - a person who makes provocative statements online - and thirst trap, which is an online photo that's meant to grab attention. Edgelord was first recorded in 2015, and thirst trap dates from 2011.

So why have these newbie words made the cut? Why have they been chosen for inclusion, but not nibling?

In making such decisions, the dictionary's editors note that they employ two criteria. First, a term "must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications." Second, these citations need to cover "a considerable period of time."

But there may be another litmus test that the editors employ, perhaps subconsciously: aesthetics.

Blended words

Many new terms are a blend of two words that already exist.

Some of these mashups are now so familiar that they aren't even perceived as such, such as smog, a combination of "smoke" and "fog," and motel, a union of "motor" and "hotel."

Dictionary editors are conservative because they want to enshrine just the new words that remain reasonably popular and that are likely to have some staying power. But dictionaries are full of terms that have fallen out of use. When is the last time you heard someone refer to a houppelande or a blatherskite?

Editors have chosen to exclude some terms despite the fact that they have been around for a long time. Nibling is one, and antidisestablishmentarianism is another, even though the latter was first used over a century ago, in 1900.

But after 70 years in the shadows, nibling may finally be having its moment. In 2020, Jennifer Lopez used it in an Instagram post to refer to her sister's transgender child. Her post was viewed over 2 million times. The term was also used in the sixth season of the TV show " Young Sheldon " to refer to the title character's unborn niece or nephew.

However, nibling has never graced the pages of The New York Times, and it's appeared just twice in The Washington Post, in articles from late 2023.

The importance of aesthetics

With English speakers becoming more comfortable with gender-neutral terms, such as the singular "they," nibling seems like a natural addition to English's gender-neutral lexicon.

But it seems that, in addition to utility and widespread use, a third factor plays a role: aesthetic quality. Nibling simply sounds off-putting, too similar to "nibbling" - and not exactly something that you want to associate with family members.

A 2021 Daily Mail article agreed, calling nibling "skin crawling and awkward."

And consider the case of Latinx, a word that was coined to be gender-neutral and inclusive. Although it has appeared in Merriam-Webster since 2018, it may end up going the way of an expression like " colored," a term that was once " a term of racial pride," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, but which is now considered offensive and has fallen out of use.

No matter how useful Latinx may be, the term is widely disliked in the Hispanic community. A major reason seems to be the word's lack of aesthetics. One Latina interviewed by Billboard described it as sounding "ugly," and people can't seem to agree on how to pronounce it. The more pronounceable Latine has been proposed as an alternative.

"Phablet" not fabulous?

Aesthetics may also help explain why some other blended words, such as phablet, a fusion of phone and tablet, have failed to catch on. A term for large cellphones, it's been in use since at least 2010, although it doesn't currently appear in Merriam-Webster's word list.

Phablet made its first appearance in The New York Times in 2013 and was set off by quotation marks - a standard way of demarcating a new term. In its last appearance, excluding in puzzles, in that newspaper in 2019, it was still bracketed by quotation marks.

Why did it fail to catch on?

In a 2013 article, The Atlantic characterized phablet as "horrible," "stupid" and "clumsy." The piece suggested that it reminded people of words like "flab" and "phlegm." Usage data compiled by Oxford English Dictionary editors indicates that phablet peaked in popularity in 2018 and has been dropping ever since.

Utility versus aesthetics

In some cases, however, utility has clearly trumped aesthetics. The initialism LGBT, which is clunky to say, has been used since at least 1992 and has appeared in almost 6,000 articles in The New York Times since 2000.

LGBT has sprouted a number of more inclusive variants, such as LGBTQ, LGBTQ+ and LGBTQIA, which makes it difficult to know which one to use.

Nevertheless, these ungainly initialisms remain popular, despite their awkwardness, because they clearly fill a need.

Will nibling go the way of phablet, or will it become as common as LGBTQ?

Merriam-Webster's editors have nibling on their list of words they are watching. But it remains to be seen whether a useful but awkward blend will appeal to a more inclusive world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Thirst trap' and 'edgelord' were recently added to the dictionary - so why hasn't 'nibling' made the cut?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pleasant-sounding words might have a leg up.

# data[].attributes.headline
Genuinely fascinating stuff on where the most 'traditional' accents are in The UK

# data[].attributes.subject
Genuinely fascinating stuff on where the most 'traditional' accents are in The UK

# data[].attributes.headline
If this doesn't end up in your essays, then...

# data[].attributes.subject
If this doesn't end up in your essays, then...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Oxford English Dictionary has selected rizz as its word of 2023. If you've heard of it at all, you'll probably have heard that it comes from the word charisma. However, the OED definition pins it down as "style, charm or attractiveness, and the ability to attract a romantic or sexual partner".

So, wait - which is it? Charm or charisma? The difference seems small - most people switch them up all the time. However, there has always been a subtle rivalry between the two ideas, because each embodies a quite different vision of how power works. Rizz takes this in a fascinating - and troubling - new direction, with implications for how young people talk about politics and masculinity.

Rizz migrated online from Baltimore street slang during 2021, when YouTuber Kai Cenat started dropping it into his videos as a shorthand for the ability to seduce women. Hundreds of millions of streams later, it has taken on a life of its own. He has taught a generation to use rizz as a verb, to spot different kinds of rizz when they see it, and to aspire to be " rizz kings ".

It is fascinating for those of us who enjoy head-scratching about language change. I am one of those people, a historian writing about the history of charisma.

In the 1910s, German sociologist Max Weber repurposed "charisma", the ancient Greek word for the Christian "gift of grace", to talk about new styles of democratic leadership.

The word had a slow start. Data shows it bursting into popularity from the 1960s onwards, when it became a buzzword for talking about celebrity-driven politics. Since then, it has become the first term many of us reach for when explaining the appeal of populist politicians like Donald Trump, or charismatic CEOs like Apple's Steve Jobs.

Charisma or charm?

Now, with rizz erupting like an alien from its middle syllable, charisma has gone from a theological word to a political word to a dating word.

And here's where the paradox comes in. Today's typical rizz post on social media sees a young woman apparently won over by a man's slick confidence. But what we're actually watching here is a different word, one we used to call charm. Since that word comes from the Latin carmen, for song, being charming can be thought of as "singing pleasing melodies to your audience" - in other words, telling people what they want to hear, or conforming to what you think another person wants.

By contrast, Weber adopted charisma as an anti-establishment idea, the " specifically creative revolutionary force of history " by which compelling individuals could mobilise people against authority. Throughout history, leaders called charismatic have frequently been abrasive, "singing songs" that crowds didn't realise they wanted to hear.

Hitler had little endearing rizz in the 2023 sense. Neither does the charmless but charismatic hero at the heart of Ridley Scott's Napoleon. By contrast, being a rizz king today is more about beguiling than challenging one's audience.

Charm and charisma also differ in scale. Rizz is native to platforms such as TikTok that, even if they involve reaching vast numbers of people, depict interactions between individuals or small groups of people. In this intimate arena, charm triumphs.

Charisma, by contrast, is seduction scaled up from the individual to a mass. It is larger than life, the macro to charm's micro. Charisma only makes sense as magnetism exerted over a crowd or populace, more attuned the cinema or television than the smartphone screen.

Rizz and gender

Most worryingly, by making charisma all about charm, rizz brings toxic gender politics and misogyny to the surface. It makes sexual prowess the measure of all things. As critics of rizz culture have begun to observe, rizz is a manosphere term - a way that young heterosexual men measure their own and rival men's place in the world.

It is quite possible that rizz owes nothing to charisma, since Kai Cenat has claimed the etymology is a red herring.

But in another sense it owes everything, since the newly-acquired rizz obsession of older generations - including the OED - is clearly down to how it links back to reassuringly well-established concepts. It makes us Millennials (and older) feel that we have a grip on the language of the young.

Such interest may even kill the word off. After all, nothing has less rizz with Generations Z and Alpha than the dictionary of a 1,000-year-old university in England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rizz: I study the history of charisma - here's why the word of the year is misunderstood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An expert on rhetoric explains why 'rizz' may be more like charm than charisma.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great stuff for language discourses and 't' dropping, or 'the glottal stop'

# data[].attributes.subject
Great stuff for language discourses and 't' dropping, or 'the glottal stop'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
T-Glottalization: The Reason Some People Drop Their ’T’s When Speaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dropping that ‘t’ sound is an example of what linguists call glottalization.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lovely piece on the failure of spelling reforms in English 

# data[].attributes.subject
Lovely piece on the failure of spelling reforms in English 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a cold December day in 1855, London publisher Charles Ollier sat down at his desk to write a letter to his friend, the critic and essayist Leigh Hunt.

When he stood back up, Ollier's letter was at least three pages long. We know this because history records it was on page three that he informed Hunt: "My son William has hit upon a new method of spelling Fish."

That method, which I'm sure you've guessed, was ghoti. William's argument was as follows:

The point was simple: English spelling is all over the place and, what's more, often lacks even a passing acquaintance with pronunciation. One result is that spelling cannot be learned phonetically. To the chagrin of schoolchildren the world over - not to mention their long-suffering mentors - many words must be learned, painfully at times, by rote.

Although English is not the only language to suffer this obvious flaw, many major ones, such as Spanish, Italian, Serbian and even the notoriously difficult Finnish, do not. If you hear a new word in those languages clearly and are reasonably fluent, you'll probably nail its spelling at the first attempt.

Languages that share English's obstinacy include French and Irish. However, unlike English, their pigheadedness is in one direction only - while you may not be able to confidently spell a word first time you hear it, you can still confidently guess its pronunciation from its spelling. (I know that sounds illogical, but that's all I'm saying about it here. I only have 1000 words or so to play with.)

English suffers from what linguists call deep orthography, or what I prefer to call 360 degree bastardry. Not only can spelling not be derived consistently from pronunciation, but neither can pronunciation be consistently derived from spelling.

Ollier was far from the first person to point out the weirdness of English spelling, but you might be surprised how late in the piece the issue arose. Modern English spelling, which developed from about 1350, was passably straightforward and consistent to start with. But it suffered a big blow with the development of the printing press in the 1400s and the fact that the early ones were operated by Belgian assistants who didn't speak, read or write English. Suddenly, the printed word was appearing everywhere, in wildly varying spellings, produced by people who, quite literally, didn't know their arse from their elbow.

As printing developed and typesetters began to be paid by the line, the temptation to also squeeze a new letter or two into the odd word was too great for some.

It took until the 16th century for calls for spelling reformation to become rife. Rife, and largely unheeded. Sure, the odd word was rescued from the clutches of insanity: logique, it was agreed, was more sensibly arranged as logic. Warre was two letters too many for one of humanity's favourite pastimes, as was sinne for another. But those were the exceptions.

In fact, while many people were pushing for simpler, more rational spellings, others were pulling in the opposite direction. Most at fault were scholars of Greek and Latin, who believed English had become sullied over time by the common people and would be infinitely improved by the application of a little classical spelling. So it was that the eminently sensible sissors became scissors, det became debt, dout likewise assumed a demonstrably unnecessary b, and iland became island on the mistaken assumption that it came from the Latin insula (it's actually from the Old English igland).

By the mid-1600s, spelling reformers had largely given up, but 200 years later a new generation bravely took up the cudgels with, it must be said, a respectable degree of success. Among them was American dictionary writer Noah Webster, who excised the u from words such as colour and labour, and reversed the final two letters of other words like centre and litre to better reflect their pronunciation. Thus it was that US and British spellings began diverging (although much of what Webster did was simply codify what his compatriots were already doing) and the two countries now found another reason to regard one another with suspicion.

Webster's first dictionary, published in 1806. A second, more comprehensive edition, was to follow in 1828. For his troubles, Webster was plunged into debt from which he never recovered.

In 1906 the Simplified Spelling Board was founded in the United States. (That it didn't name itself the Simplified Spelling Bord was surely an opportunity gone begging.) One of its main contributions was to simplify the spelling of words like anaemia, aeon and aesthetic. The ae pairing is a relic of a time when it signified a pronunciation similar to the long vowel sound in my. That distinction got lost over time, however, causing modern readers to wonder whether antennae is correctly pronounce an-ten-ee, an-ten-ay or something more difficult and posh.

But as a portion of the language as a whole, these reforms - which were hardly universally adopted in any case - are not even a drop in the ocean. English's bastardry continues unabated.

That hasn't put off the reformers, who have included famous writers like Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and HG Wells, heads of state like Theodore Roosevelt, scientists like Charles Darwin, playwrights like George Bernard Shaw (often wrongly credited with coming up with ghoti), and even royalty such as Prince Philip.

In my view, you could add King Canute to that list without doing it any harm, such are the chances of anyone achieving more than the most modest results.

The barriers to success are both varied and sizeable. First, how should we reform spelling? By making it more phonetic? The question then arises: phonetic for whom? Please, God, not the Scottish. Or, as the Scottish might say: please, God, not the Kiwis. You get the problem.

What about simplified spelling, as per Noah Webster? For example, surely we can agree there's no harm in standardising the spelling of all words pronounced with a short e followed by a d, which would give us red, led, hed, sed, etc.

But it won't happen, at least not by decree. Unlike many peoples who are blessed (cough, cough) with a language academy, English speakers have never shown any interest in having a committee tell them how their language should be written or spoken. (That they do seem willing to kowtow to the rulings of self-appointed individuals, often completely lacking in credentials, is another matter and one that puzzles me deeply.)

Organised spelling reform is doomed not because it's a bad idea, but because English speakers are just as obdurate as their language - maybe more so.

And much as I admire Twain, Darwin, Shaw, etc, I'm with the refuseniks on this one. Det instead of the delectably overendowed debt? Over my ded body.

Bits and specious

George Bernard Shaw was going strong well into his nineties. Born in 1856, in 1950 he put together a paper called The Problem of a Common Language, where he wrote "children should be taught to spell phonetically (as they speak) and only corrected when their spelling betrays a mispronunciation...". You can find the article here.

To help him compile his dictionaries and better understand the etymology of the words he was defining, Webster learned 28 languages. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, widely regarded as among the world's best, owes the second half of its name to him.
An old lexicographer (possibly) hands in his notice with style and just the right amount of swearing. In defence of merit in science.
Quote of the week

It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.
Andrew Jackson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It may be a great idea, but who's buying it?

# data[].attributes.body
As with all of these, what sociological factors are behind these words' formation and usage?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The word was more than 10 times more common in September 2023 than a year before in September 2022, with a noticeable uptick in the use of the word likely related to coverage of Swift's highly successful Eras tour.

Etymologically, the word 'Swiftie' is formed from the singer's name, with the suffix 'ie' (or 'y'), which is often used to form diminutives or pet names, with an implication of affection.

Some words that commonly collocate with Swiftie are 'fandom' (Swiftie fandom), 'die-hard' (die-hard Swiftie), 'hardcore' (hardcore Swiftie), and 'self-proclaimed' (self-proclaimed Swiftie).

There are many other examples in English of names for fans of popular musicians, bands, etc. such as: the Beyhive (Beyoncé), Directioners (One Direction), Deadheads (Grateful Dead), and Beatlemania, describing the enthusiasm of fans of the Beatles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxford Word of the Year 2023 | Oxford Languages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After more than 32,000 votes, and a team of language experts, the Oxford Word of the Year 2023 is finally here! Learn more about the this year's winner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘AI’ named most notable word of 2023 by Collins dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chosen from a list that includes ‘greedflation’, ‘nepo baby’ and ‘deinfluencing’, use of term has quadrupled this year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cambridge dictionary's word of the year for 2023 is "hallucinate" - a verb that gained an additional meaning this year.

The original definition of the chosen word is to "seem to see, hear, feel, or smell" something that does not exist, usually because of "a health condition or because you have taken a drug". It now has an additional meaning, relating to when artificial intelligence systems such as ChatGPT, which generates text that mimics human writing, "hallucinates" and produces false information.

The word was chosen because the new meaning "gets to the heart of why people are talking about AI", according to a post on the dictionary site. Generative AI is a "powerful" but "far from perfect" tool, "one we're all still learning how to interact with safely and effectively - this means being aware of both its potential strengths and its current weaknesses".

The dictionary added a number of AI-related entries this year, including large language model (or LLM), generative AI (or GenAI), and GPT (an abbreviation of Generative Pre-trained Transformer).

"AI hallucinations remind us that humans still need to bring their critical thinking skills to the use of these tools," continued the post. "Large language models are only as reliable as the information their algorithms learn from. Human expertise is arguably more important than ever, to create the authoritative and up-to-date information that LLMs can be trained on."

skip past newsletter promotion
Discover new books with our expert reviews, author interviews and top 10s. Literary delights delivered direct you
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Henry Shevlin, an AI ethicist at the University of Cambridge, said that it is "striking" that rather than choosing a computer-specific term like "glitches" or "bugs" to describe the mistakes that LLMs make, the dictionary team decided on a "vivid psychological verb". He said that this may be because "it's so easy to anthropomorphise these systems, treating them as if they had minds of their own".

Shevlin also said that this year will probably be the "high watermark of worries" about AI hallucinations because AI companies are making efforts to curb the frequency of mistakes by drawing on human feedback, users are learning what kinds of tasks to trust LLMs with, and models are becoming increasingly specialised.

The dictionary provides two usage examples of "hallucinate" as it relates to AI: "LLMs are notorious for hallucinating - generating completely false answers, often supported by fictitious citations" and "The latest version of the chatbot is greatly improved but it will still hallucinate facts."

Cambridge's decision follows Collins dictionary naming their word of the year "AI".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Hallucinate' chosen as Cambridge dictionary's word of the year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The psychological verb gained an extra meaning in 2023 that 'gets to the heart of why people are talking about artificial intelligence'

# data[].attributes.headline
Really interesting article on the psychology of time and language

# data[].attributes.subject
Really interesting article on the psychology of time and language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine the future. Where is it for you? Do you see yourself striding towards it? Perhaps it's behind you. Maybe it's even above you.

And what about the past? Do you imagine looking over your shoulder to see it?

How you answer these questions will depend on who you are and where you come from. The way we picture the future is influenced by the culture we grow up in and the languages we are exposed to.

For many people who grew up in the UK, the US and much of Europe, the future is in front of them, and the past is behind them. People in these cultures typically perceive time as linear. They see themselves as continually moving towards the future because they cannot go back to the past.

In some other cultures, however, the location of the past and the future are inverted. The Aymara, a South American Indigenous group of people living in the Andes, conceptualise the future as behind them and the past in front of them.

Scientists discovered this by studying the gestures of the Aymara people during discussions of topics such as ancestors and traditions. The researchers noticed that when Aymara spoke about their ancestors, they were likely to gesture in front of themselves, indicating that the past was in front. However, when they were asked about a future event, their gesture seemed to indicate that the future was perceived as behind.

Look to the future

Analysis of how people write, speak and gesture about time suggests that the Aymara are not alone. Speakers of Darij, an Arabic dialect spoken in Morocco, also appear to imagine the past as in front and the future behind. As do some Vietnamese speakers.

The future doesn't always have to be behind or in front of us. There is evidence that some Mandarin speakers represent the future as down and the past as up. These differences suggest that there is no universal location for the past, present and future. Instead, people construct these representations based on their upbringing and surroundings.

Culture doesn't just influence where we see the position of the future. It also influences how we see ourselves getting there.

In the UK and US, people typically see themselves as walking with their faces pointing forward towards the future. For the Māori of New Zealand, however, the focus of attention when moving through time is not the future, but the past. The Māori proverb Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua, translates as "I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past".

For the Māori, what is in front of us is determined by what can or has been seen. The Māori consider the past and present as known and seen concepts because they have already happened. The past is conceptualised as in front of a person, where their eyes can see them.

The future, however, is considered unknown because it has not happened yet. It is thought of as behind you because it is still unseen. Māori perceive themselves as walking backwards rather than forwards into the future because their actions in the future are guided by lessons from the past. By facing the past, they can carry those lessons forwards in time.

Different approaches

Scientists are not sure why different people represent the past, present and future differently. One idea is that our perspectives are influenced by the direction that we read and write in. Research shows that people who read and write from left to right draw timelines in which the past is on the left and the future is on the right, reflecting their reading and writing patterns.

However, people who read from right to left, such as Arabic speakers, often draw timelines with events from the past on the right and the future on the left. However, reading direction cannot explain why some left-right reading people think of the future as "behind".

Another theory is that cultural values may influence our orientation to the future. Cultures vary in the extent to which they value tradition. Researchers believe your spatial concept of the future may be determined by whether your culture emphasises traditions of the past or focuses on the future.

In cultures that stress the importance of progress, change and modernisation, the future is normally in front - for example, the UK and the US. However, in cultures that place a high value on tradition and ancestral history, such as in Morocco and indigenous groups such as the Māori, the past is the focus and is therefore usually in front.

These differences may also have implications for initiatives to tackle global challenges. If the future is not always in front, then western campaign mantras about "moving forward", "moving on" and "leaving the past behind" may lack resonance for many people.

Perhaps, however, if we can learn from other cultures' representations of time, we may be able to reframe our understanding of some of the world's most pressing problems. Approaching the future with regular looks over the shoulder to the past could lead to a fairer future for everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the future might not be where you think it is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use space to understand the passage of time, but don't assume everyone thinks of the future as in front and the past as behind.

# data[].attributes.headline
Accent prejudice in South East England? Who would've thought...

# data[].attributes.subject
Accent prejudice in South East England? Who would've thought...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's been much - and rightful - scrutiny of prejudice towards accents in the north of England. For instance, research has highlighted teachers with northern accents being told to " posh up" and northern university students being ridiculed for their accent.

But there is also prejudice towards accents in south-east England. In this region there are various regional accents which, among others, include cockney (which you may now be most likely to hear in Essex), and "multicultural London English", which is spoken mainly by young people in London and is influenced by the city's many different ethnic communities. Not all south-eastern accents are treated equally, which both reflect and reproduce societal inequalities.

In my recent research project, a group of almost 200 people aged 18 to 33 from south-east England were played ten-second audio clips of other young people reading the same sentence. Clips were played of over 100 people from different areas of London and across every county in the south-east.

The participants were not provided with any information about the people whose voices they heard. They were asked to make judgments on sliding scales about how friendly, intelligent and trustworthy they thought each person sounded.

My study shows that certain groups were evaluated more negatively than others. Based only on their accent, lower-working-class people were judged to be on average 14% less intelligent, 4% less friendly and 5% less trustworthy than upper-middle-class people. People from ethnic minority backgrounds were evaluated as 5% less intelligent than white people, regardless of class.

Compared with other areas of the south-east, negative judgments were made about people from London and Essex, places where the accents have been routinely devalued. For instance, people from Essex were judged on average 11% less intelligent than those from south-west London. Also, women were evaluated as being 2% less intelligent but 5% more friendly and trustworthy than men.

Above all, this is deeply unfair. When some people speak, regardless of the clarity or weight of their words, they are seen as less intelligent, friendly or trustworthy than other people. Accent bias is a mirror of societal biases. It is propping up class prejudice, racial inequality, gender stereotypes and cliched ideas of people from certain areas.

'Standard' English

In Britain, many people still subscribe to the mindset that a few limited ways of speaking English (such as the "Queen's English", which is at the extreme) are legitimate and correct while others aren't. Even if many regional dialects are considered quaint or fun, they are also often judged to be a rejection or rebellion against "correct" English or a reflection of poor education.

For instance, in the report So why can't they read?, commissioned by the then London mayor, Boris Johnson, the author discusses a link between speaking "street" (most likely referring to multicultural London English) and the alleged shortcomings in literacy among London school children.

What we might consider being correct or proper English - in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar - is inherently no better than any other way of speaking English. No dialect of English is deficient, they too have complex grammatical systems, and have the same range and power of expression and fluidity.

Indeed, the English that any of us speak today is a snapshot in time. English's grammar, words and pronunciation have flexed and evolved for thousands of years. If not, we would be able to read Beowulf unassisted, a poem written in Old English around a thousand years ago.

Challenging accent bias

What we think of as correct English is like a yardstick in quicksand. Concepts of standard English are bolstered through the media, the education system, politics, and our own adherence and faithfulness to these ways of thinking.

So ingrained and pervasive are concepts of standard English that we accept it to be true even if it disadvantages us. In my study, working-class people also judged other working-class people to be less intelligent than they judged middle-class people to be. And people from an ethnic minority background perceived white people to be the most intelligent group based on their accent.

So what can we do about accent bias? Awareness comes first. There are already some brilliant projects that hope to raise awareness of accent bias, such as Accent Bias Britain and the Accentism Project.

As individuals, let's reevaluate phrases like "they have an accent" (if you speak, you have an accent) or "they don't speak properly". In fact, most people speak in a way that relects who they are - where they are from, their class, their ethnicity, their sense of identity and their life experiences. These aren't things we should expect anyone to leave at the door.

When we hear someone's accent, we very quickly group them into categories and make judgments about them. This is something we all do. It is often unconscious and is not intended to be hurtful. But you can challenge that visceral response, the feelings and ideas about that person that begin to surge inside you. Only when we are aware of accent bias - and its role in propagating inequalities - can we begin to challenge it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Working-class and ethnic minority accents in south-east England judged as less intelligent - new research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Outdated and harmful ideas associated with certain south-east England accents are still pervasive, according to new research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disappearance of Cockney and Queen's English? Looks that way!

# data[].attributes.subject
Disappearance of Cockney and Queen's English? Looks that way!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cockney and received pronunciation (Queen's English) were once spoken by people of all ages, but they are no longer commonly spoken among young people in the south-east of England.

In new research, colleagues and I recorded the voices of 193 people between the ages of 18 and 33 from across south-east England and London. We then built a computer algorithm which "listened" to how they spoke and grouped them by how similarly they pronounced vowels in different words.

We identified three main accents: standard southern British English, multicultural London English and estuary English.

What defines these accents?

Around 26% of our participants spoke estuary English, which has similarities with Cockney but is more muted and closer to received pronunciation. The people in our sample who spoke estuary English would pronounce words like "house" a bit like "hahs", but not as extreme as you would find in Cockney. Estuary English is spoken across the south-east, particularly in parts of Essex, and is similar to how Stacey Dooley, Olly Murs, Adele or Jay Blades speak.

Standard southern British English - which many perceive as a prestigious, "standard" or "neutral" sounding accent - is a modern, updated version of received pronunciation. SSBE speakers, who made up 49% of our sample, tended to say words like "goose" with the tongue further forward in the mouth (sounding a bit more like "geese") than what we would expect in received pronunciation.

This change even happened in the accent of Queen Elizabeth II over her lifetime. We could probably consider Ellie Goulding, Josh Widdicombe and maybe even Prince Harry to speak with this accent.

We found that speakers of standard southern British English and estuary English generally tended to be white British, and women were more likely than men to speak the former. It's not surprising to find that women speak in a more socially prestigious way, as much previous research suggests - women are often more chastised for speaking with regional accents than men.

Notably, standard southern British English and estuary English are not as different from each other as Cockney and received pronunciation. This could be evidence of what's known as dialect levelling - where young people from different parts of the region now speak more similarly to each other than their parents or grandparents did.

This occurs as a result of the increased movement of people resulting in greater contact between dialects, the growth of universal education and literacy, and people buying into the idea that there is a "correct" or "standard" way of speaking.

This is not to say that there are no new or innovative ways of speaking today. One example is an accent which linguists call multicultural London English, first noted in recent decades in the speech of young east Londoners. This accent has similarities with Cockney and other south-eastern accents, but also has influences from other languages and dialects of English.

The young people with a multicultural London English accent (around 25% in our sample) said the vowels in words like bate and boat with the tongue starting at a point higher up in the mouth compared to standard southern British English so that they might sound a little bit more like "beht" and "boht".

They tended to be Asian British or Black British and many were from London, but there were also people from across the south-east who spoke with elements of a multicultural London English accent. Bukayo Saka, Little Simz and Stormzy could be examples of people who speak with these features.

Accents change - does that matter?

Cockney, the working-class, London accent of Barbara Windsor or Michael Caine, and received pronunciation, which some call Queen's English (or perhaps now King's English), did not appear in our analysis. That's not to say that there aren't any young people in our sample who might have spoken these accents, but if so, they were too few and far between for the algorithm to identify.

For decades, some educators, politicians and commentators have expressed concern that received pronunciation is being replaced by estuary English, allegedly representing a decline in standards. In 1995, the then education secretary, Gillian Shephard, vowed to combat the growth of slang among schoolchildren and the spread of estuary English.

In 2014, facing criticism for airing different regional accents, the BBC stated that they do "not aspire to be a 'guardian'" of received pronunciation - also sometimes called BBC English.

Estuary English and multicultural London English are both often criticised and devalued. Research has shown that Londoners who don't speak MLE think of it as a form of "broken language", "language decay" or "fake language".

Linguists have ardently pushed back against unfounded claims that multicultural London English has "pushed out" Cockney, that it represents a dumbing-down of language or that it is inauthentic.

There is no scientific or logical argument to support the idea that these accents are inferior, less articulate or less grammatically rich than any other accent. They simply reflect where a person is from and their background and experiences.

The way accents are described feeds directly into how the people who speak with these accents are judged.

Attempting to prevent accents from changing is like sweeping back an incoming tide with a broom - fruitless and defying nature. Instead, we should embrace linguistic diversity, work to combat accentism (discrimination based on a person's accent), and accept that accents will always continue to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cockney and Queen's English have all but disappeared among young people - here's what's replaced them

# data[].attributes.headline
Language and gender and occupation: what's your relationship with your Alexa based on?! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Language and gender and occupation: what's your relationship with your Alexa based on?! 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers found people ignored Alexa safety concerns because of the voice

Alexa users trust the voice assistant because they see it as a secretary rather than a machine, a study has found.

Researchers from Oxford and Stanford University found they ignored concerns over privacy and surveillance because they saw the Amazon device as a companion.

When discussing it in a positive light, users would refer to Alexa as 'she' and 'her' - but when speaking about the device in the context of the technology giant they would use 'it' instead.

Professor Ekaterina Hertog of Oxford said: 'This unstable use of pronouns potentially reflects users' attempt to separate Alexa from Amazon deeming Alexa "trustworthy enough" while continuing to distrust its parent company.'

Published in the journal Convergence, the paper set out to investigate why more than 200million Alexa owners trust the technology in their homes 'despite persistent public distrust of Amazon'.

Concerns have been raised over the amount of data collected by the Amazon smart speakers to build detailed user profiles.

As well as potentially being used for targeted advertising and being sold on to third parties, critics have warned the devices are also a prime target for hackers.

The study found however that users employ three strategies to manage the fears and misgivings of the AI-enabled machines that are becoming rapidly more intelligent.

Firstly, users view Alexa as having a separate identity from Amazon - and saw the device, pictured, itself as a 'human-like feminised secretary'.

This enabled a 'sense of security to be built around the technology'.

Secondly they just accepted personal data issues with a sense of 'digital resignation'.

Thirdly, Alexa users said they set boundaries by not putting it in rooms they explicitly wanted to keep private, or by turning it off during sensitive conversations.

Co-author Elizabeth Fetterolf, a doctoral student at Stanford, said: 'As people get more comfortable with the idea of "Alexa listening," this could result in a lack of appetite to take substantive steps both to protect privacy on the individual level and imagine any kind of collective resistance to the severe human and environmental toll associated with the device's production.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexa users trust the Amazon device because they see it as human

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers from Oxford and Stanford University found people ignored concerns over privacy and surveillance because they saw the Amazon device as a companion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Accents and accent prejudice - some very useful essay material here

# data[].attributes.subject
Accents and accent prejudice - some very useful essay material here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rob Drummond has lost the ability to simply listen. A professor of socio-linguistics at Manchester Metropolitan University, he hears far more than what's being said when someone opens their mouth. "I have this particular facial expression that indicates when I've stopped listening to the content of what someone's saying, and am thinking about their accent," he says. "Apparently, I start to quietly recreate the interesting sounds under my breath."

Drummond's fascination with the way we talk began while teaching English as a foreign language in Manchester in the early 2000s - some of his international students would take on a noticeable Manchester accent; others wouldn't. "It led me to my PhD: why some Polish people in Manchester acquired a Mancunian accent, and some did not. The results were fascinating: people who intended to settle acquired a local accent quicker than those here temporarily. I started to see accents as a way of associating, or distancing, yourself from a certain group. At times, it's deep-rooted, trained into your brain. At other times, it can be a performance. Sometimes both."

He soon turned his focus to accent prejudice, a cornerstone of his new book You're All Talk. "I'm a middle-aged, middle-class white man from Hertfordshire; the way I speak has never been an issue for me, unlike for plenty of people. Each of my projects since has explored stereotypes associated with accents."

Given the UK's small size, there's huge accent variation. "So many different groups travelled to these islands historically - first, native Celtic groups, then Germanic and Anglo-Saxon arrivals, Roman, Vikings and Normans." From all these sources, Old English emerged. "For centuries, it was a shared language," Drummond explains, "and with little communication or regular travel - and language always changing - it was spoken differently nationwide. It happened with modern English, too."

Until the 1400s, Drummond suggests, there's little evidence of an accent hierarchy in Britain. "When language becomes standardised, however, we start to see a more 'prestigious' variety being asserted." In the 1470s, William Caxton set up England's first printing press. Since the seat of power is the southeast of England (royals, politicians, Chancery, Oxford and Cambridge), this variety of English is used in print. It becomes prestigious, "but not because it's better, only that it's used by the powerful". In 1922, the BBC selected received pronunciation (RP) as its broadcasting standard, further elevating its position. "But had a few battles hundreds of years ago gone differently, the royals might well have been based in Yorkshire. The King's English might have been broad Yorkshire tones."

Stereotypes about different accents, Drummond believes, are socialised into us. "Voices of authority and power in the UK are still almost always RP. In film and TV, comedy characters often have northern accents. Untrustworthy? Eastern European. There's the archetypal chirpy cockney lad." It reinforces expectations, he believes, which are subjective and arbitrary. "When I ask my students to rate different UK accents for friendliness, kindness, intelligence, etc, the UK students will repeat stereotypes, but international students without social context don't have that pattern. It's because we're surrounded by it all the time," he says. "both in the media, and with derogatory comments about accents still far too generally accepted. Take intelligence - we still make judgments from the way people talk."

It goes both ways. "People who speak like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg are allowed to get away with things that others couldn't. Others, like Angela Rayner, are judged as being less intelligent, conversely, because of their working-class accents."

While the impacts are tangible, he says, the distinctions are irrational. "Take the dropping of the 'g' [think swimmin', cookin', shoppin'], that is today often associated with working-class people, and 'lazy' speech." In 2021, BBC presenter and former footballer Alex Scott was criticised publicly for precisely this. "In fact, a hundred years ago, that was a marker of poshness. Huntin', shootin', fishin' was a stereotype of the landed gentry." We see this with other speech features, too. "Take vocal fry and rising intonation at the end of a sentence. Both are stereotyped as airheady in women, but powerful in men."

Drummond certainly doesn't argue that accents are unimportant, though. "Lots of British culture is now fairly homogenous; the world is getting smaller." As a nation, we share the same access to media, and easy nationwide communication and travel, "yet accents prevail. They're a way to define ourselves, a window into the depths of who we are. But we need to stop making assumptions based on that, whether positive or negative. It's simply unfair."

Through his work, Drummond has met plenty of people who have actively changed their accent to avoid being judged. Some of the people in the following interviews have done so. "Of course, I don't blame individuals for changing their accents to get by better," says Drummond. "But really it's not the way people speak that needs adjusting. It's the way we as a society listen that has to shift."

Jonathan Williams, 30
Manchester, healthcare consultant
My parents are deaf, so I was taught to speak by a speech therapist. My older brother learned to speak through socialisation, but Mum stayed at home more in my early years, so that didn't happen for me. I ended up speaking with received pronunciation, which meant I didn't sound much like a Mancunian, my brother, or any of my wider family. I was conscious of sounding different. I wasn't picked on for it, but I was an odd one out. And then there was my paranoia about my voice having an inflection associated with gay men. I was in complete denial about my sexuality. It made me incredibly insecure, so I tried to mask my voice. I worked for a decade in London, and any northern tones became even less pronounced. In 2020 I moved back to the north-west. Now, I notice my accent is shifting to sound like my peers here. For the first time, I sound akin to where I'm actually from. I couldn't be more pleased. I suppose it makes me feel like I belong here: like a local, rather than a guest, in my own hometown.
Liverpool, creative producer
Carlos Marfil, 34

I feel like I'm an impersonator when I talk. I hate it when people compliment my "English" accent, or cannot pinpoint where I'm from - they're congratulating me for obliterating my identity. I grew up in Spain - we have this melodic way of speaking. I learned English all through my childhood and, in 2011, moved to Newcastle, then Liverpool. Here, I found I was often treated differently because of the way I spoke. At a job centre, a member of staff asked me where I wanted to work. I said hotels. She laughed and said: "Not with that accent, my dear." Random people would roll their eyes when I'd start to talk. I'd always be aware of potential negative reactions to not sounding British-born. Over a decade later, my Andalusian twang has lessened. At work, I've picked up Liverpudlian slang and intonations, but mostly I've ended up with a "neutral" English accent, which I regret. I wish I'd known that even after changing my accent to blend in, I would still never truly be accepted. Sometimes, I pretend to still speak with a Spanish accent. It's so liberating.
London, music executive
Sofia Ilyas, 42

My family is Pakistani, but I was born in Cardiff. The mishmash of Welsh, South Asian and Sheffield sounds (my mother's side of the family moved down for jobs at the steelworks) left my accent confused. I then got a place at a private school for my A-levels, which changed my accent drastically. I sounded posher and suddenly felt more confident. I noticed that I was being treated differently by strangers. People would trust me more; they'd be more respectful. As someone with no degree, it's served me ever since. This has been especially true in a work context - it gives me authority when I've sat on boards or when I'm speaking to a CEO. I'm often perceived with less ethnicity, and it's assumed I come from wealth. My voice has been a useful tool in the corporate world - I use it to my advantage. It does sadden me that losing elements of my ethnicity has helped in my career. Still, I'm making the most of it while that's how things work.
Southampton, retired
David Lloyds, 65

I was born and raised in the US, next to the Canadian border. My father and all my grandparents were English, so my American accent has always had a hint of British and Canadian in it. While staying in France, I met my English wife, and we moved to Southampton in 1997. Despite living here for more than 26 years, people are still never quite sure where I'm from. They'll often guess: Canada? America? Ireland? I know they are only being curious, but I've grown tired of everyone asking where I'm from: the gas man, the shop assistant, the religious zealot on the doorstep - the list is endless. I feel English and so un-American that I renounced my US citizenship. Really, I wish I could fully convert my accent to just "English" English. I've never been to linguistics coaching, but my wife and friends now know to point out when I say something American-sounding so I can weed it out.
Surbiton, producer
Bethany Easton, 43

I sound every bit like the Surbiton-dwelling wife of a privately educated barrister that I now am, but I've had this clipped RP accent my whole life, including while growing up in a foster home in rural East Anglia. My siblings have really broad East Anglian accents, but never me. At school, I frequently had the shit kicked out of me for "being so posh", despite the fact I wasn't. I always thought I spoke like this because, aged six, I'd decided I wanted to be a BBC continuity announcer and so developed the requisite speaking voice. Then recently, I was diagnosed with autism: one of its features, apparently, is speaking differently from your peers, copying someone from television. Could that have been a part of it, too? Today, I have a strange relationship with my "posh" accent, simultaneously wanting to seem middle-class, but also very keen to make people understand where I've come from; how far I've come from the chaotic house of messed-up kids. I now have a second job as a voiceover artist, and every time I get paid for my voice, I congratulate myself on one in the eye for those kids who beat me up.
Ithaca, New York, P hD student
Amandla Thomas-Johnson, 37
Swindon, nurse
I moved to the US in August 2021 to start my PhD in literature at Cornell. It's well known that British accents can attract attention in America, but being Black, I wasn't sure how it would play out. I grew up in Hackney and as a kid I went to the US often to see family. Back then, when I opened my mouth here, people would look at me as if I was an alien species. Blackness was represented globally as Caribbean, African and US; Black British culture didn't have its global footprint. Black British music has taken off here now. There's , too. To those who consume this, I'm no longer such an oddity. Still, others (mostly upper-middle-class white people) hear me speak now and still won't see me as "properly English" - they ask where I'm really from. They don't know how to handle a Black, well-spoken man with a British accent. But in a society that dictates that Black people are inferior, English accents have a cultural cachet. I'm racialised the same way, but my accent now gets me a class upgrade that Black Americans can't access. A leg-up in a highly hierarchical society. This makes me uneasy: why should my accent make me "better" than an African American?

Belinda Memmott, 64
East Sussex, tour guide
Growing up in Romford, I never thought much about the way I spoke. I had a proper Essex accent - dropped aitches, the lot; think Birds of a Feather on steroids - but so did all my friends. It was normal to me. Certainly, I was never treated differently because of it. It was only when I moved to Reading to train as a midwife that I realised I had an accent. Things went downhill rapidly. An ex-boyfriend told me that I "would never amount to anything" with an accent like mine. When I asked the father of a baby I had just delivered what he was going to call his child, he said: "Anything as long as she doesn't grow up sounding like you." I was so shocked, I didn't even answer back. Essex accents, I realised, were associated with being thick. It made me incredibly self-conscious, so I tried to actively reign my accent in. As I've grown older, I've stopped caring. I've grown to love my voice, and am very proud it seems to annoy so many people.

Julie Baker, 62

In 1977, aged 16, I moved from the Caribbean to England to complete my education. Until then, I'd lived in Trinidad. I'm white and my parents spoke in RP, but I had a strong Trini accent. People in the UK were confused by what they associated as a Black accent coming out of my white mouth, but speaking Trini was all I knew. It was so much part of my identity; I didn't know how to express myself without it. Some people here were politely curious. Others, less so. At my posh school, pupils threw banana skins at me and made monkey noises. It was very shocking. Cultural appropriation wasn't such a thing in the 80s, but I started to ask myself: do I even have a right to speak in my native accent? Might people think I am mocking? I started to question the validity of my voice. Over time, I dropped my Trini accent. If people responded badly to how I said a certain word, I'd train myself to say it differently. But whenever I go back home to Trinidad, I automatically revert to it. It's in that voice I feel most comfortable.

Kate Macdonald, 59

Somerset, publishing
London, international development
I was born in England, and moved with my family to Aberdeen aged five. I grew up speaking in a strong Scottish accent at school, slightly tempered at home. My English cousins teased me for having a Scottish accent; my Scottish school friends ridiculed me for sounding too English. I left Aberdeen aged 21 for a job in London, and found that not being understood in shops there was desperately humiliating. Now I live in Somerset, the West Country part of my accent that I inherited from my mother tries to assert dominance. But when I speak in public - as I discovered when I began working as a university lecturer - my accent is firmly Scottish. Giving talks is a performance, and the Scottish cadences just delight in coming out when I have an audience. It's how I talk when I'm most at ease.
Manchester, sociologist
Neha Kagal, 37
You're All Talk by Rob Drummond (Scribe £16.99) is available for £14.95 at guardianbookshop.com
I love my Indian accent and am proud of it. I was born in India and moved to London in 2012. I soon realised there is a hierarchy of accents in the UK, with accents of the Majority World [Asian, African, Latin American, Middle East] usually falling somewhere towards the bottom. But I am not going to put on a fake British accent in order to be more palatable, relatable or "British". I have a right to be me. In the last decade, I've had people make fun of my accent, sometimes in spaces I would least expect it: close non-Indian family, progressive social justice spaces, even from some second-generation South Asians born and raised here. This is hurtful. It "others" you, tells you that you don't belong, that you're "less than", that you aren't "there yet", you can never be "one of us". But I am not interested in living up to ridiculous standards of white supremacy. My goal is not to "assimilate", it is to flourish and thrive. And I don't need a British accent to do that.

Anton Roberts, 36

I'm not sure what my accent is today. I was raised in North Wales and had its distinct accent. I moved to Manchester for university and suddenly felt very aware of how I spoke. I stuck out and perceived everyone else to be posher and more academic than me, because of their accents. There was casual mockery and certainly internalised insecurity, too. It was heavily interwoven with my class and notions of being taken seriously. I felt my ideas would be viewed differently through my Welsh pronunciation. I became so self-conscious that I intentionally dropped my accent to assimilate. In adulthood, I feel embarrassed that I can't even pretend to sound Welsh any more. When back home, I feel less authentic, less Welsh even. Like I'm being fake. Around a strong Welsh speaker, I feel like a poor imitation. Apparently, when I'm extremely emotional, my accent does switch back. It's still inside me, at least. That's something. ■

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We still make judgments from the way people talk': Rob Drummond decodes accent prejudice | Michael Segalov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a new book explores stereotypes that are socialised into us, 11 readers also reflect on the way they speak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In my day, we called it "depression". If you spent all day in bed, refusing to face the real world, then you were either 1) lazy, 2) hungover or 3) depressed.

I've aged myself there, haven't I? In 2023, spending an entire day lying down may be a sign that you are having a "menty-b" (gen Z slang for a mental breakdown) or that you're "bed-rotting". Bed-rotting, while an evocative term, is difficult to define. Depending on which articles you consult from the million that have recently been published on the phenomenon, it either means you're practising self-care and opting out of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy norms, or it means you're a slob.

I'm not trying to be dismissive. Honestly, I think the person who coined the term bed-rotting is a genius. Some people dream of brokering world peace. Others of colonising Mars. I dream of one thing only: inventing a dubious trend with a catchy name that could become the Oxford word of the year. I haven't achieved that lofty goal yet, but I have amassed copious notes about how to tread this path to glory and, generously, I am going to share them with you. Behold: a brief guide to constructing a dubious micro-trend in 2023.

First things first: reinvent the wheel. Find something completely banal that has been around for ages but has the potential to be rebranded into a zeitgeisty phenomenon that launches a thousand think pieces. A ploughman's lunch, for example, is now a " girl dinner ".

Once you have your subject, you can switch your attention to names. If you lack inspiration, just insert the words "girl" or "core" into it. Rat girl summer, girl math, lazy girl jobs ... the hottest micro-trends of 2023 contain the word "girl". "Core" is a bit more passé, but it still works. See, for example, cottagecore, normcore and goblincore.

If you can't find an excuse to "core" or "girl" your way into a trend, alliteration always adds interest. One of the biggest trends of recent years has been " quiet quitting ". I'm not sure it would have commandeered quite as many column inches if it had been dubbed "subtle resigning". And once you've done all that, get back in bed and let TikTok get to work.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From bed-rotting to quiet quitting, everyone loves a so-called trend. Here's how to invent your own | Arwa Mahdawi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the right rebrand, even the most banal concept can capture the zeitgeist. Imagine being the genius who relaunched the ploughman's lunch as 'girl dinner', writes Arwa Mahdawi

# data[].attributes.headline
Why does everyone on Tik Tok sound the same? (The answer is in linguistics!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why does everyone on Tik Tok sound the same? (The answer is in linguistics!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hey guys, I just got an order in from Sephora - here's everything that I got Get ready with me for a boat day in Miami Come and spend the day with me - starting off with coffee If you've spent any time at all on the internet, it's likely you read these phrases in the same lilting, singsong cadence. It's a phenomenon which has been dubbed "influencer voice" or "TikTok voice".

To the untrained ear, it can be hard to pinpoint what constitutes TikTok voice. According to Tony Thorne , a linguist and lexicographer specialising in slang and cultural history, "it's not one simple thing, but a blend of various tones". He adds that TikTok voice is often "high-pitched, breathless, youthful, with over-emphasised keywords and sequences, slightly odd speeded-up and slowed-down sequences, and coy intonation and body language." Dr Christian Ilbury , a sociolinguist at the University of Edinburgh, adds that uptalk - where people end their sentences with a higher pitch as if they're asking a question - is another common characteristic of TikTok voice.

Dr Ilbury adds that this way of speaking is not just characterised by a creator's but also the way they structure sentences. "What I think they are doing is using a fairly formulaic discourse routine in which they draw the audience's attention in," Dr Ilbury says, adding that this is particularly relevant on TikTok where videos are so short. Essentially, creators will normally stick to this tried-and-tested pattern: they'll welcome the audience ("hi guys!") and set the scene ("I just did a massive Zara haul...") before going into the real meat of the video ("...and here's everything that I got").

"On TikTok, it's such a limited economy of attention you're basically vying for that attention and to be recognised," Dr Ilbury continues. "Videos are monetised. How do you make money? By engagement. How do you keep people engaged? You use linguistic styles that are engaging." A have shown, for example, that uptalk successfully grabs our attention, as they implicitly invite the listener to confirm that they are listening (in the same way that someone might add "right?" to the end of a sentence). Far from making the speaker sound unconfident and deferential, the subtext behind uptalk is: are you listening to me? " To appreciate how relevant engagement is, imagine them literally reeling the same stories off in a mundane style or how we'd speak to our family," Dr Ilbury adds. "We'd scroll on."

As is the case with almost anything influencers do, one of the criticisms levelled at the way people speak on TikTok is that it is annoying, fake, and 'inauthentic'. But this criticism fundamentally misunderstands the way speech works. "We have different ways of speaking depending on the audience, topic, and purpose. Some of those styles become associated with particular roles and jobs - here, it's influencers," Dr Ilbury explains. It's true: most of us can imagine a train driver placidly announcing the next stop or a GP cooing "I'm sorry to hear that" .

Besides, the phenomenon of adopting an affected, theatrical style of speaking for entertainment purposes isn't anything new. Take the half-American, half-British 'transatlantic accent' which was taught to and spoken by actors, radio presenters, and newsreaders in the US in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The accent largely grew in popularity because it supposedly made people sound more 'refined' and educated, but its dynamic, lilting timbre also kept audiences hanging off the speaker's every word - not dissimilar to the way in which TikTokers talk.

Interestingly, while 100 years ago some Americans were putting on British accents, the opposite seems to be true on the internet today, with some Brits occasionally lapsing into an American twang. Take of Tamsin Wong: she speaks in a quintessential British accent 90 per cent of the time, but the 't' sounds in words like "getting" and "state" sound more like 'd' sounds - characteristic of the standard American accent.

It's something Thorne has noticed too. "More recently, influencers, Gen Z and TikTokers have used an accent that veers unpredictably between US and UK or combines elements of both, perhaps looking just for novelty and originality but also a cosmopolitan effect that isn't too localised," he says. "My own 16-year-old daughter - who spends hours on TikTok - has picked up a global English accent which is as American as English, but in which she can code-switch, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately". This arguably speaks to the way in which American culture has come to dominate internet culture, with linchpins like the Kardashians largely acting as 'blueprints' for other creators and influencers around the world to follow.

@itsmejadeb This video took 3 tries and now I'm addicted to talking like this #tiktokvoice ♬ original sound - Jade

A more recent and o bvious predecessor to TikTok voice is 'YouTube voice' - the loud, slightly nasal, over-exaggerated manner of speaking used by a wide range of creators, from vlogger Hank Green to 'junklord' pioneer MrBeast to beauty and lifestyle influencer Zoella. But as social media has evolved and the influencer industry's worth has snowballed into the billions , audiences have fallen out of love with the artifice of it all and are more cynical than ever about the number of grifters looking to make a quick buck by shilling snake oil. The overenthusiasm and brashness of YouTube voice doesn't wash so much with today's audience - hence TikTok voice's more subtle approach. As Thorne puts it, TikTok voice is " designed to come across as intimate and conversational and informal and engaging, but claiming authority and expertise and sincerity and seeking to impress and persuade at the same time."

Ultimately, we shouldn't be too surprised that everyone sounds the same on TikTok, given conformity is often rewarded more than originality on social media; just look at the legions of influencers with Instagram face . TikTok voice is an equivalent phenomenon; a pertinent example of how mimicry spreads like wildfire on the internet. "One particular attribute of TikTok is its replicability and the way its performances are 'catching' and go viral," Thorne explains. "This goes for the language, too, so linguistic quirks are quickly imitated - consciously or unconsciously - and seem to become suddenly universal. Language works like this naturally, but not usually so quickly [...] but because TikTok is ubiquitous and global, its tics and traits and quirks spread very rapidly. Thus, an intonation favoured by a few US influencers can be taken up almost instantly across the Anglosphere and beyond."

Join Dazed Club and be part of our world! You get exclusive access to events, parties, festivals and our editors, as well as a free subscription to Dazed for a year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why does everyone on TikTok talk like that?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On TikTok, influencers speak in enthusiastic, lilting tones - but why?

# data[].attributes.headline
Suzie Dent on English - some lovely stuff here

# data[].attributes.subject
Suzie Dent on English - some lovely stuff here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
erhaps the world's most famous lexicographer, Susie Dent is certainly one of the most positive people on British TV. For 31 years the queen of dictionary corner on Channel 4's Countdown, she puts just as much energy into her books: from her first, the 2003 Language Report for Oxford University Press, to Weird Words (2013), an unapologetic compendium of farting and squelching. She even finds the fun in current events, through her regular "word of the day" posts on Twitter. Recent examples include "'boodlery' (19th century): unprincipled behaviour in public office", and, on the day Donald Trump was arrested, "'mugshot': the use of 'mug' for a face looks back to 18th-century drinking mugs that often represented a grotesque human face ... "

We meet in a cafe on a rainy July day, where she is sitting - as is her habit - in a corner, enthusiastically digging into a second breakfast. She often sits quietly on her own in a coffee shop, she says. "It's probably against the law to eavesdrop as much as I do. It really is for linguistic purposes, not for gossip. But you can pick up some gems."

This autumn, Dent will publish two new books full of linguistic jewels. The first, Interesting Stories About Curious Words: From Stealing Thunder to Red Herrings, is a book for adults about the weird stories behind some of our most common words and phrases. One of her favourites, to "lick into shape", derives from "the widespread medieval belief that bear cubs are born shapeless and have to be licked into shape by their mothers". The next is Roots of Happiness: 100 Words for Joy and Hope, a book for children with beautiful illustrations by Harriet Hobday, which she calls "the happiest thing I've ever written". Dent is on a mission to revive English's "lost positives" - words such as "feckful", "couth", "ruly" and "full of gorm". In modern English, they survive only in their negative forms, but once, we aspired to be ruthful (full of compassion) or ept.

"Our kids have been through so much recently," Dent says of the book. "Their normality has been taken away. And I just thought, 'Let's celebrate the beautiful'." Not just obviously appealing words such as "butterfly" and "lovewende" (meaning beloved) - but those that delight in everyday annoyances, such as "thunderplump: the sudden downpour of fat, heavy raindrops that leaves us drenched and dripping in minutes". She was excited to find research, by the psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, that showed having the vocabulary to articulate happy feelings can make us better able to manage our emotions. And if we are feeling down, knowing that there is a fun word for that - the "mubble fubbles" - may at least make us feel less alone.

Dent is drawn to words that delight in everyday annoyances, such as 'thunderplump: the sudden downpour of fat, heavy raindrops

Like many linguists, Dent is positive about linguistic change, and feels that children are its flagbearers. She's excited that non-native speakers of English around the world now hugely outnumber native speakers, and about the "new Englishes" in their hands and mouths. She's not afraid of AI, and doesn't think new technology is going to destroy the way we speak our language - though that fear is nothing new. Victorians were afraid of the postcard, she points out. Their telegram was our "text speak is ruining our children". On the other hand, she's not keen on the methods that schools have recently been made to use to teach grammar. "If you say to kids, 'Do you know about ablaut reduplication?', their eyes would just completely glaze over. But if you say to them, 'Would you like to play a game of pong ping, or have a kat kit?', they understand that instinctively and it becomes quite exciting." She has two children and - far from correcting their errors - has always loved it when they get words wrong. "English has always evolved by mistake," she says. "The example I give is the jerusalem artichoke, which has nothing to do with Jerusalem and is not even an artichoke. The plant is a heliotrope - it turns towards the sun - but because we couldn't pronounce the Italian ' gira sol ', we thought 'Jerusalem' would do."

Apparently, Dent has always been this way about words. She was the sort of child who can't sit at a table without reading the label on the ketchup bottle; then studying German and French at A-level really got her "in the groove". She did modern languages at Oxford University and then German at Princeton - and if you think she's blissed out by English etymology, you should see her face when she talks about German. "When I listen to it and speak it, I honestly feel like I'm coming home," she says, lighting up. She thinks it might have been Goethe who compared English to a country garden, French to an ornamental park and German to a deep, dark forest. "And that's how it feels to me. It's thorny and it's dense and it's quite dark sometimes, but I just find such joy within it."

After university, Dent worked for a while for Oxford University Press - first on their bilingual dictionaries and then on English dictionaries, where her interest in etymology grew. When her boss told her that Channel 4 was looking for an expert for Countdown she felt obliged to step up; but three decades later, it's her second home. When she's not in the studio, or touring theatres, or recording her podcast with Gyles Brandreth, "a lot of my time is spent looking at the virtual pages of the OED, and that's probably where I'm happiest".

For Dent, words matter. "Not because of 18th-century Latin rules about split infinitives and prepositions, but because words are joyful, and we have such a vast lexicon there for the taking." So, what three joyous words would she use to describe herself?

"Oh my goodness!" she says. And then, "Do they have to be positive?" The first one she comes up with, because she thought of it when she woke up this morning, is "elf-locked". "It looks back to the supposition that mischievous elves would come out at night and play havoc with your hair." The second, a rediscovered positive, is "feckful" - because "I'd like to think I have some effect". For the third word, she eventually decides on "respairing". Respair is the opposite of despair; it only has one record in the dictionary, and it means to recover from despair. "But I think it also means hoping for better days around the corner. Having fresh hope and optimism."

skip past newsletter promotion
Discover new books with our expert reviews, author interviews and top 10s. Literary delights delivered direct you
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Wrapping up, we step outside the cafe just as an enormous squall of rain gusts down the street. "Oh look," she says, "a thunderplump!" And she breaks into an enormous smile.

Interesting Stories About Curious Words is published by John Murray (£14.99). Roots of Happiness is published by Puffin. To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Susie Dent: 'English has always evolved by mistake'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The queen of Countdown's dictionary corner on the power of positive language and finding joy in 'mubble fubbles'

# data[].attributes.headline
Language change and relationships: what socio factors are behind some of these?

# data[].attributes.subject
Language change and relationships: what socio factors are behind some of these?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Negotiating the world of contemporary dating can be tricky (Photo: Flashpop/Getty)

The way we talk about relationships has drastically changed in recent years. While phrases like 'ghosting' and 'sexting' are firmly part of our lexicon, keeping up with modern dating terminology can be a minefield. Here is a glossary of some of the most popular words and phrases you should know, with some expert input on how to navigate them.

1. Cuffing

Definition: When you form an exclusive relationship with someone, basically tying them down. Autumn is considered "cuffing season" - a popular time to find a partner as summer ends.

Expert says: "Cuffing happens ahead of the colder months and during the party season when having a regular date is needed. While cuffing can be used to state that you have formed a committed relationship, it also has a big association with short-term relationships during the festive season, so it doesn't always have a positive reputation." Ness Cooper, therapist and resident sexologist at jejoue.co.uk

2. Textpectations

Definition: A third of UK singles say starting up a conversation is one of the most nerve-racking parts of dating, according to research conducted by Badoo. Textpectations sum up the anticipation of a text response.

Expert says: "It's important to get to know someone's messaging style before interpreting a delayed reply, lack of response or excited reply as a sign that they are either not interested in you, or a bit "too much". I'd always recommend discussing your 'textpectations' with a new connection, and to understand theirs, as you could miss out on forming a relationship with a fantastic person due to a simple misunderstanding." Charlene Douglas, sex and relationship therapist at Badoo, known for her work on 'Married at First Sight UK'

3. Catch and release

Definition: A person who loves the chase, but loses interest once they are in a relationship.

Expert says: "This is common behaviour for those with an avoidant attachment style, meaning they might want intimacy or closeness, but when they get it from a romantic partner, it can feel suffocating and so they pull away. People who are intensely into you at the start may well flip on you once the excitement of the chase wears off." Dr Paula Freedman, clinical psychologist and founder of HumanKind Psychological Services

4. Ghosting

Definition: When someone suddenly stops all communication with someone else, with no explanation or warning.

Expert says: "This can be hurtful and confusing. It can be tricky to understand why someone chooses to respond with complete silence, but one thing you should know is that ghosting is a reflection of the other person's behaviour and choices, not your worth or value as a person." Jenny Archer, flirting expert, AI-powered app Flirtee

5. Breadcrumbing

Definition: When a person leads someone on by consistently showing a low level of interest.

Expert says: "It may be that they occasionally engage with the person on social media, send them sporadic messages or even phone them. These interactions are intended to suggest the person who is doing the breadcrumbing is interested. In reality, this is a form of manipulation, as the person has generally no intention of forming a relationship." Sharin Shafer, COO of matchmaking agency Bond

6. Submarining

Definition: When someone randomly messages you after ghosting you first.

Expert says: "They disappear without a trace to then resurface weeks or months later with an out-of-the-blue comeback. They give excuses such as a death of a pet or a busy run at work. Go with your gut feeling. Life happens but you have every right to question their priorities. If you take their word for it, establish boundaries to stop it from happening again." Dr Fanny Leboulanger, physician and self-love and pleasure coach

7. Pocketing

Definition: When someone keeps a potential romantic partner "in their pocket" as an option, but is not ready to make the romance public.

Expert says: "The reasons for this behaviour vary, but the intention is to keep a potential partner available and in place in case the pocketer decides they want to pursue a serious relationship with them in the future. It can be a way of making sure they have a fall-back in case other dating prospects don't pan out. Be wary." Jessica Alderson, relationship expert and co-founder of So Syncd

Expert says "If a new partner still hasn't introduced you to their friends and family and you've been dating for a while, it may be a sign that you're being 'pocketed'. They are keeping you in their pocket until they are sure they see a future with you. It may be that you are in two different stages emotionally. Don't rush them but also be aware of the reasons why they aren't quite ready." Tina Wilson, relationship expert and founder of Wingman app

8. Soft launching

Definition: When a person subtly teases their new relationship on social media.

Expert says: "The soft launch is for those people who can't stand the attention of a barrage of likes and comments on that first 'official' post as a couple, so they include their new partner in carousels and tag them in captions for a while to make it less of a big deal." Zoe Burke, host of podcast 'What Not To Do When Planning a Wedding' and editor of hitched.co.uk

9. Rizz

Definition: Simply short for charisma - a person with a natural ability to charm.

Expert says: "If you want to leverage your rizz when dating, being genuine and confident are key. A great sense of humour can also be very attractive and is often a tool people full of charisma possess, but be mindful not to overdo it when flirting with new connections." Jenny Archer

10. Cobwebbing

Definition: The act of removing anything that reminds you of an old relationship, similar to clearing out cobwebs from your home.

Expert says: "This is a dating trend established to help you move on from a past relationship. It's about deleting every picture and video of the relationship, and physically throwing or giving away everything physical you have that reminds you of them, such as clothes or gifts. It's pretty much like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. You must 'erase' everything that reminds you of your past partner(s) for the sake of moving on from that relationship. Dr Callisto Adams, dating and relationship expert, hetexted.com

11. Stonewalling

Definition: The act of giving someone the silent treatment, often as a means of control or avoidance.

Expert says: "As a partner of someone who stonewalls, it is important not to internalise this behaviour as your fault. Instead, use emotional intelligence to engage in an open and empathetic discussion and break the cycle. This behaviour is a typical sign of deeper emotional issues that may require therapy." Bayu Prihandito, psychology expert and life coach, and founder of Life Architekture

12. Roaching

Definition: When a new partner hides that they are still dating or sleeping with other people.

Expert says: "Roaching involves not disclosing other romantic interests, which can lead to feelings of betrayal and mistrust when the truth comes out. Healthy communication, transparency and respect for one another's feelings are essential components of a successful dating experience. Essentially, it's a form of dishonesty in the early stages of dating." Mairead Molloy, is a relationship consultant and strategist

13. Sexting

Definition: The exchange of sexually suggestive messages, photos or videos to partake in a form of cyber sex.

Expert says: "When doing this kind of texting, be sure to be safe and follow online safety. It is a great way to keep the connection, intimacy and flirting going, but talk to your partner about it first and go from there. Avoid it if you are not sure where the relationship is going or that you don't 100 per cent trust your partner not to share the exchange with friends." Gemma Nice, sex and relationship coach

14. Orbiting

Definition: When someone flirts with you online and "lingers", but isn't prepared to take it offline. Also applies to an ex who isn't in your life any more but 'orbits' your life online.

Expert says: "They will be liking all your posts, leaving cheeky comments and viewing every Instagram story but they will never quite commit to an in-person meet (or rekindle a romance in real life). The best thing to do is to block or unfollow them as a way of limiting access to how they show up in your life. Also, don't be tempted to watch their latest Instagram story; it's like punching yourself in the face." Tina Wilson

15. Zombie-ing

Definition: When someone ghosts you, only to pop back in your life as if nothing happened.

Expert says: "This is a very hurtful situation. The reappearance often comes without any explanation about why they disappeared. If this happens to you and there is not a good excuse for their poor behaviour, set strong boundaries on how you expect to be treated and don't be afraid to walk away before history repeats itself." Michelle Begy, MD and founder of Ignite Dating

16. 180 dating

Definition: When you start dating someone outside of your usual 'type'. Often a response to a messy break-up or when your usual type keeps letting you down.

Expert says: "It can be a great thing to get out of your comfort zone and have new experiences. Gaining an awareness of what is and isn't working is crucial in dating." Zoe Burke

Expert says: "There is no one-size-fits-all approach to dating after a break-up. People have different reasons and motivations for seeking different types of partners. What's crucial is ensuring that these choices align with your long-term relationship goals and values. Learn from your mistakes. Seeking the opposite kind of person can be part of the healing process." Mairead Molloy

17. Benching

Definition: A term borrowed from American sports, benching is now openly used in modern-day dating to mean keeping someone on stand-by. Also see "Cookie-jarring" (see below).

Expert says: "This person may be called into action as your partner for a last-minute date, but if you are doing the benching you are not committed. Keeping someone on the bench usually means you are unsure of how you feel about them. Benching is indicated by sending flirty texts but not making concrete plans. The person being benched will not really know where they stand, which can cause insecurity." Sharin Shafer

18. Phubbing

Definition: When a person pays more attention to their phone than their partner or date.

Expert says: "This causes resentment. Whether on the sofa or a night out, if one person is silently glued to their phone, the other person will feel ignored. It is important to set boundaries. If you expect your partner's undivided attention when you're together, tell them. Be honest and try leaving your phones at home on your next date." Gemma Nice

Expert says: "This is an atrocious trend which, unfortunately, is prevalent among modern-day couples. It is important to spend quality time with your partner and be present. If you're grabbing your phone during dates such as romantic dinners or movie nights, put it down." Callisto Adams

19. Negging

Definition: A manipulative tactic where someone makes a backhanded compliment or outright insult to undermine the self-confidence of their target.

Expert says: "The idea here is to make the person feel vulnerable so they seek validation and attention from the person who negged them. It is a tactic often used to gain control or establish dominance in a relationship. It is also worryingly used commonly as a flirting technique." Dr Avigail Lev, psychotherapist, author, mediator

20. Soft fade

Definition: When a person wants to end a relationship without taking ownership over what they want and being up front. They "fade" the other person out, aka "Fizzling".

Expert says: "This is passive-aggressive and, if you suspect it is happening to you, why not just call it out through direct communication? You could say, 'I notice you haven't been as responsive to my texts. I'm still interested in dating. Are you?' If they claim that they're still into you but keep pulling away, remember actions speak louder than words. Someone who genuinely wants to pursue a relationship will be more communicative and consistent, not less, as things get more serious and you get closer." Dr Paula Freedman

21. Gaslighting

Definition: Manipulating someone into doubting their own memories or even questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.

Expert says: "This is a severe form of emotional abuse that can have long-term mental health implications. If you suspect you are being gaslighted, try to document what is happening and talk to loved and trusted friends or family. The key is to trust your own experiences and consider seeking professional help if needed." Bayu Prihandito

22. Love bombing

Definition: When someone overwhelms another with an intense amount of affection.

Expert says: "This may sound amazing due to the affection and attention given, but it can make it hard for the individual being love bombed to be present within the relationship, making them feel like an outsider in their own romance. Love bombing can also be used in relationships to hide abuse such as codependency. Also, the love bomber can pull back as quickly as it started." Ness Cooper

23. Situationships

Definition: A romantic or sexual relationship that is not considered to be formal or established.

Expert says: "Situationships can be toxic, because safety and comfort can only be ensured if both parties know exactly where they stand. Without clearly identified expectations or a defined connection, the relationship becomes devoid of sincerity and understanding. This can lead to a chaotic mix of uncertainty, confusion and misunderstandings and results in a perpetual guessing game." Dr Avigail Lev

24. Tuning

Definition: When someone shows interest in a relationship but isn't up front about their intentions, often dropping hints instead.

Expert says: "This can be confusing and over time emotionally draining. If you find yourself in this situation, I'd recommend applying mindfulness techniques (such as breath awareness, mindful listening, and pause and reflect). Be aware of any emotional toll building up and don't be afraid to ask for clarity, even if it means having an uncomfortable conversation." Bayu Prihandito

25. Cookie-jarring

Definition: When someone keeps a whole host of "just in case" options.

Expert says: "You're dating someone new and you're yet to have the DTR ("Define This Relationship") talk. You find out they have been seeing other people and, essentially, you're one of the "cookies" in the jar they're keeping in case things don't work out with others. Know your self-worth and don't be an extra. Being second or even third choice is never a nice feeling. Look out for very sparse contact. Another sign is if they change arrangements at short notice with no warning and very little explanation." Tina Wilson

Expert says "Cookie-jarring involves misleading tactics. The person who cookie-jars is someone who has multiple dating options at a time, yet acts as if the relationship is built upon - or presents the idea of - exclusivity." Callisto Adams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 new terms for navigating modern relationships, from cuffing to submarining

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everything you need to know about dating today

# data[].attributes.headline
A short history of 'they' (great for change!)

# data[].attributes.subject
A short history of 'they' (great for change!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Six years ago, a linguistic shift was celebrated among grammar sticklers. On March 24, 2017, at the annual American Copy Editors Society conference held that year in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Associated Press (AP) style guide announced the acceptability of a singular "they" pronoun. Specifically, AP announced that "they" is acceptable to use with a singular antecedent, not only when the identity of the subject is unknown.

This change reflected what English speakers have been using for centuries. In accepting the use of "they," the Associated Press was only making official the way English speakers had long been communicating. And it was not the first: The Washington Post had adopted a singular "they" in 2015 and "they" was the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year in 2015.

"For people who identify as 'they/them' it's great," says Erin Cross, director of the Penn LGBT Center. "But where else can we go as far as language? The AP decision wasn't necessarily about identity, it was just easier for other people to accept. Now it seems to be the alternative for gender binary pronouns. But it's amazing to me how unuseful 'they' is."

Cross, who is also affiliated faculty with the Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies Program in the School of Arts & Sciences, and the Center for Research in Feminist, Queer, and Transgender Studies, adds, "It doesn't feel comfortable to many students because to them it feels very put upon, and it doesn't fit for a lot of people. 'They' doesn't work as a pronoun for everyone as a gender-neutral choice."

For writers and editors, the shift makes language easier. And for people for whom they/them pronouns fit their identity, it makes a difference. "It's sticky because 'they' has been used for so long, and queerness and nonbinary identities and gender diversity have always been present and are also not new," says Wesley Alvers, a second-year masters in social work student in the School of Social Policy & Practice, and an intern at the LGBT Center. Alvers identifies as agender and uses they/them pronouns. "I struggle that 'they' needs to be affirmed by institutions. Someone or some entity maintaining what is acceptable is sticky."

"But in an academic setting or professional setting, and even in a casual setting, being able to use 'they' and have people understand it is extraordinary," Alvers says. "I can get around in a different way than I could a few years ago. I started using 'they' pronouns exclusively last year. I don't have to explain it as much anymore. The more it's adopted by institutions, the easier my life will be in terms of communicating with people."

"The recent change is not really about singular 'they' as such, but about using 'they' to refer to a specific, identified individual. Approving that for the AP Style Guide is actually a very small shift," says Gareth Roberts, associate professor of linguistics in the School of Arts & Sciences.

The word "they" originated from the Scandinavian language dating back to the Scandinavian occupation of northern England, and had replaced its native equivalent by around 1400. Use of a singular "they" goes back to at least the 15th century. "There are examples of a singular 'they' in the King James Bible, for instance," Roberts says. "This was really well-established in English, and no one cared for a very long time, it was a perfectly normal part of the English language."

It was in the 18th century when some grammarians started to disapprove of singular "they," on the grounds that a plural pronoun can't take a singular antecedent. "In the 18th and 19th century, people began to raise an eyebrow and thought, 'perhaps we shouldn't do this,'" says Roberts.

When AP deems language usage acceptable, it doesn't indicate "proper" English, but rather that the usage is accepted in their publications. Style guides exist for standardization and consistency, not as the gatekeepers of language.

"One thing to keep in mind is that some of these decisions are acknowledged to be somewhat arbitrary. Whether we choose to use the British or American spelling of a word does not make it correct, it's just consistent," Roberts says.

He adds that people often believe that there exists a perfect, ideal English that speakers deviate from. "In fact, the way that English speakers use the language is English. But people also have attitudes and opinions about what is better and what's worse, and that usually has nothing to do with what is clearer language. For example, 'y'all' is a very useful word. You would think the AP style guide would promote this word because it's useful. But it doesn't, because there is a stereotype about 'who' uses it; it's considered informal or improper."

"The use of 'they' to refer to a singular antecedent is already well established in the language. So, it's a relatively small shift," Roberts adds. "There have been a number of suggestions for nongendered singular person pronouns, and some are quite old now, such as 'ze.' These have not gained enormous ground. We are used to using 'they' already when we are not sure of someone's gender. It's a small step in this case; people are already used to it."

The English language has scrubbed some historically gendered terms from its lexicon for decades as society has progressed towards more equality for women, especially in the workforce. Letters to the editors historically began "Dear sirs," as nearly all editorial staff were men. Waitresses, stewardesses, policemen, firemen-these words have been replaced by gender-neutral descriptors. Gender neutrality as a concept has grown more acceptable but only for classes of words, not so much for specific individuals. The existence of a gender-neutral or agender individual is common in some circles, especially in progressive and diverse communities, but in more conservative communities, it is far less understood and accepted. The current legislative landscape in some states is hostile to transgender individuals, and many school districts and institutions do not offer nonbinary or agender pronoun options, say Alvers and Cross.

"I think people feel more comfortable using they/them pronouns now, but there are hundreds of pronouns that aren't being recognized. I am affirmed personally by this decision of AP, but there are people out there who aren't validated," says Alvers.

"For a very long time, I did not know how to explain my gender or lack thereof; I identify as agender, not associating with gender. I didn't have the words 'agender' and 'nonbinary' and it created a tension in me," Alvers says. "My own adoption of 'they' has been gradual. Pronouns in general have a complexity to them; to me, pronouns are not inherently gendered. When people assume identity based on pronouns, we feed into the concept of predetermined gender options and, in turn, miss out on the intricacies of individual identity."

The decision by the AP makes the life of a writer and editor easier, but will it make other people's life easier?

"I do see this as helpful in terms of visibility and for people envisioning the possibility of their identity. But at the same time, I don't see a post-transphobic reality because of a language change," says Alvers. "People aren't changing how they conceptualize something like my identity when they use a 'they' pronoun."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A centuries-old word with a modern twist | Penn Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six years ago, a linguistic shift was celebrated among grammar sticklers. On March 24, 2017, at the annual American Copy Editors Society conference held that year in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Associated Press (AP) style guide announced the acceptability of a singular "they" pronoun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Hi embarrassed, I'm dad': How 'dad jokes' could help kids' development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A researcher in Denmark argues that the cringe-inducing nature of 'dad jokes' can help kids' emotional development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sideways - 43. Do I really sound like that? - BBC Sounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Catch up on your favourite BBC radio show from your favourite DJ right here, whenever you like. Listen without limits with BBC Sounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whiteness is an invention of the modern, colonial age. It refers to the racialisation of white people and the disproportionate privilege - social, linguistic, economic, political - that comes with this. Crucially, as an invention, whiteness is not innate - it is taught.

As an educational project, whiteness is designed to maintain racial hierarchies. Whether or not that intention remains or is recognised in modern schools, the racism underpinning that educational project continues to shape education in England.

Black children are more likely to face disproportionate disciplinary procedures and be excluded. They face discriminatory hair policies, and, when their speech is deemed to differ from "standard" or "academic" English, they face anti-black linguistic racism.

And in recent years, whiteness and anti-black linguistic racism have become further normalised under the so-called "what works" agenda of education policy.

The UK government launched the What Works network in 2013, in order to design policies, and how they are delivered, on the basis of what they called "the best" research evidence available.

In education, this claim that policymaking is scientifically objective and evidence-led is used to bolster the idea that the resulting policies will effectively do what they say, namely tackle inequality. However, my work shows how what-works-based education policy is not objective or neutral. It normalises white, middle-class language and can result in the use of non-standard, non-academic language being disciplined in schools.

The 'what works' agenda

Between 2021 and 2022, I conducted research in two different secondary schools in London. I observed classrooms, did interviews and analysed policies and lesson materials.

Both schools had majority white staff, serving mostly black children from low-income families. Both schools had subscribed to a "what works" approach to language teaching.

The first school had introduced "evidence-led" curriculum materials, entitled English Mastery. Teachers I collaborated with reported how these materials encouraged them to correct how their pupils spoke, avoiding language deemed to deviate from standard norms.

As a result, black children simply kept quiet or produced minimal answers, which they were further criticised for. Being made to internalise the ideology that their language was deficient resulted in their identity being eroded, an impact which research bears out.

This ideology was further articulated by the staff I interviewed. One teacher said "what works" curriculums would "address persistent errors" and curtail the use of "colloquial" speech, thereby allowing marginalised children to "function properly in the world". Another teacher described how management had insisted on a "standard English only" policy because they deemed classrooms to be full of what they termed "poor quality talk".

Research has long shown that standard and academic English are not neutral categories but social and colonial constructions based on the language of the white middle classes. Yet in these schools, acquiring standard and academic English is seen as the path to social justice. Similar thinking has been shown to underpin decision-making at Ofsted, the UK schools inspectorate and national policy too.

Despite the claimed intentions around racial equity and justice with which they are marketed, "what works" materials risk reproducing anti-black prejudice. They define any student as "functioning" or "working" as one who models their language on whiteness. And they still result in working-class, black children facing language discrimination, because, as research shows, beliefs about so-called "proper language" always relate to beliefs about race and class.

The 'word gap'

In another school I studied, management had designed policies to tackle the so-called " word gap". Since the 2010s, there has been a resurgence among education specialists in England - policy makers at Ofsted, authors of teacher textbooks and the education publishing industry at large - of this idea, which is rooted in 1960s theories of verbal deprivation and was recycled in 1990s educational psychology.

As education secretary in 2012, Michael Gove told the UK parliament that the lack of attainment in children from disadvantaged backgrounds was due to "growing up in households where they are not read to and where they do not have a rich literary heritage on which to draw". Amanda Spielman, chief inspector at Ofsted reiterated this position in 2018: "These children arrive at school without the words they need to communicate properly."

This reductive argument poses that the solution to systemic inequalities but in giving marginalised children more, "better" words than what their families and communities provide them with. In other words, it blames not the socioeconomic system for failing these communities but the communities themselves for not having the right language and literacy practices.

In one school, where management had subscribed to this kind of thinking, believing that it was in the best interests of marginalised children, I found that word-gap interventions meant black working-class children were much more likely to have the way they speak categorised as deficient. Rather than developing their vocabulary, this strategy too resulted in children keeping quiet in lessons, internalising the idea that their language was not academic enough.

Challenging anti-black linguistic racism

Educational linguists have consistently pointed out that language hierarchies are not based on empirical fact but stem from institutional racism. As sociologists Remi Joseph-Salisbury and Derron Wallace put it, "speech codes and vernacular associated with black youth are seen as oppositional to, and disruptive of, academic orientations".

To counter this, the teachers I collaborated with in my research designed new classroom materials that would, instead, affirm students' voices. We worked with the black British writer Benjamin Zephaniah, using his 2020 novel Windrush Child and interviews he has given in which he talks about his experiences of having his language and racial identity policed.

His experiences matched many of the students we worked with. For example, when asked to complete a linguistic profile of themselves, one student Joy, who, with Nigerian heritage speaks English and Yoruba, drew a portrait of herself with her mouth clamped shut. She was able to unpick how her Yoruba, previously, had been silenced in school.

Children were encouraged to interrogate the intersections of power, class and race which sees their own language stigmatised. Their discussions were also, crucially, joyful and full of love for black language and culture.

Another teacher collaborated with parents and students on a new whole-school language policy, which insisted that black children are just as linguistically dexterous as their white peers and emphasised that there is no racial justice without linguistic justice. The first draft of the policy stated:

We do not believe in the existence of a word gap and wholly reject such deficit and racist descriptions of language. If a gap does exist, it exists in the way that people perceive language, rather than how they use it.

Beliefs about language are never just about language. They reflect institutional power dynamics. As one black teacher I collaborated with put it:

We need to stop thinking that the way children speak is the problem, and start thinking about the way that adults listen as the problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Black children in England's schools are made to feel like the way they speak is wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beliefs about language are never just about language. They reflect institutional power dynamics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Zealanders will now see the common and casual te reo Māori greeting Kia ora e hoa! - meaning "hi mate" - in their Oxford English Dictionaries, as the institution moves to recognise the "profound and lasting impact" the Indigenous tongue has had on New Zealand's language.

E hoa, or friend, is one of 47 New Zealand English words or expressions added to the dictionary in its latest update - most of them in te reo Māori, which is an official language of New Zealand. The OED describes itself as the definitive record of the English language.

While some te reo words already appear in the volume, the change reflects "the substantial number of Māori words that have become part of the vocabulary of both Māori and Pākehā (non-Māori) English speakers," according to a statement from Oxford University Press, the dictionary's publisher.

Newly added words that New Zealanders might hear or use in daily life include koha - a gift or offering - and kōrero, meaning a conversation or chat (the dictionary does not spell Māori words with macrons, which are commonly used in New Zealand English and signify double vowel sounds).

Other new offerings include words that encapsulate Māori concepts and do not have an easy English equivalent, such as whenua - land, in particular a Māori person's native land - and rāhui, which is defined as a formal or ritualised prohibition against entering an area or undertaking an activity, typically enacted temporarily in order to protect a resource.

Te reo Māori (reo, or language, is a new word for the OED too) is experiencing a renaissance in Aotearoa (New Zealand), the result of campaigns by language and political activists since the 1970s.

Phrases such as "kia ora e hoa" are frequently used by non-Māori, and are increasingly common in shops or businesses, or to answer phone calls or emails.

Dictionary editors "scoured the archives, novels, newspapers and even Twitter" for examples of each word, the publisher's statement said, searching for illustrations of their use and development.

"The fact that we have more and more Māori words appearing, which is what the OED changes are reflecting, captures the shifts in national and social identity in New Zealand and who we are as a nation," said John Macalister, a professor of applied linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington and the dictionary's consultant on the etymology of Māori.

Not all of the linguistic debuts are in Māori; New Zealanders might also attend an after-ball (perhaps unsurprisingly, a party held after a ball), proceed with something flat stick (as quickly as possible), or greet or thank a friend using the single syllable chur (similar to cheers, but in practice a sort of all-purpose positive acknowledgment).

One of the new additions - taihoa, a request for someone to be patient or wait - captures an inventive combination of English and Māori linguistic sensibilities. Many New Zealanders pronounce the word "tie-ho" - and many might not have known until recent years that they were using a Māori word.

"That's a great example of something that can only have meaning in New Zealand, can only be created in New Zealand," Macalister said. "I love it because it brings a history of this country and this society, and people use it without knowing where it comes from."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kia ora e hoa: dozens of New Zealand and Māori words added to Oxford English Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Zealanders will now see the common and casual te reo Māori greeting Kia ora e hoa! - meaning "hi mate" - in their Oxford English Dictionaries, as the institution moves to recognise the "profound and lasting impact" the Indigenous tongue has had on New Zealand's language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Are the British generally more intelligent and informed than Americans? Americans certainly seem to think so, according to a study by Rutgers researchers.

Research published in Journal of Pragmatics examines how American and British English speakers use "right" to respond in conversation.

They found Americans use the word "right" to indicate they are already knowledgeable or informed about a given subject or situation. By contrast, British English speakers use "right" to indicate that what they hear is informative, and relevant to the ongoing interaction.

In this case, Americans hear British speakers claiming to already know what they are being told-even though they don't.

Because the British use "right" in conversations more than Americans and because of this difference in meaning between a British and an American "right," its use might signal to Americans that the British are "smarter," the researchers say.

Additionally, the British accent contributes to the American stereotype that British people are smarter because it sounds more sophisticated than their own.

In developing their analysis, the researchers drew on a collection of approximately 125 segments of everyday conversation and work discussions, including 70 segments in British English and 55 segments in American English.

The study "sheds light on how minute linguistic differences, which we might not even recognize, impact our interactions with others and color our perceptions of their expertise and knowledge," said co-author Galina Bolden, professor of communication at Rutgers.

The Rutgers researchers initially became interested in conducting this research when they overheard a "puzzling misunderstanding" between an American and a person from the UK during a conversation.

The findings illuminate different ways speakers can convey their epistemic stances-i.e., how they lay claim to different levels of knowledge. Additionally, the findings demonstrate the payoffs of using the methods of conversation analysis for understanding intercultural communication processes and learning about different varieties of English and other languages.

According to the study, further research could "examine the entire landscape of these kinds of response particles (in particular positions) in the U.S. vs. U.K. data with an eye towards the kinds of stances they convey vis-a-vis prior talk (i.e. what exactly they do internationally). Such analysis might enable researchers to explore whether the differences between the two language varieties are primarily linguistic or cultural."

More information: Galina B. Bolden et al, The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction, Journal of Pragmatics (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ever wonder why Brits sound so smart? The distinctive uses of 'right' in British and American English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are the British generally more intelligent and informed than Americans? Americans certainly seem to think so, according to a study by Rutgers researchers. Research published in Journal of Pragmatics examines how American and British English speakers use "right" to respond in conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matthew Syed traces the evolution of a term that's become synonymous with our era of angry debate. In this episode, how the use 'woke' online in 2014 ignited a global movement.

Matthew Syed traces the origins and evolution of the word 'woke', a term that's become synonymous with our era of angry debate.

Once a watchword for African Americans in the early 1900s, 'woke' is now used as an insult across the political spectrum. As the word has spread, what people actually mean by it has become less clear than ever. In this series, Matthew follows the evolution of 'woke' through five key stories.

In this episode, how the use of 'woke' online exploded in 2014, following the shooting of the black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was killed by a white police officer and his death sparked weeks of unrest and drew worldwide attention to racial injustice in the United States. Much of the activity took place online. On Twitter #staywoke became recognised around the globe and galvanised the Black Lives Matter movement. The words urged citizens to remain aware of the threat of systemic racism. Matthew speaks to Johnetta Elzie, whose live-tweeting of the activity in Ferguson shot her to unexpected fame and made her a leader among the activists. He learns how her use of platform shaped Twitter's development, and considers its significance in the era of Elon Musk's ownership.

Featuring Johnetta Elzie and Nicole Holliday, Asst. Professor Linguistics, Pomona College.

Presented by Matthew Syed and Produced by Sam Peach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - Woke: The Journey of a Word, 3. #StayWoke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Matthew Syed traces the evolution of a term that's become synonymous with our era of angry debate. In this episode, how the use 'woke' online in 2014 ignited a global movement. Matthew Syed traces the origins and evolution of the word 'woke', a term that's become synonymous with our era of angry debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Hasta la vista, baby", said Boris Johnson as his time as UK premier wound down. The line was just about serviceable in Terminator 2. But this was a man pushing 60, proud of his Homeric learning, on a stage that was set for a career-crowning mot juste.

Johnson isn't funny. He once referred to an opponent as "Captain crash-a-rooney snoozefest." That isn't funny. It is the humour of the zany tie and the office prank. Nor is he original when being serious. If the Shakespeare book comes out, don't expect an exegesis of the plays that hadn't occurred to Coleridge or Harold Bloom.

But then fortunes aren't paid in speaking fees to the dull. Betrayals aren't forgiven in the un-magnetic. Plodders don't win referendums. The burden is on those who talk Johnson down to account for his star power.

Here is part of the answer. His voice is beautiful. I don't mean his accent. I don't mean his choice of words or his arrangement of them: what is called "eloquence". I mean his voice. Deep and textured, raspy without crossing into sibilance, I can see (or hear) why people want to be around it. And why those cursed with a squeak or a murmur go through life hamstrung.

'Shrill' is such a wounding word to use against someone because it conflates a trebly voice with extremism of thought and brittleness of character

Over the past decade or so, we have become more conscious of forms of privilege beyond the material. Beauty is one. Such are the social and economic returns to prettiness that some even suggest offsetting them through fiscal redistribution. (As if I'm not taxed enough.) Strange, then, that more isn't made of voice privilege. In almost any domain - corporate, electoral, romantic - those with good timbre and pitch are at a monstrous advantage. In meetings, I see perceptive mumblers lose out to sonorous mediocrities. And, as with beauty, there is only so much they can do to enhance their vocal lot in life.

Johnson isn't even the foremost case of voice privilege. Stephen Fry: a trader in quotations and allusions, not thoughts. But I could listen to him all day. Barack Obama: wouldn't those messianic banalities, that coffee-mug wisdom, be recognised as such if he spoke with a squeak? Arsène Wenger: great in his time, but that time ended around 2008. His survival for another decade had a lot to do with an air of authority that was almost ex cathedra. This in turn had a lot to do with being baritone in three languages.

At the same time, there are victims of unconscious voice bias. Jamie Carragher is the most forensic football pundit in mainstream broadcasting. I doubt he will ever be seen as such. Keir Starmer has slayed the hard left and turned a 20-point poll deficit into a 20-point lead for the Labour party. And still a perception of weakness clings to him. It is that sound of strangulation he can't help making.

As for the US, Ron DeSantis is said to be White House-bound. That assumes a national audience willing to hear him day-in, day-out, as part of their lives. Now go online and watch his second inaugural address as Florida governor. Imagine him against Donald Trump in a primary debate. I wonder. Yes, Abraham Lincoln had a high voice, but he predated the radio and even the phonograph. Most Americans never heard him speak.

And none of this reckons with the question of gender. How much of the historic male advantage in the workplace comes down to the vocal factor. "Shrill" is such a wounding word to use against someone because it conflates a trebly voice with extremism of thought and brittleness of character.

I write as a citizen of the most voice-privileged nation. A lot of clout - intellectual, even sexual - is said to accrue to the British accent. This isn't quite right. Who has "the" British accent? Harry Styles? Emma Thompson? Daniel Kaluuya? Because I have known people melt at the sound of each of these celebrities.

No, what people like, when they like it at all, is the British voice. It is closer to bass than treble than some others in the Anglophone world. It tends to modulate in such a way as to prevent the high rising terminal. It avoids, in the main, vocal fry. From such mechanics, a veneer of intelligence and sophistication is conjured. Thus did we get the world to pay for Richard Curtis films. A brilliant ruse, the voice, but no less cruel for that.
janan.ganesh@ft.com Find out about our latest stories first - follow on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Hasta la vista, baby", said Boris Johnson as his time as UK premier wound down. The line was just about serviceable in Terminator 2. But this was a man pushing 60, proud of his Homeric learning, on a stage that was set for a career-crowning mot juste. Johnson isn't funny.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media has long been a place for makeup enthusiasts and beauty gurus to discuss trends, but that's not why TikTok users are currently talking about mascara. Young people are using "mascara" as a code word for talking about sex, relationships and assault.

Posts tagged with #mascaratrend generally feature young women using the term "mascara" and associated metaphors to refer to romantic or sexual partners. For example:

I found the best mascara ever but it changed and made my lashes completely fall apart and now I don't know if I'll ever trust any other mascara.

Some posts make more direct references to sex, using "(mascara) wand" as a code word for penis:

I love mascara but anything involving the wand terrifies me.

At the time of writing, the hashtag #mascaratrend has generated more than 122.7 million views on TikTok and a wave of social commentary. In part, it is a response to TikTok's moderation policies - users have criticised its strict moderation of content about sex. Talking about "mascara" allows them to side-step moderation. In this way, the trend reflects longer histories of sex codes designed to get around censors.
This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life. You may be interested in: It might be scary but making phone calls can be good for young people's wellbeing Disabled young people have less upward social mobility than their peers - and class background makes this worse Young people are drinking less - here's an alternative to try on your next night out
Media standards have often constrained how explicitly sex can be discussed and presented in public. Under Hollywood's "Hays Code", films produced between 1930 and 1967 could not show "excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, [and] suggestive postures and gestures".

Instead, filmmakers used visual cues and metaphors to reference sexual activity. Famous examples include a crashing wave in From Here To Eternity, and a lighthouse in Casablanca plus lots of post-coital cigarettes.

More recently, contestants on reality romance show Love Island have used a colourful set of codes to describe the extent of their sexual activity.

Sex codes throughout history

These codes are doing more than simply avoiding censors. Put in historical perspective, the mascara trend is the latest in a long line of secretive ways young people have found to talk about sex.

The language - whether technical or sentimental - that adults use to discuss sex often doesn't fit the conversations young people want to have. For example, they may not have words to describe acts such mutual masturbation - so code has been their only language for discussing their experiences.

In postwar Britain, young people ranked sexual activities and referred to these by numbers. This is similar to the American "base" system of sex activity, in which "first base" referred to kissing with tongues, building up to "fourth base/home run" which described penetrative sex.

Mainstream language is especially limited when it comes to talking about women's bodies and female sexual experience. While young people today are more likely to know the anatomical terms for their genitalia than their predecessors, the language of vulvas, vaginas and penetrative sex can feel awkward and out of place in teenagers' interactions with one another.

While codes enable young people to make reference to these body parts, it is possible that reliance on euphemisms exacerbates the taboo.

This question of whether codes are helpful or harmful has also been raised in relation to discussions of sexual assault. The mascara trend has prompted many young people to share stories of sexual assault.

For many survivors, it appears that being able to speak in code enables them to disclose experiences that they wouldn't otherwise.

But this dynamic is complicated. Some sexual trauma professionals have celebrated this trend for how it has encouraged some people to seek support in the wake of assault.

But others have raised concerns that the "banter" aspect of the trend, the vagueness of the code, and the disembodied way in which it presents sexual activity and assault trivialises the issue.

Getting the joke

Codes are, by their nature, exclusionary to those who aren't in on the joke. This can lead to confusion and negativity, especially on social media. Actress Julia Fox became an example of this when she had to apologise for leaving an insensitive comment on a "mascara" video about sexual assault.

But codes' ability to separate those "in the know" from those who aren't is crucial to how they function. Particularly for young people, codes allow them to distinguish their sexual cultures from those of adults and authorities.

In recent years, the use of terms such as "v-card" to refer to virginity and initial systems (such as "p in v" to refer to penis in vagina sex) are one example. The initial system reflects a more diverse sexual culture, and can be used to talk about LGBTQ+ sexual activity in a more inclusive way.

At a time when discussions about sexual culture are fraught, the mascara trend has also allowed young people to make sex funny. While the trend has a serious side, many of the posts are tongue-in-cheek. There is kudos to be gained by finding ways to play with the code, for example by extending the "makeup as sex" metaphor.

In addition to side-stepping censors and talking about aspects of sex that are otherwise hidden, codes like the mascara trend give young people new ways of talking about and imagining sex. It allows them to define sex and sexuality in their own terms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TikTok 'mascara' trend: young people have used codes to talk about sex for generations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media has long been a place for makeup enthusiasts and beauty gurus to discuss trends, but that's not why TikTok users are currently talking about mascara. Young people are using "mascara" as a code word for talking about sex, relationships and assault.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
German call for English to be second official language amid labour shortage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Politician from governing FDP says skilled foreign workers are being put off by unwieldy bureaucratic German

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Yes, I’m an academic with an Essex accent. Stop mugging me off

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The way we speak doesn’t signify our contribution to society, or our inferiority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Resources | Cambridge University Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore our educational resources for studying English Language, such as Study International AS/A Level, A/AS Level and IB Diploma English Language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Little Book of Language (Little Histories)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy A Little Book of Language (Little Histories) Reprint by David Crystal, Little Histories (ISBN: 9780300170825) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy How Language Works First Paperback Edition. by David Crystal (ISBN: 9780141015521) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy The Stories of English by Crystal, David (ISBN: 9780141015934) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dent's Modern Tribes: The Secret Languages of Britain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Dent's Modern Tribes: The Secret Languages of Britain Reprint by Dent, Susie (ISBN: 9781473623897) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language 01 by Pinker, Steven (ISBN: 9780141980775) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Because Internet: Understanding how language is changing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Because Internet: Understanding how language is changing 01 by McCulloch, Gretchen (ISBN: 9781529112825) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Unfolding Of Language by Deutscher, Guy (June 1, 2006) Paperback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy The Unfolding Of Language by Deutscher, Guy (June 1, 2006) Paperback by Deutscher, Guy (ISBN: ) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Believe A Word: From Myths to Misunderstandings - How Language Really Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Don't Believe A Word: From Myths to Misunderstandings - How Language Really Works by Shariatmadari, David (ISBN: 9781474608459) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy The Language Wars by Hitchings, Henry (ISBN: 9781848542099) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity by RobertLaneGreene (ISBN: 9780553807875) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.body
Excellent collection of recent language stories

# data[].attributes.body
Excellent blog maintained by respected linguist, Tony Thorne

# data[].attributes.body
Brilliant resource for attitudes to language diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accentism is a term which refers to linguistic discrimination (see also 'linguicism' and 'languagism'). In the sense that we are using it here, it describes any situation in which an individual feels as though they have been unfairly judged, treated, or commented on because of the way they speak, write, and communicate more broadly.

This project has the aim of uncovering and challenging such discrimination in everyday life. The site provides the opportunity for people to share their own stories and experiences of language-based bias, prejudice, and discrimination.

The site also offers information, resources, and current research on topics around the issue of accentism in an attempt to raise awareness of what is often described as one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. Importantly, language-based judgements are more often than not a proxy for other forms of prejudice and discrimination (such as classism and racism), including those characteristics which are protected by law. Given that our identities are enacted through language, along with other symbolic resources, our language use becomes a means by which others make judgements about us. The information and resources available here demonstrate that users of language varieties and linguistic features deemed 'non-standard', 'regional', and 'foreign' - among others - frequently encounter bias, prejudice, and discrimination. This happens in every sphere of our daily lives; in the workplace, in the classroom, and even in the courtroom.

In 2019, the project leads were interviewed by Laura Paterson for the Journal of Language and Discrimination. A transcript can be found here.

To get involved and share your story, simply use the form on the Submit Your Story page. Alternatively, tweet your story either directly to us at @AccentismProj or by using the hashtag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accentism is a term which refers to linguistic discrimination (see also 'linguicism' and 'languagism'). In the sense that we are using it here, it describes any situation in which an individual feels as though they have been unfairly judged, treated, or commented on because of the way they speak, write, and communicate more broadly.

# data[].attributes.body
You need to sign up for her newsletter if you haven't already done so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A/AS Level English Language for AQA Student Book (A Level (AS) English Language AQA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new series of bespoke, full-coverage resources developed for the 2015 A Level English qualifications. Endorsed for the AQA A/AS Level English Language specifications for first teaching from 2015, this print Student Book is suitable for all abilities, providing stretch opportunities for the more...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AQA AS and A Level English Language Student Book (AQA A Level English 2104)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This AQA AS and A Level English Language Student Book prepares students and teachers for the requirements of the AQA A Level English Language specification. Structured and written to build on skills students acquired at GCSE, this book helps students to develop the skills needed to succeed in the...

# data[].attributes.body
Podcast by the Chief Examiner - well worth listening to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A podcast about language and linguistics for A Level students, teachers and anyone else who’s interested in language.

# data[].attributes.body
Hosted by the incomparable Michael Rosen. Very linguistics focussed!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Series exploring the world of words and the ways in which we use them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
English in Progress - Present and future of the English language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are you an English language enthusiast looking for some new linguistics podcasts to add to your playlist? Look no further! I've manually compiled a list of 52 English linguistics podcasts that are sure to satisfy your language cravings. That's ALL the podcasts about English linguistics out there, or at least all that I have been able to find.

I compiled the list by actually, personally, listening to each and every podcast. There are a lot of automated lists out there, this ain't one of them!

Whether you're a grammar geek, a word lover, or just someone who's fascinated by the way language shapes our thoughts and perceptions, these podcasts have something for you.

The list includes a variety of podcasts for all different interests, ranging from shows that delve into the history and evolution of English to those that look at language and society. There are podcasts hosted by professors of linguistics, language experts, celebrities, and journalists. No matter what you're looking for, I've got you covered.

So if you're ready to dive into the wonderful world of English linguistics, check out my list of 52 podcasts. Whether you're a seasoned language enthusiast or just starting out on your linguistic journey, these shows are sure to provide endless hours of entertainment and education. Happy listening!

I have attempted to make a list that is actually complete, so if you know of a podcast that is missing, please let me know.

*If there are only 52 podcasts, which there are, and you wanted to make a list of the 52 best podcasts, which I did, then that list would include all 52 podcasts. Therefore, this list is of the 52 best English-language podcasts. (There's a branch of philosophy and/or maths that deals with this kind of stuff, but I've forgotten the name. One of those people will tell you I'm right, I'm sure.)

Language podcasts have predictably articulate hosts

I'm not sure I need to give you a reason to listen to a language podcast. After all, you probably found this list because you want to listen to a language podcast.

But I still want to share this with you because while listening and re-listening to all these podcasts it really struck me: people who love the English language so much they choose to make a podcast about it are, predictably but still delightfully, well-spoken.

It's an extra reason to give these podcasts a listen, in case you needed it!

Contents

Here is a handy list of all the podcasts I'm going to be discussing.

All-round English podcasts

These podcasts are about just about all the facets of English: about words, where they come from and how we use them, about accents, about grammar, about the study of linguistics, about written English, spoken English, and everything else you can think of.

Basically, these podcasts didn't fit into one of the narrower categories below, so they have been lumped in up here 🙂

My personal favourite for this category is Fry's English Delight, which is as delightful as its name suggests. (Though it may be a bit too British for Americans, but there's plenty more for them to choose from.)

Length: 50 minutes

Network: NPR

Frequency: once a week

Years: 1998 - present

Subject: Lexicology, etymology, familects, some phonology

Format: call-in radio show, two hosts chatting

Type of English: American

Linguists Martha Barnette and Grant Barrett answer questions like "I learned this phrase from my parents but nobody else seems to know it, am I crazy?" and "Where does this word come from?" They are thoroughly charming and, importantly, always positive. They never tell listeners that they are using English in the wrong way because (newsflash) they aren't. Mostly covers American and Canadian English, though they now have lots of podcast listeners from all over and are becoming more international because of that.

For me, the phone-in-radio format took a little getting used to, but I have grown to love it. (Dec 2022)

Length: 27 minutes

Network: BBC

Frequency: four episodes a year, no new episodes

Years: 2008-2019

Subject: Lexicology, etymology, sociolinguistics, literature, society

Format: radio documentary

Type of English: British English

This is actually not a podcast, but a BBC radio 4 programme which was broadcast in 4 episodes a year from 2008 to 2019. In my podcast app it is dubiously called Frys English Delight with a missing apostrophe, and it doesn't look like it was published by the BBC. Ah well, c'est la vie. Beggars can't be choosers.

The Fry in question is Stephen Fry, of course, who has a voice to die for and little jokes that will keep you uplifted as you clean the house or drive home from work. The episodes have something interesting for everyone, no matter how much you know or don't know about the English language. (Dec 2022)

Length: 15 minutes (interviews about 30 minutes)

Network: Independent

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2006 - present

Subject: etymology, English grammar, new English, familects, lots more

Format: usually one host talking, some callers, interview episodes every few weeks

Type of English: American

In my podcast app, the full title of the podcast reads "Grammar Girl Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing". Don't let that title fool you. This podcast is not only about grammar tips (though I think it used to be). Instead, host Mignon Fogarty talks you through interesting facts and news about the English language. (Dec 2022)

Length: about 30 minutes, sometimes longer

Network: Booksmart Studios (used to be Slate)

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2016 - present

Subject: Linguistics, etymology, grammar, sociolinguistics, literature

Format: one host talking, some music

Type of English: American

Listening to John McWhorter's podcast is like visiting your kindly old English professor's office and having him give you an impromptu lecture on whatever it was that piqued his interest just moments before. You find yourself politely smiling and nodding along to his meandering thoughts, which are interesting enough, but in the privacy of your own mind you are thinking "will he ever get to the point?" and "I just wanted to ask if he could put the syllabus online".

It might just be me, though. The show has a large following of enthusiastic listeners, and McWhorter has a voice like satin, so please give it a listen and come to your own conclusions.

Note: when I first searched for Lexicon Valley, my podcast app gave me Spectacular Vernacular. This is because John McWhorter moved from Slate to Booksmart Studios, and Slate chose to archive the show under the banner of its successor. (Dec 2022)

Length: varies between 35 minutes and an hour

Network: Independent

Frequency: irregular, on average about twice a month

Subject: Linguistics, academia, English as a school subject, English in the news

Format: one interview, then four hosts chatting

Type of English: British

A podcast about language and linguistics for British students in the last years of secondary school, teachers, and anyone else who's interested in language. Linguist tweeters/bloggers Matthew Butler, Lisa Casey, Dan Clayton and Jacky Glancey interview a researcher or other English-language professional, and also discuss English in the news.

A work of love rather than a swanky professional podcast. Four presenters sounds like a lot, but it works well. It's the kind of podcast that always teaches me something new. (Dec 2022)

Length: about 35 minutes

Network: Slate

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2021 - 2022 (archive goes back to 2012, see below)

Subject: English but also general linguistics and social justice linguistics

Format: two hosts talking, then conducting a short interview and then a puzzle

Type of English: American

Most Spectacular Vernacular episodes break down into three parts: first hosts Linguist Nicole Holliday and Wall Street Journal language columnist Ben Zimmer discuss some linguistic point, then they interview a scholar or a writer, and in the last bit they do a word puzzle with a regular-person guest.

Nicely edited (I loved the episode where they discuss Anthony Fauci's New York accent and rather than just talking about it like many chatty podcasts they actually play clips so you can hear it for yourself). Holliday and Zimmer have a good knack for being entertaining and informative at the same time.

The word-puzzle bit is not my cup of tea, so for me it's good that it is at the end. I just switch off at that point. However, I can also totally see how the word puzzle would be an added bonus for lots of language lovers. (Jan 2023)

About the archive:

Spectacular Vernacular only ran for a year, but its archive goes back to 2012 because Slate put all the old Lexicon Valley episodes in there. It is very confusing. With a quick scroll and a few strategic listens, this is what I have worked out:

Episodes dating from 2012 to 2016 were Lexicon Valley with Bob Garfield and Mike Vuolo

Episodes dating from 2016 to 2021 were Lexicon Valley with John McWhorter

In 2021 Lexicon Valley with John McWhorter moved to a new feed, and Slate changed the old feed into Spectacular Vernacular. All the old Lexicon Valley episodes also got marked as Spectacular Vernacular, which is what makes the archive (to me) so confusing.

Length: 5 minutes

Network: Michigan radio/ NPR

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2012 - present

Subject: Lexicology, some phonology, etymology and world Englishes

Format: one specialist talking to a non-specialist

Type of English: American English

If you are looking for a bitesize podcast, then this is the one for you. In just five minutes University of Michigan English Professor Anne Curzan discusses an interesting term or answers to audience questions with radio host Rebecca Kruth. Short, charming, to-the-point. I usually wait until I have five episodes or so in my feed and then queue them up and listen to the lot.

Length: about 40 minutes

Network: Independent (used to be Radiotopia)

Frequency: twice a month

Years: 2015 - present

Subject: Linguistics, sociolinguistics, lexicography, etymology, social justice linguistics

Format: edited interviews, sometimes documentary

Type of English: host is British, focus is international

A podcast about language by Helen Zaltzman, who has such a gorgeously calming voice that during stressful pandemic times she rebranded into the Tranquillusionists and just said nice and soothing things for 20 minutes.

I adored the Allusionist when I first discovered it and listened to all the episodes I had missed back to back. Fascinating etymology, great interviews, well-edited and with a good dose of Zaltzman's excellent sense of humour. Some recent episodes are a bit political, if that's not your cup of tea you should listen to the old ones first, or check the episode descriptions before you press play (Jan 2023).

Length: 28 minutes

Network: BBC

Frequency: once a week

Years: 1992 - present

Subject: Lexicology, sociolinguistics

Format: host interviews a different specialist each week

Type of English: British

This venerable BBC programme, hosted by author Michael Rosen, looks at all aspects of the spoken word from slang, acronyms, strange vocabulary, jargon and poetry; along with etymology, and at language changes through time and society.

I have as yet only listened to the episode "Ghosting, caking and Breadcrumbing" where cyber-psychologist Dr Nicola Fox Hamilton discusses words and expressions from the world of online dating. The way Rosen (76) is nonplussed by all of this, but still remains respectful and interested, is quite delightful. (Jan 2023)

Podcasts about the history and development of English

Length: usually between 50 and 70 minutes

Network: Independent

Frequency: once a month

Years: 2012 - present

Subject: History and etymology

Format: one host talking

Type of English: host is American, focus is international

I'm interested in etymology, and I'm interested in history, and this brilliant podcast combines the two. Kevin Stroud takes meticulous care in his episodes to make sure we don't miss a single aspect of the history of English. This means the episodes are long, and there are a lot of them. It's just Stroud speaking, which took me a bit of getting used to, but I'm glad I stuck with it.

Stroud works in chronological order and is now up to the second half of the Elisabethan period. Every episode covers the history of the time period, adds relevant etymology, but also often dives in to the history of linguistics itself and other cool meta-knowledge. I have learned more history of English from this podcast than in my English university degree, and have done so while doing the washing up and cleaning the floor. (Dec 2022)

Why is English?

Length: between 20 and 40 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2020-2021

Subject: history of English

Format: one host talking

Type of English: American

This unassuming little podcast is an absolute treat. Host Laura Brandt is eloquent and funny, and her podcast is full of little linguistic facts that I keep wanting to jot down so I can be more interesting at parties.

A love-letter to descriptivism, this podcast is aimed at non-linguists, but as a linguist I still enjoyed listening to it. (Jan 2023)

Podcasts about lexicography (dictionary writing) & lexicology (words)

Length: about 25 minutes

Network: Podbean

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2018

Subject: writing dictionaries

Format: two hosts talking

Type of English: American

Kory Stamper and Steve Kleinedler are funny, articulate and insightful. I'm really interested in dictionaries and am thoroughly miffed that this podcast stopped after just one season. (Jan 2023)

Length: usually between 10 and 20 minutes

Network: The incomparable

Frequency: irregular

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: lexicology, world Englishes compared

Format: one host and a rowdy panel

Type of English: mixed

Host Glenn Fleishman invites a panel of 5 or so people from the UK, America and other English speaking countries to discuss the meaning of words like "biscuit", "pants", "boot", "lemonade" etc.

The differences between the English variants spoken in the world is something that interests me immensely, so I was very excited to learn about this podcast. But I soon learned this is a podcast for fun more than for serious lexicological data gathering. This is because it is difficult to know who's talking and where they come from. Still, a lot of fun and I'll be listening to all the episodes. (Jan 2023)

The Millennial Dictionary

Length: about 30 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2019

Subject: millennial slang

Format: panel discussion

Type of English: British

This podcast only ran for three episodes, which is a shame as I felt they were just starting to find their feet by the third one.

Slang and neologisms are some of my favourite subjects to talk about, and I listened to all three episodes. The format needed work; the panellists play a game, with one of them knowing the definition of the word and the others guessing. This gets old quickly. But the hosts are genuinely funny, and the group has great rapport and banter. It could have been great, what a shame that it stopped so soon.

Word for Word

Length: varies, often about 25 minutes

Network: Macquarie Dictionary

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2016 - 2021

Subject: lexicography, lexicology, etymology, general linguistics

Format: chats with the team and one-on-one interviews. Early episodes include audio documentaries.

Type of English: Australian

I've categorised Word for Word under lexicography because it was made by lexicographers, but many episodes could also be called "all-round English" or "general linguistics".

Clearly a work of love, the audio quality of this podcast could have been better, and you can tell they spent more time on the earlier episodes than on the later ones.

I plan to listen to the first few seasons completely because I love the way they talk about new words and Australian English. I also like the way the show is chatty but at the same time does stick to the subject. (Jan 2023)

Length: between 15 and 25 minutes

Network: NPR/ Merriam Webster

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2020 - 2022

Subject: lexicography, lexicology

Format: four hosts chatting

Type of English: American

The official blurb for this episode describes it nicely: Merriam-Webster editors challenge supposed grammar rules, reveal the surprising origins behind words, tackle common questions, and generally geek out about the beautiful nightmare that is language.

A chatty, informal podcast. I don't know if the four lexicographers chosen to present this podcast were chosen for their voices, but lovely voices they have. (Jan 2023)

Etymology podcasts

When I first started making this list, I had no idea how many podcasts there were out there discussing the history of words and phrases. There's quite a lot, as it turns out. People love discussing words, and who can blame them!

My favourite for this category is Wordy Wordpecker, which unfortunately only ran for one season. Give it a listen!

Length: usually about 30 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2016 - 2018 (and a one-off in 2020)

Subject: etymology of words to do with animals

Format: one host speaking

Type of English: American

Host Colleen Patrick-Goudreau talks through words and expressions that have an animal or animal part in their origin. She groups her subjects by theme and goes through quite a few etymologies per episode. For example, did you know the word "muscle" comes from "mouse" because people thought it looked like a mouse moving under your skin? No banter, just straight, interesting etymology. I really liked this one.

Patrick-Goudreau is more well-known for advocating veganism, but does not allude to that in these episodes. So you don't need to worry about any vegan propaganda if that is not your thing. (Feb 2023)

Length: about 30 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2018 - present

Subject: etymology

Format: two hosts talking; one has prepared an etymology and the other listens. Casual, unedited feel.

Type of English: American

This podcast is one for the hard-core etymology lovers out there. Hosts Shauna and Dan discuss the idiom in the title of the podcast, and only that idiom, for half an hour.

On the one hand, 30 minutes for just one phrase is too much for me. On the other hand, there are many podcasts out there that do short etymologies of various terms throughout their episodes. I appreciate that Bunny Trails does such a deep dive. (Jan 2023)

Getting Down and Wordy

Length: about 1.5 hours

Network: podmoth

Frequency: twice a month

Years: 2021 - present

Subject: pop music, pop culture, linguistics and etymology of pop music lyrics

Format: two hosts talking, banter

Type of English: American

I added this podcast in my list because the description was "humorous etymological research probing English songs". There's an awful lot of banter and pop culture to get through before there's any linguistics content (38 minutes in the episode I listened to), but then when they do get there it's quite good.

Hosts Russel and Hannah are funny and have quite a bit of cultural knowledge. If you like banter and pop culture with your etymology, this is a good one. (Jan 2023)

Length: the regular episodes are between 40 minutes and an hour

Network: independent

Frequency: about three times a month

Years: 2018 - present

Subject: etymology and trivia

Format: two hosts talking; banter

Type of English: Canadian and Scottish

One of the things that makes this podcast special is that one of the hosts is Canadian, and the other is Scottish.

The other thing is that they are very funny and personable, Amy Hanlon especially is the kind of person who could never bore anyone. They also embellish their etymology with lots of trivia and jokes.

Each host brings in one of the words in the title, and tells the other about its etymology and other interesting factoids surrounding it. (Jan 2023)

Length: 2 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: every few days

Years: ?? - present

Subject: most episodes on etymology, other general linguistics in feed

Format: one host talking

Type of English: British

Simon Ager loves languages, speaks a lot of them, and his website omniglot.com is an amazing resource that has been going since 1998.

I haven't really sussed out the podcast feed, but most episodes seem to be two-minute "adventures in etymology" in which Ager does a quick etymological rundown of one or two words.

Length: between 35 and 45 minutes

Network: SomethinElse/ Sony

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: etymology

Format: two hosts talking

Type of English: British English

Similarly to Lexicon Valley discussed above, this is another kindly old English professor going off on a tangent, except this one gets politely reigned in by Susie Dent, the UK's most famous lexicographer. Lots of reminiscing about the 1940s to 1980s, my British mother (born 1944) would have LOVED this. They call their fans "purple people" and speak to them lovingly as if they were their children. Do with that what you will.

Great fun if you love etymology, posh English accents, and don't mind being called a purple person. (Dec 2022)

Length: usually between an hour and 1.5 hours

Network: independent

Frequency: once a month

Years: 2015 - present

Subject: etymology, history and cocktails (really)

Format: two hosts talking

Type of English: Canadian

I tried to give this podcast a quick listen just for the purposes of writing this review, but it does not lend itself to a quick listen. I'll report back when I've listened to one or two episodes properly! (Jan 2023)

The Watch your Mouth Podcast

Length: about 40 minutes

Network: Silly Linguistics

Frequency: once a month

Years: 2020 - 2022

Subject: etymology, English language, general linguistics

Format: two hosts talking, banter

Type of English: American

Father-daughter duo Milo and David talk you through the etymology of a phrase, and use that as a springboard to talk about other interesting language-related things, like "what does irony mean".

I wasn't able to suss out what Milo's background is but it sounds like she knows her stuff (perhaps an English teacher?). The two hosts have great rapport and are funny to listen to. (Feb 2023)

Length: about 80 minutes, the feed also includes "appetizers" which are shorter versions of the long episodes

Network: podbean

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2016-2019

Subject: etymology, the lives of the hosts

Format: two hosts chatting, banter

Type of English: American

Mike and Max sound like they are best friends, there's lots of laughing and banter. It takes them a while to get to the etymology, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's like having your friends in the room.

They sound like nice guys, but for me personally, the recording quality of this show was too low, and the banter was too excessive. (Jan 2023)

Length: about 20 minutes/ interviews about 50 minutes

Network: Independent

Frequency: about once a month

Years: 2016 - present

Subject: Etymology

Format: either one host talking, or an interview

Type of English: American

Another one I have to ashamedly confess I haven't listened to properly yet. Here's the blurb: One of the longest-running etymology and linguistics podcasts. Words for Granted is a podcast that looks at how words change over time. Host Ray Belli uses linguistic evolution as a way of understanding larger historical and cultural changes.

Most episodes are in-depth etymology, but he also has episodes in which he interviews other experts. (Jan 2023)

Wordy Wordpecker

Length: about 4 minutes

Network: IVM podcasts

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2018

Subject: etymology and trivia

Format: one host talking

Type of English: Indian

This podcast discusses the etymology of modern words, meaning it is more contemporary than the other podcasts in the "etymology" section. Host Rachel Lopez is funny and entertaining and the show is well-edited with great music in just the right dosage.

It only ran for one season and as the episodes are so short you can listen to the whole thing in one go, which is exactly what I did. Such a shame no more episodes have been made, also because this is the only English-language podcast I know of with an Indian host. (Jan 2023)

Podcasts about linguistic discrimination

Dividing these podcasts up into categories is incredibly tricky, but on the whole the below podcasts tend to focus on social justice linguistics. How do people perceive different accents? Why is it important to talk about gender when you talk about language? How does language shape society? That kind of stuff.

There are many podcasts that regularly focus on linguistic discrimination that I ended up putting into other categories. The Allusionist, Spectacular Vernacular, Radiolingo, Lexis and Because Language are a few that talk about these subjects often. And basically every other linguistic podcast will touch on this subject at least a few times; it's difficult not to!

My favourite in this list is the first season of Accentricity. This series gave me my introduction into linguistic discrimination a few years ago; informative and entertaining!

Length: varies

Network: Independent

Frequency: irregular

Years: 2020 - 2022

Subject: Sociolinguistics, accent

Format: radio documentary

Type of English: the host is Scottish, focus on Britain for first season, all over for second season

A very charming indie podcast hosted by linguistics academic Sadie Ryan. She started making the podcast as a PhD student, with an aim to make sociolinguistics accessible to a wider audience.

The first season (about accents and sociolinguistics in general) is completely different from the second (where novice podcast makers tell their own linguistic story). If you don't like one, do try the other.

I also strongly recommend the special episode "Really this girl ought to be going to something better" - it brings to life a recent sociolinguistic paper Ryan has worked on and boy do I wish more academics would do this. Made me tear up at the end! (Jan 2023)

Length: between 30 and 70 minutes

Network: RTRFM

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2009-2020

Subject: language discrimination, language change, everything linguistics but the kitchen sink

Format: Live radio show. Hosts chatting, banter, some interviews

Type of English: main presenter Daniel Midgley is an American in Australia, other hosts are Australian and Swedish

This show isn't always about language discrimination, and I could easily have categorised it under "all-round English", but I feel the majority of episodes fall under the language discrimination banner, so here we are.

I'm always so jealous of people who can be eloquent on the spot. Just put a microphone in front of them, and they speak without hesitation and say the things they want to say and be funny to boot. Daniel Midgley is one of those people. He's a great host.

This show is very diverse, and the show titles give a good idea of what each episode is about, making it a good archive to dip into when you fancy some linguistic chatty content in your ears.

The people who made Talk the Talk are now making Because Language. (Jan 2023)

Length: usually about an hour

Network: independent

Frequency: once or twice a month

Years: 2017 - present

Subject: linguistic discrimination

Format: two hosts talking

Type of English: American

I don't have to worry about miscategorising The Vocal Fries because it helpfully calls itself "the podcast about linguistic discrimination". Language marginalisation and other linguistic wrongs are what these hosts are tackling.

Hosts Carrie Gillon and Megan Figueroa are personable and chatty. They manage to keep things light as they advocate for linguistic justice, while of course also getting down to brass tacks when the subject demands it. (Jan 2023)

Unstandardized English

Length: varies, usually about an hour

Network: independent

Frequency: about once every two weeks

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: linguistic discrimination

Format: interviews

Type of English: American

Host JPB Gerald feels strongly about linguistic discrimination and wants to talk about, which is why he started the podcast. As with all interview shows, the quality of the episode depends on the interviewee. In the case of this show, the sound quality is also quite varied. If you don't like one episode, do try another (I liked "Radical Copyediting, with Alex Kapitan"). (Feb 2023)

Length: usually about 25 minutes

Network: TVO

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2018 - 2021

Subject: etymology, lexicology, sociology, non-trivial trivia

Format: two hosts talking, edited interviews

Type of English: Canadian

Pippa Johnstone and Karina Palmitesta unpack "explosive words" like "cult", "fat", "trigger", "expat" and "homeless".

They give the etymology, discuss backgrounds and linguistic discrimination surrounding the term, and play snippets of interviews with specialists. I love those interview snippets especially, they are well-chosen and well-edited and make this podcast much more than just a chat between two hosts.

I think this is a great and unique concept for a podcast; it's interesting for word lovers while also commenting on societal issues of today. (Jan 2023)

General linguistics podcasts

My podcast list focuses on the English language, but there are also a lot of podcasts out there that discuss linguistics in general. I have only included those here if, to my mind, there's also quite a lot of content about English specifically. If you want a complete list of linguistics podcasts, Lauren Gawne has a great one on her blog Superlinguo.

My personal favourite for this category is newcomer Radiolingo. It has the kind of well-edited audio documentary format that I love, and it is accessible and interesting for newbie linguists as well as old hats.

Length: usually between one and two hours

Network: independent

Frequency: about twice a month

Years: 2020 - present

Subject: general linguistics, linguistic discrimination, latest linguistic research, language technology

Format: three hosts chatting, usually with a guest, banter

Type of English: mainly Australian and American, international focus

Daniel Midgley is a great host, as I detailed above in "Talk the Talk". In Because Language he is joined by Hedvig Skirgård and Ben Ainslie.

This show is like having three linguist friends come over for dinner. They love their topic, but are also just having a good time. (Jan 2023)

Length: 10 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: no longer publishing

Years: 2020-2021

Subject: general linguistics

Format: one host talking

Type of English: British

Blake Reed is a linguistics graduate from Leeds university. He is clearly passionate about his subject and talks about various linguistics and English-language themes in short 10-minute episodes. (Jan 2023)

Length: usually about 40 minutes

Network: Independent

Frequency: once a month

Subject: General linguistics, making the more academic topics accessible

Format: two hosts chatting

Type of English: McCulloch is Canadian, Gawne is Australian, the focus is international

Lingthusiasm Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch; an Australian and Canadian in a podcasting sea of Brits and Americans. It's a chatty podcast that makes academic linguistics accessible to a wider audience.

I find listening at 0.8 speed makes the ladies easier to understand, and I will admit to picking and choosing from the episode list to find subjects that interest me. (Jan 2023)

Linguistics with Laura

Length: between 10 and 25 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2020 - 2021

Subject: linguistics as you learn it at uni

Format: one host talking

Type of English: American

Host Laura Koch loves her linguistics degree and you can tell. In this short podcast series, she discusses all the main linguistics subjects which students learn when they study linguistics. A good podcast to listen to if you want a simple linguistics course or refresher. (Jan 2023)

Length: usually about 45 minutes

Network: Babbel USA

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2019 - 2021

Subject: linguistics and language learning

Format: interviews with various specialists working at Babbel

Type of English: American

I was ready to not like this podcast, because it was clearly made to promote the language learning company Babbel. But it's actually fine.

Babbel of course has a lot of specialists working for it, and they love talking about languages as much as the next linguist. Interviewing them was a clever idea. The informal interviews are pleasant and in the episodes I listened to no-one said anything like "download Babbel it's the besssst".

In this list, I've excluded podcasts that are purely about language learning. Multilinguish just bridges the gap to linguistics enough, and it is aimed at an English-speaking (American) audience, so there's also quite a bit of content about the English language, too. Here's hoping for a new season. (Jan 2023)

Length: mixed

Network: New Books Network

Frequency: once a week or so

Years: 2011 - present

Subject: mixed

Format: interviews with authors

Type of English: mixed

The way I understand it, Marshall Poe started a podcast channel called New Books Network in 2011, and to start with the New Books in Language feed was just that. But the network had lots of other subjects, too, like New Books in Religion, New Books in History, recorded lectures and more.

At some point, I think Poe just started putting each and every podcast episode that had even the slightest bit of bearing on language into this feed (probably automatically), which is now a mishmash of interviews. Some with good audio, some with bad audio, some very interesting, some less so. (Jan 2023)

Length: between 25 and 30 minutes

Network: Duolingo/ Crooked media

Frequency: once a week

Years: 2022-present

Subject: general linguistics

Format: radio documentary

Type of English: American (but international in scope)

This is the newest player on the block, and I am very taken with it. The production quality is A+, the subjects are interesting, the host is just the right level of personable.

What I really like about RadioLingo is that it is great for all levels of linguist. Concepts are explained for those who don't know much about linguistics, but because the podcast also focuses on latest developments, there is also plenty for knowledgeable linguists to enjoy. (Dec 2022)

Length: between 20 and 40 minutes

Network: Quiet Juice/ Linguistic Society of America

Frequency: twice a month

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: other languages, linguistic discrimination, etymology

Format: two hosts present edited interviews

Type of English: American (one of the hosts is a Brit in the US)

Subtitle is a professionally produced podcast that calls itself "a podcast about languages and the people who speak them". This is a very apt description, because hosts Patrick Cox and Kavita Pillay indeed focus on the human side of their linguistic stories.

I really like nicely edited podcasts, and this is one of them. It gets straight to the point while also allowing for the hosts' humour and personalities to shine through. (Jan 2023)

Note: Subtitle is the follow-up podcast for The World in Words, discussed below.

Length: between about 20 and 30 minutes

Network: The World

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2013 - 2019 (new episodes in feed are Subtitle)

Subject: other languages, linguistic discrimination

Format: two hosts present edited interviews

Type of English: American (one of the hosts is a Brit in the US)

Hosted by Patrick Cox and Nina Porzucki, The World in Words podcast was the forerunner of Subtitle, discussed above. Definitely worth a listen, though many subjects were topical, meaning a few episodes are somewhat dated by now.

Listen to Subtitle first, and if you loved it so much you finished the archive, move on to The World in Words archive, that's my advice. (Jan 2023)

Length: about 45 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: every month or so

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: Pragmatics, linguistics in society

Format: three hosts talking

Type of English: mixed

This indie podcast about how language matters in business, politics and beyond is hosted by three European academics. It is chatty and academic at the same time. I don't listen to it as often as I would like, as I find I easily lose the thread if I don't concentrate properly. This means it is not a great podcast to listen to while cleaning the house (which is how I listen to all my podcasts!) (Dec 2022)

Discourse analysis

There are lots of difficult definitions of discourse analysis out there. I'm going to give my own idea about it, which is that discourse analysis looks at the way people say things; which words do they choose to use, which idioms, which comparisons? And what do those choices say about them, about their subculture, about their society?

I'm going to be honest, I'm not really into discourse analysis, and I didn't give the below podcasts the in-depth listen that they probably deserve. But nonetheless, here they are!

My favourite is Linguistics Lounge. It's well-edited, and the hosts have a knack of making this tricky subject understandable.

Length: usually about 30 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: irregular

Years: 2021 - present

Subject: climate crisis discourse analysis

Format: panel discussion, one host, one or two guests

Type of English: British, focus on UK audience

As you can see above, the subject of this podcast is climate crisis discourse analysis. If you don't know what that means, then a) don't worry, you're not weird, and b) this podcast probably isn't for you.

Host Michael Farrelly leads panel discussions with fellow academics on the language used in relation to COP 26 and COP 27. (Jan 2023)

Life and Language

Length: about an hour

Network: independent

Frequency: irregular

Years: 2021 - 2022

Subject: literature and linguistics, storytelling, discourse analysis

Format: interviews

Type of English: host is German, interviewees are from all over

Host Michaela Mahlberg interviews authors and academics. She is charmingly excited to talk to each one of her guests, and that excitement is contagious. She lets her interviewees talk as much as they like, meaning that each episode is as interesting as the interviewee. I'm not much of a literature buff, but if you are, this is a great podcast for you. (Jan 2023)

Lingüa Brütallica

Length: varies, often about 1.5 hours

Network: independent

Frequency: about twice a month

Years: 2020 - present

Subject: ethnographic interviews into language use in the extreme metal community

Format: interviews

Type of English: mixed

The two hosts Dr. Jess Birnie-Smith and Dr. Wes Robertson speak to the lyricists of extreme metal bands about what their lyrics are like and exactly why they chose to write them that way. They go DEEP into this subject and I just wish they had chosen a music scene that I was interested in.

Most interviewees love talking about their craft, some interviewees are tired from touring and nonplussed by all these questions, but the hosts persist, which is honestly quite awe-inspiring. If you are into ethnographic interviews and/or extreme metal, this is definitely a show for you. (Feb 2023)

Length: 27 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: irregular

Years: 2020 - present

Subject: discourse analysis of social and cultural phenomena

Format: alternating hosts, edited interviews

Type of English: New Zealand (one of the hosts is a Brit in New Zealand, interviewees are mixed)

This podcast was a welcome surprise in this category. I find discourse analysis tricky and vague, but hosts Tony Fischer and Julia de Bres speak clearly and have a great way of leading the listener through the episode. The interviews have also been edited for clarity. (Jan 2023)

Other

This is where I am putting the podcasts that are so specialist in nature that they don't fit into any other category. There's forensic linguistics, history of science, literature, pop music, swears and a guy who gets stoned and reads from the dictionary.

I have two favourites in this list, Science Diction and Very Bad Words. These both have the professionally edited audio-documentary format that I love so much. That kind of format takes time to make, which is probably why they both stopped. Definitely worth listening to the archive, though!

Length: 40 minutes to 1.5 hours

Network: independent

Frequency: irregular

Subject: forensic linguistics; who wrote this text?, codes, cryptography, undeciphered languages, and linguistic myths and legends

Format: one host talking

Type of English: British

Forensic linguistics is not really my thing, but the last season about Shakespeare was incredibly fascinating, and I think everybody should listen to it. (And when you do, you can, with me, rejoice when host Hardaker uploads the final episode, which is coming soon I'm sure.)

A note about the feed: Claire Hardaker, the maker of En Claire, includes two versions of each podcast episode, one with background music and one without. (For, I would assume, people with input overload issues.) So that's why there's two of everything. (Dec 2022)

Length: about 20 minutes

Network: Science Diction / WNYC studios

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2020 - 2022

Subject: etymology, science history

Format: audio documentary, one host talking

Type of English: American

I love history of science and I love language, so this was one of my favourite podcasts to get me through the pandemic years; I've listened to every episode.

The history of science bits get more airtime than the etymology bits, which is why I am putting this under "other". But its very good, give it a listen. (Jan 2023)

The Dictionary

Length: between 25 and 35 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: once a day

Years: 2019 - present

Subject: the dictionary

Format: one host talking

Type of English: American

Spencer Parks reads the dictionary. (I don't know which dictionary) Literally. After each entry, he gives his spontaneous commentary.

It's like having a stoned friend in the corner of the room reading out, and commenting on, the ingredients on a cereal packet, oblivious to the fact that nobody is listening to him. I'm not sure why it exists, but when I gave it a listen, it was somehow better than expected.

When I reviewed this show, it was at episode 1405 and had only got as far as the word "dip". (Jan 2023)

The Dictionary of Mythology and Folklore

Length: 3 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2022

Subject: definitions of words from mythology and folklore

Format: one host talking

Type of English: American

Every short episode showcases a word or name from mythology and folklore from all over the world. Seems to have stopped after 35 episodes. (Jan 2023)

The PhonPod

Length: about 25 minutes

Network: independent

Frequency: about twice a month

Years: 2022 - present

Subject: phonology

Format: interviews

Type of English: mixed

English teacher Vicky Loras hosts this podcast in which she interviews academics in the phonetics realm about their careers and research. A podcast for people in the field.

This is the only podcast about phonetics and phonology that I am aware of, which is weird, because you would think that a podcast is a great medium for this sound-based subject. (Jan 2023)

Length: about 30 minutes, there's also 5-minute minicasts

Network: independent

Frequency: n/a

Years: 2017 - 2018

Subject: swears, sociolinguistics

Format: audio documentary

Type of English: American

I love well-edited audio documentaries, and this is one of them. Respectful and informative, host Matt Fidler dives into the sociolinguistics of profanities. This is a great podcast, though obviously you have to be okay about hearing lots of profanities.

I haven't listened to all the episodes yet, but plan to.

Also: who did the artwork? It's so good! (Jan 2023)

Podcasts that didn't make it onto the list

All of the below podcasts have titles that once made me think the podcast could be about the English language, but they are either English-language- learning podcasts, focus heavily on linguistics but not on the English language, or they're about something else entirely.

(Honestly, this part of the list is more for me than for you. Whenever I update my list, I find I keep coming back to the same podcasts. I keep forgetting that I ever found them, and end up checking them out all over again.)

general/ other linguistics

corpuscast - for academics, will add later

dictionary.com's word of the day - quite good, actually. might add later

exhaling words - languages, linguistics, and language learning, but not English per se. Might check it out later. (Jan 2023)

field notes - for and about academic linguists doing fieldwork, might add it later. (Jan 2023)

History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences - interviews with the great. (Also very charmed by the way the well-spoken host says "find us at hiphilangsci.net". It's like a poem!)

language matters by diplomatic language services - about other languages, not English. (Jan 2023)

linglab podcast - academic linguistics, might include later. (Jan 2023)

linguistics after dark - three linguists chatting about linguistics while getting drunk. Focus on academic linguistics. Might include later. (Jan 2023)

linguistics careercast - how do linguists get jobs in and outside of academia. (Jan 2023)

linguistics everyday - world languages

Merriam-Webster's word of the day - word of the day

talk wordy to me (2019) - etymology, but only a dozen 2-minute episodes made. (Jan 2023)

tongue unbroken - Native American language revitalization and decolonization

word of the day - is what it is

language teaching/ learning

canguro English - teaching English. Recently also has "The Story of Language" in its feed, which is a series of interviews with esteemed linguist Daniel Everett. (Jan 2023)

language chats - Australian, about language learning, might check it out later. (Jan 2023)

language latte - teaching world languages. (Jan 2023)

Lingua Podcast - interviews from a language school in Germany. Also includes episodes on idioms, but these are aimed at language learners. (Great title though: "it takes an idiom to know one") (Feb 2023)

SAGE language and linguistics - very academic, sub-podcast " Language Testing Bytes " is about language assessment (i.e. how to test students on their language skills) I actually did a course on this at uni, but still needed all my focus, and a dictionary, to understand this podcast! (Probably because it is aimed at people who have read the SAGE magazine issue it tacks onto.) (Jan 2023)

speaking of language - language pedagogy and second language acquisition

words on words - no content in feed, so probably really old. According to the internet "helping students understand and better their writing throughout their college career". (Jan 2023)

world linguistics podcast - conjugations of Spanish verbs (Jan 2023)

translation

speaking of translation - practical tips for translators, might make a sperate list for translators one day. (Jan 2023)

troublesome terps - interpreting and language

not actually about linguistics at all

English The Podcast - is this somebody secretly recording his mates talking during class? What?

future tense - about the future, not about grammar

it's too wordy - comic books. (Jan 2023)

note wordy with teddy - religious sermons. (Jan 2023)

talk wordy to me (2017) - books. (Jan 2023)

talk wordy to me (2021) - literature and TV in German. (Jan 2023)

(side note: in my British accent, "wordy" and "dirty" do not rhyme. It took me a bit of thinking to understand why "talk wordy to me" was such a popular title!)

the nerdy wordy book club - literature. (Jan 2023)

the wordy traveller - books & travel. (Jan 2023)

there's a word for that - uses words as interview themes, but no linguistic observations. (Jan 2023)

word by word - Christian teachings

wordplay podcast - rap music

Did I forget a podcast, or get something wrong?

Creating this list was an awful lot of work, and while researching, sometimes my brain felt like it was leaking out of my ears. I'm sure I got all kinds of things wrong, so if you spot something, please do let me know.

Also: If your podcast is in this list, and you would like me to change something about the category or descriptions, by all means reach out and let me know.

Leave a comment, find me on Twitter or Mastodon, or email me on heddwen (at) englishinprogress.net.

I'll be updating this list all through 2023, adding any new podcasts or other new information I come across. In January 2024 I'll give every podcast a listen again (shockingly, not all X are in my regular listening list) and update accordingly 🙂

Follow me on Mastodon or Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The best* 52 podcasts about the English language (and I've listened to all of them) [2023]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you an English language enthusiast looking for some new linguistics podcasts to add to your playlist? Look no further! I've manually compiled a list of 52 English linguistics podcasts that are sure to satisfy your language cravings. That's ALL the podcasts about English linguistics out there, or at least all that I have been able to find.

# data[].attributes.body
The Verb, on Radio 3. More about the creativity of language but does have some linguistics stuff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Verb Manifesto

Ian McMilllan has always loved the idea of 'the manifesto', even when he was a little boy and they featured things like 'No adults allowed in the den' and 'We demand endless crisps!'.

Now he's launching The Verb's very own 'Writing Manifesto' - a list of six rules for writing inspired by a year of interviews with guests like Margaret Atwood, Simon Armitage, Gabriel Byrne, Claudia Rankine, Floella Benjamin, Greg James and Yanis Varoufakis, and with poets and writers at the very start of their careers.

Discover our six new rules in this specially commissioned animation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09w8qk5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ian McMilllan has always loved the idea of 'the manifesto', even when he was a little boy and they featured things like 'No adults allowed in the den' and 'We demand endless crisps!'.

# data[].attributes.body
How linguistics solves crime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
forensic linguistics, literary detection, language mysteries, and more

# data[].attributes.body
Hosted by a number of American linguists. It’s perhaps aimed more at uni students, but it is interesting and a little niche!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm episode 'Ergativity delights us'. It's been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the episode show notes page.
[Music]

Lauren: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that's enthusiastic about linguistics! I'm Lauren Gawne.

Gretchen: I'm Gretchen McCulloch. Today, we're getting enthusiastic about ergativity. But first, next month, November, is Lingthusiasm's anniversary month. It's been seven years.

Lauren: For our anniversary month, we ask you to share your favourite episode or just share some lingthusiasm in general. Most people still find podcasts through word-of-mouth, and a lot of them don't yet realise they could have a fun linguistics chat in their ears every month.

Gretchen: Or in their eyes since all Lingthusiasm episodes have transcripts. We're asking you to help connect us with people who would be totally into a linguistics podcast if only they knew it existed.

Lauren: The other day, I shared our colour episode with a stylist because we were talking about the strange history of the colour orange. It's so fun to find that perfect episode to recommend to someone, and we've touched on so many different topics over the last seven years.

Gretchen: I'm always sending people to our episode on turn-taking and conversational styles because there's this comment that keeps coming up on social media about having to hold up the entire conversation by yourselves or not being able to get a word in edgewise. That's a linguistics thing that's been described. You can listen to an episode about it.

Lauren: We've asked you to do this every year on our anniversary, and we always see it in the stats. Your recommendations really do help more people find the show.

Gretchen: If you share us on social media, you can tag @lingthusiasm on basically all of the social media sites, so we can see it and reply, or like it, or reshare as appropriate. If you share it in private, we won't necessarily know, but you can feel a warm glow of satisfaction - or you can tell us about it on social media if you still wanna be thanked.

Lauren: In what is becoming another anniversary tradition, we are doing our second listener survey this year. This is our chance to learn all about your linguistic interests, and we have a new set of linguistics experiments for you to contribute to.

Gretchen: If you did the survey last year, the experiment questions are different this year, so feel free to take it again. You can hear about the results of last year's survey in a bonus episode, and we'll be sharing the results of the new experiments next year.

Lauren: This year, we also wrote an academic article about the process of making Lingthusiasm, which featured some of your answers from the previous survey. You are officially contributing to academic research. Because of this, we have ethics board approval from La Trobe University for this survey.

Gretchen: To do the survey, or read more details, go to bit.ly/lingthusiasmsurvey23. That's all lowercase and with the numbers in their numeric values - not written out as words.

Lauren: Or follow the links from our website and social media. Our most recent bonus episode was a recap of Gretchen's time at the 2023 Linguistics Institute, which is a month-long linguistics summer course. Was I jealous? Yes. Was I delighted to hear about it? Yes. Go to patreon.com/lingthusiasm for this and many other bonus episodes.

Gretchen: Our patrons really do let us keep making this podcast, so we really appreciate any level of support.

[Music]

Lauren: You know, Gretchen, in some ways, ergativity is the basis of our LingComm friendship.

Gretchen: You know, you're right about that that. I think it started in 2014, right?
Keep reading

When you have a sentence like "I visit them", the word order and the shape of the words tell you that it means something different from "they visit me". However, in a sentence like "I laugh", you don't actually need those signals - since there's only one person in the sentence, the meaning would be just as clear if the sentence read "Me laugh" or "Laugh me". And indeed, there are languages that do just this, where the single entity with an intransitive verb like "laugh" patterns with the object (me) rather than the subject (I) of a transitive verb like "visit". This pattern is known as ergativity.

In this episode, your hosts Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch get enthusiastic about ergativity! We talk about how ergativity first brought us together as collaborators (true facts: Lingthusiasm might never have existed without it), some classic examples of ergatives from Basque and Arrente, and cool downstream effects that ergativity makes possible, including languages that have ergatives sometimes but not other times (aka split ergativity) and the gloriously-named antipassive (the opposite of the passive). We also introduce a handy mnemonic gesture for remembering what ergativity looks like, as part of our ongoing quest to encourage you to make fun gestures in public!

Read the transcript here.
Announcements:
November is Lingthusiasm's anniversary month and it's been 7 years! To help us celebrate we're asking you to help connect us with people who would be totally into a linguistics podcast, if only they knew it existed. Most people still find podcasts through word of mouth, so we're asking you to share a link to your favourite episode, or just share Lingthusiasm in general. Tag us on on social media so we can thank you, or if you share in private enjoy the warm fuzzies of our gratitude.

We're doing our second listener survey! This is our chance to learn about your linguistic interests, and for you to have fun doing a new set of linguistic experiments. If you did the survey last year, the experiment questions are different this year, so feel free to take it again! You can hear about the results of last year's survey in a bonus episode and we'll be sharing the results of the new experiments next year. Take the survey here.

In this month's bonus episode, Gretchen and Lauren get enthusiastic about linguistic summer camps for grownups aka linguistics institutes! Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 80 other bonus episodes, including our 2022 survey results episode, and an eventual future episode discussing the results of our 2023 survey.
Here are the links mentioned in the episode:
You can listen to this episode via Lingthusiasm.com, Soundcloud, RSS, Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also download an mp3 via the Soundcloud page for offline listening.

To receive an email whenever a new episode drops, sign up for the Lingthusiasm mailing list.

You can help keep Lingthusiasm ad-free, get access to bonus content, and more perks by supporting us on Patreon.

Gretchen is on Bluesky as @ GretchenMcC and blogs at All Things Linguistic.

Lauren is on Bluesky as @superlinguoand blogs at Superlinguo.

Lingthusiasm is created by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our senior producer is Claire Gawne, our production editor is Sarah Dopierala, our production assistant is Martha Tsutsui Billins, and our editorial assistant is Jon Kruk. Our music is 'Ancient City' by The Triangles.

This episode of Lingthusiasm is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license (CC 4.0 BY-NC-SA).

What if there was a summer camp for linguists? Like, imagine you could just go somewhere for a few weeks or a month and do linguistics classes and go to linguistics talks and eat your meals with linguists all day every day? Well, this event exists, sort of, and they're called linguistics institutes.

In this bonus episode, Gretchen and Lauren get enthusiastic about Gretchen's visit to the 2023 LSA institute at University of Massachusetts Amherst this summer. We talk about cool projects that Gretchen learned about at this year's Lingstitute, including the Linguistic Atlas Project, the Oxford Dictionary of African American English, and the Wôpanâak Language Reclamation Project (talks about all of these projects are now available online). We also talk about the history of LSA summer institutes (the first one was in 1928, almost a hundred years ago!), why they're not to be confused with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), which is a missionary project for Bible translation (awkward), and both Gretchen's history attending various institutes and Lauren's history not attending them (sorry about the FOMO though).
Listen to this episode about linguistics summer camp and get access to many more bonus episodes by supporting Lingthusiasm on Patreon.

This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm episode 'Look, it's deixis, an episode about pointing!'. It's been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the episode show notes page.
[Music]

Gretchen: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that's enthusiastic about linguistics! I'm Gretchen McCulloch.

Lauren: I'm Lauren Gawne. Today, we're getting enthusiastic about pointing. But first, this episode is brought to you by all of the fantastic people who have supported the podcast by becoming patrons or buying merch over the years. We don't work with a big production company or anything; it's just us. We're really able to just keep doing the show because of your support both in recommending the show to other people and when you're able to help us financially.

Gretchen: I was pretty worried when we were first trying to figure out how to keep Lingthusiasm sustainable. Like, were we gonna have to run ads for some sketchy, learn-a-language-overnight type service?

Lauren: We get some interesting pitches.

Gretchen: Oh, we sure do. I mean, I don't think the language learning platforms are all bad. I just wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing one without trying it out for hundreds of hours, at which point, that's not really very cost effective. It's easier to just say no. So if you like that Lingthusiasm exists, and you wanna help us continue to exist for many years in the future, we'd really appreciate your support - especially on Patreon.

Lauren: Our most recent bonus episode for patrons was an interview with Martha Tsutsui-Billins - a name you might recognise from the credits of this show. We chatted about her work on politeness in Amami, fieldwork in Japan, and her podcast, Field Notes.

Gretchen: To listen to this bonus episode, many other bonuses, and to help keep the show running ad-free, go to patreon.com/lingthusiasm.

[Music]

Lauren: "Hey, look! This is a podcast."

Gretchen: "Yes, THIS episode, right here, now." Lauren, no one can see that you're pointing right now.

Lauren: Hm, yeah, it's a pity because this is one of my favourite types of episodes where we're gonna talk about gesture in an audio-only format.
Keep reading

Pointing creates an invisible line between a part of your body and the thing you're pointing at. Humans are really good at producing and understanding pointing, and it seems to be something that helps babies learn to talk, but only a few animals manage it: domestic dogs can follow a point but wolves can't. (Cats? Look, who knows.) There are lots of ways of pointing, and their relative prominence varies across cultures: you can point to something with a finger or two, with your whole hand, with your elbow, your head, your eyes and eyebrows, your lips, and even your words.

In this episode, your hosts Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch get enthusiastic about pointing, aka deixis. We talk about how pointing varies across cultures and species: English speakers tend to have a taboo against pointing with the middle finger and to some extent at people, but don't have the very common cross-cultural taboo against pointing at rainbows. We also talk about the technical term for pointing in a linguistic context, deixis, and how deictic meanings bring together a whole bunch of categories: pronouns in signed and spoken languages, words like here, this, go, and today, and the eternal confusion about which Tuesday is next Tuesday.

Read the transcript here.
Announcements:
This episode is brought to you by all of the fantastic people who have supported the podcast by becoming patrons or buying merch over the years! We say this a lot but it really is very much the case that we would have had to give up making the show a long time ago without your financial support. If you would like to help keep the show running ad-free into the future, listen to bonus episodes, and connect with other language nerds on our Discord, join us on Patreon.

In this month's bonus episode, Lauren gets enthusiastic about the process of doing linguistic fieldwork with Dr. Martha Tsutsui Billins, an Adjunct Teaching Fellow at California State University Fresno and creator of the podcast Field Notes, whose name you may recognize from the credits at the end of the show!

Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 70+ other bonus episodes. You'll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can chat with other language nerds.
Here are the links mentioned in the episode:

'Why don't apes point?' - Michael Tomasellso

'Dogs' responsiveness to human pointing gestures' - K. Soproni, A. Miklósi, J. Topál, V. Csányi

'A Comparative Study of the Use of Visual Communicative Signals in Interactions Between Dogs and Humans and Cats and Humans' - Á. Miklósi, P. Pongrácz, G. Lakatos, J. Topál, V. Csányi.

'The way humans point isn't as universal as you might think' - Kensy Cooperrider

Discussion of lip pointing in 'Encanto' on Reddit, including video example

'Body-directed gestures: Pointing to the self and beyond' - Kensy Cooperrider

'Even Rainbows Have a Dark Side' - Kensy Cooperrider

Etymonline entry for '*deik-'

Etymonline entry for 'deixis'

Wikipedia entry for 'deixis'

Lingthusiasm episode 'Pronouns: Little words, big jobs'

'Pointing in gesture and sign' - Kensy Cooperrider & Kate Mesh

'How Pointing is Integrated into Language: Evidence From Speakers and Signers' - K. Cooperrider, J. Fenlon, J. Keane, D. Brentari, and S. Goldin-Meadow

'Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing' - J. Fenlon, K. Cooperrider, J. Keane, D. Brentari, and S. Goldin-Meadow

'On the autonomy of language and gesture: Evidence from the acquisition of personal pronouns in American sign language' - Laura A. Petitto

'Demonstratives and deixis in Tamil and Sinhala' blog post on Xavieremmanuel.org

'Spatial deixis in Iaai (Loyalty Islands)' - Françoise Ozanne-Rivierre

'Deictic categories in three languages of Eastern Indonesia' - Hein Steinhauer

Lingthusiasm bonus episode 'Is X a sandwich? Solving the word-meaning argument once and for all'

You can listen to this episode via Lingthusiasm.com, Soundcloud, RSS, Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also download an mp3 via the Soundcloud page for offline listening.

To receive an email whenever a new episode drops, sign up for the Lingthusiasm mailing list.

You can help keep Lingthusiasm ad-free, get access to bonus content, and more perks by supporting us on Patreon.

Gretchen is on Twitter as @ GretchenAMcC and blogs at All Things Linguistic.

Lauren is on Twitter as @superlinguo and blogs at Superlinguo.

Lingthusiasm is created by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our senior producer is Claire Gawne, our production editor is Sarah Dopierala, our production assistant is Martha Tsutsui Billins, and our editorial assistant is Jon Kruk. Our music is 'Ancient City' by The Triangles.

This episode of Lingthusiasm is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license ( CC 4.0 BY-NC-SA).

Lauren: I think fiction is a really great philosophical experiment. It's one of the reasons I really find sci-fi to be interesting is because it can push the limits of what another mind is or what another mental state is to be thinking in. One thing we didn't get to in the bonus episode about Arkady Martine's Memory Called Empire is that there are people who have the capacity to take on the entire previous knowledge state of someone else. I just am like what would an evidential marking system be like for a person who has multiple consciousnesses worth of evidence for a statement.

Gretchen: Like, "I know this because my original consciousness knew this" or "I know this because the consciousness that I got added to mine later in life knows this." Oh, man.

Lauren: There're just so many layers of potential knowledge state there. That's the kind of sci-fi that lets me bring my linguist brain to problems of consciousness.

Excerpt from Lingthusiasm episode 'Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Theory of Mind'

Listen to the episode, read the full transcript, or check out more links about linguistics and society, and pragmatics.

Linguists often do research by interviewing people from a particular linguistic community. Sometimes these communities are nearby, sometimes very far away. Sometimes it's a community that the researcher is themselves a member of, sometimes this involves first building relationships with a community where the researcher is an outsider.

In this bonus episode, Lauren gets enthusiastic about the process of doing linguistic fieldwork with Dr. Martha Tsutsui Billins, an Adjunct Teaching Fellow at California State University Fresno, whose name you may recognize from the credits at the end of the show! We talk about Martha's research on politeness in Amami, building relationships on the Ryukyu Islands in Japan, and the role of outsider scholars in language documentation. We also talk about her relationship with the academic job market as an adjunct, her podcast Field Notes interviewing many linguists about their experiences doing linguistic fieldwork, and her role on the Lingthusiasm team helping us research examples for episodes.

Listen to this interview about linguistic fieldworks with Dr. Martha Tsutsui Billins, and get access to many more bonus episodes by supporting Lingthusiasm on Patreon.

This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm episode 'How kids learn Q'anjob'al and other Mayan languages - Interview with Pedro Mateo Pedro'. It's been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the episode show notes page.
[Music]

Gretchen: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that's enthusiastic about linguistics! I'm Gretchen McCulloch. I'm here with Dr. Pedro Mateo Pedro who's an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, a native speaker of Q'anjob'al, and a learner of Kaqchikel. Today, we're getting enthusiastic about kids acquiring Indigenous languages.

But first, some announcements. We love looking up whether two words that look kind of similar are actually historically related, but the history of a word doesn't have to define how it's used today. To celebrate how we can grow up to be more than we ever expected, we have new merch that says, "Etymology isn't Destiny." Our artist, Lucy Maddox, has made "Etymology isn't Destiny" into a swoopy, cursive design with a fun little destiny star on the dot of the eye, available in black, white, and my personal favourite, rainbow gradient. This design is available on lots of different colours and styles of shirts. We've got hoodies, tank tops, t-shirts in classic fit, relaxed fit, curved fit - plus mugs, notebooks, stickers, water bottles, zipper pouches. You know, if it's on Redbubble, we might've put "Etymology isn't Destiny" on it.

We also have tons of other lingthusiastic merch available in our merch store at lingthusiasm.com/merch. I have to say, it makes a great gift to give to a linguistics enthusiast in your life or to request as a gift if you are that linguistics enthusiast.

We also wanna give a special shoutout to our aesthetic redesign of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Last year, we reorganised the classic IPA chart to have colours and have little cute circles and not just be boring grey lines of boxes and to even more elegantly represent the principle that the location of the symbols and rows and columns represents the place and degree of constriction in the mouth. I think it looks really cool. It's also a fun little puzzle to sit there and figure out which of the specific circles around different things stands for what. We've now made this aesthetic IPA chart redesign available on lots more merch options, including several different sizes of posters from small ones you can put on a corkboard to large ones you can put up in your hallway. They look really, really good, especially if you have some sort of office-y space that needs to be decorated. Plus, it's on tote bags and notebooks and t-shirts. If you want everyone you meet to know that you're a giant linguistics nerd, you can take them to conferences and use them to start nerdy conversations with people.

If you like the idea of linguistics merch but none of ours so far is quite hitting your aesthetic, or if there's an item that Redbubble sells that you think one of our existing designs would look good on, we've added quite a few merch items in response to people's requests over the years, so we'd love to know where the gaps still are and keep an eye on lingthusiasm.com/merch.

Our most recent bonus episode was a behind-the-scenes interview with Sarah Dopierala, who you may recognise as a name from the end credits, about what it's like doing transcripts from a linguistics perspective and her life generally as a linguistics grad student. You can go to patreon.com/lingthusiasm to get access to all of the many bonus episodes and to help Lingthusiasm keep running.
Keep reading
[Music]

Gretchen: Hello, Pedro, welcome to the show!

Pedro: Hello. Thank you so much for this invitation. I really appreciate it.

Gretchen: We're really excited to have you. Let's start with the question that we ask all of our guests, "How did you get interested in linguistics?"

Young kids growing up in Guatemala often learn Q'anjob'al, Kaq'chikel, or another Mayan language from their families and communities. But they don't live next to the kinds of major research universities that do most of the academic studies about how kids learn languages. Figuring out what these kids are doing is part of a bigger push to learn more about language learning in a broader variety of sociocultural settings.

In this episode, your host Gretchen McCulloch gets enthusiastic about how kids learn Q'anjob'al and other Mayan languages with Dr. Pedro Mateo Pedro, who's an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, a native speaker of Q'anjob'al and a learner of Kaq'chikel. We talk about Pedro's background teaching school in Q'anjob'al and Spanish, which sounds kids acquire later in Q'anjob'al (hint: it's the ejectives like q' and b'), and gender differences in how kids speak Q'anjob'al. We also talk more broadly about why this work is important, both in terms of understanding how language acquisition works as a whole and in terms of using the knowledge of how children acquire Indigenous languages to create teaching materials specific to those languages. Finally, we talk about Pedro's newer revitalization work with a community of Itzaj speakers and the process of building a relationship with a community that you're not already part of.

Read the transcript here.
Announcements:
In this month's behind the scenes bonus episode, Gretchen gets enthusiastic about the linguistic process of transcribing podcast episodes with Sarah Dopierala, whose name you may recognize from the credits at the end of the show! We talk about how Sarah's background in linguistics helps her with the technical words and phonetic transcriptions in Lingthusiasm episodes, her own research into converbs, and the linguistic tendencies that she's noticed from years of transcribing Lauren and Gretchen (guess which of us uses more quotative speech!)

Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 70+ other bonus episodes, including our upcoming linguistics advice episode where we answer your questions! You'll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can chat with other language nerds.
Here are the links mentioned in the episode:
You can listen to this episode via Lingthusiasm.com, Soundcloud, RSS, Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also download an mp3 via the Soundcloud page for offline listening.

To receive an email whenever a new episode drops, sign up for the Lingthusiasm mailing list.

You can help keep Lingthusiasm ad-free, get access to bonus content, and more perks by supporting us on Patreon.

Lingthusiasm is on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon, and Tumblr. Email us at contact [at] lingthusiasm [dot] com

Gretchen is on Twitter as @ GretchenAMcC and blogs at All Things Linguistic.

Lauren is on Twitter as @superlinguo and blogs at Superlinguo.

Lingthusiasm is created by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our senior producer is Claire Gawne, our production editor is Sarah Dopierala, our production assistant is Martha Tsutsui Billins, and our editorial assistant is Jon Kruk. Our music is 'Ancient City' by The Triangles.

This episode of Lingthusiasm is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license ( CC 4.0 BY-NC-SA).

A new round of Lingthusiasm merch is here!
"Etymology isn't destiny" on shirts, magnets, notebooks, and more! Aesthetic IPA chart now on posters, shirts, and more!
The International Phonetic Alphabet chart is sometimes called the periodic table of linguistics - an important technical diagram that's also visually interesting and which many linguists hang up on a wall, carry around inside a notebook, or simply know the exact keystrokes that'll get them to a page to type or listen to it.

Like with the periodic table of the elements, the layout of the IPA chart is a key to what the symbols mean: from top to bottom, the chart goes roughly from sounds where the mouth is the most closed to the most open, and from left to right, it goes from sounds where the constriction is the front of the mouth to the back of the mouth. This means that many linguists only know well the parts of the IPA that they encounter regularly in languages they work with, and rely on their knowledge of the overall structure to retrieve other parts on occasion. Hence the need to have it handy to refer to.

But there's also an important way in which the IPA chart and the periodic table differ: art. If you want a handy reference chart of the elements for your wall or your pocket, there are hundreds of possible designs, ranging from subtle, minimalist designs that look like cool nerdy art to intricate, maximalist designs with all the technical detail you might possibly want to refer to.

With the International Phonetic Alphabet, most people are still printing out (or occasionally stickering, or laminating) the same greyscale diagram from the International Phonetic Association. We, your Lingthusiasm cohosts, have a lot of affection for this classic design, which we've spent many hours poring over (especially the forbidden grey areas, ahem), but we also wondered, wouldn't it be cool if there was a more subtle, minimal version that would look more like weird-yet-stylish nerd art and less like a diagram from an academic paper?

For these reasons, last year we commissioned an aesthetically redesigned version of the International Phonetic Alphabet from our linguist-artist Lucy Maddox and put it on a one-time order of microfibre lens cloths. We've since heard from several people who missed out on that order or wish they could have the design in another format, so we've now made that available in several versions: the original square design as a poster, a version with rectangular proportions as a poster (depending on the shape of that blank space on your wall which needs a cool IPA poster), and a transparent background version that plays well on a shirt! The notebooks and tote bags also look really good with the aesthetic IPA chart on them if you want a version to bring to classes or conferences. Also someone requested a mouse pad so we did that and then we put it on an apron because why not.
Lingthusiasm merch generally
If you're looking for subtle-to-obvious ways to signal that you're a linguist or linguistics fan in public, gift ideas for the linguistics enthusiast in your life (or handy links to forward to people who might be interested in getting you a gift sometime), we also have many previous items of Lingthusiasm merch! There are many subtly linguistics-patterened scarves, water bottles with linguistics-related jokes on them, NOT JUDGING YOUR GRAMMAR, JUST ANALYSING IT shirts, or just have a browse. All of the Lingthusiasm merch makes a great gift for the linguist or linguistics fan in your life, and as a patron you get to find out about new merch before anyone else! Check out the merch page at lingthusiasm.com/merch for the previous rounds of Lingthusiasm merch.

As ever, we love seeing photos of any Lingthusiasm merch or linguistics-themed crafts in your lives! Tag us in them @lingthusiasm on all of the social medias (or private message us photos of your babies in Lingthusiasm onesies if you're not keen on posting baby photos publically, we still love to see them!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A podcast that's enthusiastic about linguistics by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. A lively, deep, language-y conversation with real linguists! "Joyously nerdy" -Buzzfeed. New episodes (free!)...

# data[].attributes.body
About language prejudice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VocalFri Podcast | a podcast by VocalFri LLC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your weekly dash of voice science, pedagogy, and pop culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Which are quite good actually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AQA A-Level English Language Practice Test Papers (Letts A-Level Revision Success)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy AQA A-Level English Language Practice Test Papers (Letts A-Level Revision Success) by Letts A-Level (ISBN: 9780008276232) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.headline
Recommended further reading by the chief examiner

# data[].attributes.subject
Recommended further reading by the chief examiner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This one is another from Neil Hutchinson, who teaches at Kirkbie Kendal School in the Lake District (on Twitter as @Hutchinsonnet) and here he looks at the foundations of Meanings and Representations when approaching Paper One: Section A.
For students and teachers it can sometimes feel as though the analysis of texts is an arduous uphill struggle. It needn't be. It's always heartening to discover you're not alone on the expedition. The thought that you're isolated in your decision making is so often the foundation of existential panic. So it was a huge relief to me, and I'm sure countless others, to read this post from fellow guest blogger Mr McVeigh. In this excellent entry, he talks about his approach to Paper One: Section A with a focus on questions 1 and 2. It was heartening to see that there are other practitioners out there making planning a response by examining meaning, before effect, the focus of approaching the questions.

My own approach is broadly similar, with a few differences, and based on the needs of the small bunch of Year 12 students sitting in front of me, sometimes struggling to meet the demands of these questions and scale the heights of the mark scheme, due to shaky foundations beneath their feet.

To remedy this I decided to refine my approach. The historical 'framework' approach is of course useful. I do want my students to be able to spot clause elements a mile away. Or label lexical items, with precision, but these alone are not summit markers in a response. Making meanings and representations the top and bottom of their approach, with terminology acting more like the gear to help them along the journey, seems the most sensible route plan.

Mr McVeigh wrote:

I like students to identify at least three representations. I normally say that the author is always represented within a text so that is always a good starting point.

This after he has them, "contextualise the text by identifying the purpose, audience and form of a text (PAF)".

This is similar to my approach. We spend a lot of time focusing on the layers of representations as a starting point and then allow the meaning to reveal itself as the trek begins. I use the simple image of a triangle (mountain if my extended metaphor has landed thus far), which I will go into in more detail below.

As an example, for upcoming exam(ish) preparation we looked at the June 17 paper, featuring the article from the Metro on athlete Veronica Campbell Brown. Spoiler warning ahead.
The 'What'
The first thing I asked the students to do was to read the text and simply list all of the representations they can find in the text. I don't want them to come up with ideas about these representations at this stage. For the students who struggle to generate ideas to discuss in the questions I find this is extremely valuable as it gives them something to aim for. They're mapping out their route through the questions already before they've even thought of anything analytical to say.

At this stage I will write all of these representations on the board:

They listed Veronica Capbell Brown as the most obvious person represented, but from there I encouraged them to consider who else or what else was being represented through her. It stands to reason that people don't exist in representational vacuums. Especially with celebrities and the world of sport, people see themselves reflected back in those they look up to or hold in high esteem. They were then able to say:

And just as the students wearing their uniforms outside of school represent our institution I ask them to consider how the individual might represent organisations or institutions. This led to:

And then through polarisation present in the article, and again similar to Mr McVeigh, they were able to identify:

Britain/British Identity

British Athletics

And as Mr McVeigh always reminds them, I ask them to consider how the writer is representing themselves or the publication they're writing for. So to cap it all off:

This really gives the students a solid base camp with a variety of routes to follow. And it is something every student of every ability can do in an exam context. Naturally, those aiming for the highest bands will be more able to discuss the wider implications of the representations on display. They will even be able to spot patterns of wider discourse, which is really going to help them with AO3. More on that later. While those at the lower end will all be able to explore the representation of the individual named in the text, often the most obvious, yet still, the most salient of all listed above.

At this point it is worth reminding them that they can't discuss everything. This is where the interactive whiteboard comes in handy because we now organise that list into a hierarchy (see images below). We decide on this together based on the text in front of us. I ask them is the representation of Veronica Campbell Brown more salient than the representation of black people or women in general? We decide yes. After all she is named in the headline as opposed to say, "Black athlete runs in wrong lane..." or "Female athlete runs in wrong lane..." We do discuss that Campbell Brown is referred to as "The Jamaican" but we consider this as part of the patriotic, tribal stance The Metro is adopting, which we discuss later.

Before developing that, I first ask them if this seems more openly critical of black people or of women? For simplicity, does it seem more racist or sexist? That is not to say it is neither, arguably these prejudices exist between the lines because they feed into the wider social discourses, which are still present in our society. What we are doing at this stage is glancing back over the whole text and spotting what jumps out, again before we have really started to think of the 'How'. They decide that for a number of reasons, the representation of women seems salient. They look to the overall discourse structure of listing Campbell Brown's achievements in the opening and then following it with the angry sounding second paragraph, in which Giles utilises the verb phrase, "managed to RUN..." They felt this fed into a wider social discourse of belittling successful women's achievements.

The final order is listed above in the images of my board. The triangle/mountain image comes into its own here because although Veronica Campbell Brown is undoubtedly the peak in terms of representation, that can only exist on the foundation of typical/historical representations that exist within society. Her image in this article rests on the patterns of how women, black people, athletics etc are represented in our wider culture.

Before moving on to discussing how these representations were being established through language, I emphasised with students that once they had organised them in order of salience they could choose any three to focus on in their answer. Again this is crucial in eliciting a response from every student which is personal and potentially different. The lower ability students may want to focus on the top three whereas those aiming for the highest marks may want to start at the top and pull in something less obvious and perhaps more perceptive.

The 'How'
As this article is more about an approach to the questions, I will focus less on this part. But it is here where we start to come up with statements about how these people and institutions are being represented. Again, nothing too linguistic at this stage. Simply what seems to be jumping out? These can be seen in red in the image, but they decided VCB was being represented negatively as either a heartless cheat or as an incompetent woman who did not seem deserving of her accolades. As mentioned above it was very easy for them to now suggest that women are often ridiculed in our wider culture as a way to downplay their achievements. Some discussed, away from the world of sport, the ongoing, relentless and hateful treatment of Mary Beard here.

It is only now we get to frameworks. Once they have organised their thinking in this way, the language and structure seems to reveal itself in a way it otherwise wouldn't have done before. They have a solid route and the terrain looks easier for them to negotiate. If you want a more detailed approach for this stage, I recommend this one.

With these representations and meanings in mind we explored that second paragraph in more detail:

But despite all that experience, she has still managed to run in the wrong lane.

Verb phrase aside, they discussed the sentence opening with the coordinating conjunction functioning as the opening of the adverbial, something I'm sure would have led to much prescriptivist moaning, if they happened upon the Metro that morning on their commute. Why make this deliberate "error"? Well it must be to emphasise that what follows is bigger than all of those achievements just listed. This ramps up the tone of anger, sarcasm, humour and does a great job of reducing this successful athlete to the status of either 'silly girl' or 'evil witch' or both. We re-wrote this sentence in a variety of ways and decided the fronted adverbial was loaded with meaning, which supported what they had already said about the representations. Then there's the obvious graphology of the capitalisation to anchor this.

The 'Why'
If in reading this so far you have wondered where the PAF (purpose/audience/form) or GCAP (genre/context/audience/purpose) as I teach, comes in. Well it's here. I call these the macro concepts of linguistic analysis. The micro elements come from the areas of the frameworks or language levels and should always be used to comment on the macro concepts.

We now make decisions about these macro concepts and the impact they have had in the writing of the text. Did Will Giles set out to destroy this athlete because she is a woman or is this an unfortunate consequence of something else from GCAP? Starting with the macro concept of Context of production, we looked at the date (2015), and the patterns of language which seemed to focus on British athletics and came up with the idea that there may have been a renewed interest in the sport in this country as a result of the 2012 Olympics. This focus on nationalism and tribal loyalties to Team GB goes some way to underpinning what The Metro might have been trying to do in this article through these representations. They have perhaps tried to position us against this Jamaican athlete to drum up tribal support for our team, but have used conventional negative representations of women to do it. We also discussed the impact of The Metro and its tabloid style in the informal register adopted in our example. On the part of the producer, it may only be a funny (not funny) story for someone to read in 5 mins on the bus (Audience+context), but as we know, context of reception is everything and for a young woman aspiring to be an athlete this could have a far reaching impact.

This layering of meaning according to GCAP is going to unlock a variety of interpretations of features and patterns that will allow the students to score highly in AO3. As with subject terminology for AO1, points about genre, context, audience and purpose are only as valuable as the argument you pin them to.

So just because we come to the macro concepts of GCAP last in this strategy does not make it an afterthought. Quite the opposite in fact. An understanding of the construction of a given text from the perspective of GCAP is part of the foundation to understanding the representations in the first place. But rather than taking the approach of, 'this is a tabloid newspaper article therefore it will represent x as y', I much prefer, 'x is represented as y, possibly because this is a tabloid newspaper article but it may be more to do with z.'

I think that the macro concepts should be something outlined and discussed in introductions as part of the foundation on which the students can build. As long as they're tied to meanings and representations and contribute to the direction of travel. So putting all of the above together a successful intro to a Question 1, with this text as a basis, may look like:

In Text A, The Metro and writer Will Giles, offer a stereotypically negative representation of women, through Veronica Campbell Brown, as a means of generating national support for British Athletics in the wake of the 2012 Olympics. At various points Campbell Brown is represented as foolish and dull-witted, someone undeserving of her previous achievements and at worst, a dishonest cheat. Giles adopts a classically tabloid style to create these meanings, potentially for click-bait in an online format or to entertain a tribal sports fan on their daily commute.

This is slightly wordy, but you get the picture. This intro condenses everything into one paragraph, which covers three strands of representation and their link to audience, genre and two contextual factors.

Hopefully this has given you some ideas about how to approach the Paper One mountain with students, particularly mixed ability students. Well done for reaching the summit!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This one is another from Neil Hutchinson, who teaches at Kirkbie Kendal School in the Lake District (on Twitter as @Hutchinsonnet) and here he looks at the foundations of Meanings and Representations when approaching Paper One: Section A. For students and teachers it can sometimes feel as though the analysis of texts is an arduous uphill struggle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revise and practise your grammar to help you increase your confidence and improve your language level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Improve your grammar with easy 6 Minute Grammar, our grammar series for beginner level learners. On this page you'll find a range of easy grammar programmes to boost your language skills. Each programme covers a key grammar point with all the explanations, examples and activities you need to become an easy grammar champion - in just 6 minutes. Grammar topics include present simple and present continuous tenses, the present perfect, prepositions, relative clauses, modal verbs, adjectives, the first conditional, phrasal verbs and much, much more.

In addition to these 30 programmes, you can also try our intermediate grammar series, Medium 6 Minute Grammar or you can check your grammar knowledge with our complete easy grammar reference guide, medium grammar reference guide, medium grammar reference 2 guide and hard grammar reference. You can also try The Grammar Gameshow and study the lessons and use the worksheets from our English Class series..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Learning English - Easy grammar - 6 Minute Grammar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Improve your grammar with easy 6 Minute Grammar, our grammar series for beginner level learners. On this page you'll find a range of easy grammar programmes to boost your language skills. Each programme covers a key grammar point with all the explanations, examples and activities you need to become an easy grammar champion - in just 6 minutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Study basic English grammar to help you become fluent in English. Understand the basic concepts of English grammar and learn English easily.