# data[].attributes.body
The skull emoji, in this example here, is being used as a referential communication function. In this meme that went viral a few years ago, it shows a text between a parent and a child, with the parent telling their child their uncle died, then using the skull emoji to explain the death, because you know, death and skulls correlate. The parent is using the emoji to provide information. But, in slang, the skull emoji does not mean death. It is used when something is really funny, like you died laughing. So in this case, the point across was unsuccessful because it isn't used in that context. The parent is unaware that they essentially used a emoji usually used as an expressive function, to signify that something is funny, in a serious manner.

# data[].attributes.body
I will argue that the clown emoji serves as an expressive communication function. In the text message I am giving as an example said by my friend, it is a way of showing that she feels foolish. She said that she's paying tuition to be taught, but her professors aren't putting in the effort to teach and make sure everyone understands the topic correctly. She sends the clown emoji as a way of expressing how dumb she feels paying all that money and feeling as though it is not worth it. I feel like unless it's a younger generation, or people who are aware of obscure emoji uses, that emoji would not make sense because this usage for the emoji is a little more unclear/less obvious than the one I chose before, the hands in praise motion. But, because my generation did grow up with emojis, it does make sense to me therefore it is successful in how she is trying to portray her emotions.

# data[].attributes.body
The hands in a praise motion serves as a phatic communication function. The emojis is phatic and not expressive because it is acknowledging the emotions of another person, and not the users. People usually use it when giving their condolences or supporting one another. It's expressing the concern for the well being of another. It is also used to give praise/congratulate. I am using one of Cher's tweets regarding the war in Ukraine. I believe she is using it in a way that she is giving her condolences to Ukraine for the war but also praising them for being strong, fighting back, and not giving up. I would say this is used successfully because it makes sense in the way she is using it and it doesn't feel out of place or wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
This published article talks about the prevalence of vocal fry on women and how they are targeted and judged for it. This is a phonological feature because the way they say words is what changes from men to women. I would say this behavior is associated with the difference model. It is society that is bringing down women for how they talk. This article mentions how vocal fry is used as a method of women trying to assert their dominance by trying to make a deeper than natural voice. This, similar to the feature that was mentioned before, is sort of like counteracting the dominance theory. Since deeper voices are more associated with men, women are trying to receive the same level of respect and believe that in order to get that they have to imitate men's speech. Since the authority has been placed to men, and how they speak, women try to take the authority back by speaking in deeper voices resulting in a vocal fry. There is no qualitative data but it talks about how vocal fry is seen more in millennials. The way the article is written makes it seem like they are against vocal fries because they kept emphasizing that millennials are the only ones who better understand other millennials are their points are not getting across the way it is intended to be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether they're being accused of wasting money on avocado toast or killing everything from soap to the golfing industry, Millennials are perpetually being criticized for doing things wrong.

Now older generations have started to complain that Millennials can't even talk correctly. Recently the Daily Mail told these young adults that they need to adjust their speaking habits to address superiors - and they are also being told the way they speak is irritating.

Whether there's really a wrong or right way to speak is a moot point, but there does seem to be some language trends that are particularly favored by generations born in the eighties and nineties. Some of these are received better by younger generations than by older ones; in fact, there seems to be a bit of a communication gap opening between Millennials and the generations that preceded them.

Vocal fry

You may not even have heard of vocal fry but you'll probably recognize it if you hear it. Commonly heard in vlogs and in reality TV piece-to-cameras when people under 35 express an opinion, vocal fry is a kind of crackling gargle noise that slips into conversation. It's particularly used by young women and seen as a way to support their authority by accessing an unnaturally deeper pitch of voice than they would normally use.

Whether this works or not seems to depend on who is listening. Those under 30 apparently do find vocal fry adds authority to what is being said. Those over 40 apparently not only find it annoying but also think it makes the speaker sound less authoritative. And listeners in their 30's don't know what to think of it.

Perhaps that's the key to the debate over Millennial language habits: younger people are communicating to please themselves and their peer group rather than older generations. In the case of vocal fry, this approach seems to work. Millennials are more effective at speaking to one another than they are to older generations.

RELATED: Generational Marketing: Are We Getting it Wrong?

This may be a sign that their communication is not successful: surely it's not working if it's only working on some audiences? Another way to look at this is that Millennials are communicating successfully on their own terms. Perhaps what older generations fear most is finding that younger people aren't particularly interested in trying to communicate with them effectively.

Literally

One bugbear that frequently crops up is the modern use of the word literally. Literally is now used for emphasis, in place of words such as 'very'. "I'm literally starving" is an example. This drives many people to distraction, as it's an incorrect use of the word as they understand it - figuratively would be a more accurate word, but this lacks the same punch.

This suggests that the meaning of a word is immutable, which isn't in fact the case. Many words have changed their meanings over the years, sometimes even evolving to mean the precise opposite of what they originally meant.

'Awful' now means dreadful but the word originally means awe-inspiring. All that matters is how the word is received by its contemporary audience.

If most people using 'literally' now do so to emphasize what they are saying, then the word may simply have evolved its meaning. It may be unpopular with older users to find new generation is using a word in a different manner to the one they think fit for it, but the accepted definition tends to win out eventually.

There's ultimately no right or wrong way to communicate, so long as your message is received in the way you want. The right language is merely the language that's understood correctly by your audience.

Really the debate about how Millennials talk is one about older generations trying to impose control over younger ones, to resist change. No generation owns language - although some seem to think they do.

It's perhaps no coincidence that Millennial speech habits such as vocal fry are most commonly expressed by those that only need to appeal to their peers rather than older people - such as the Zoellas of this world. YouTube stars only have their peers to impress and it's in their peer to peer communication that Millennial speaking habits most often find expression.

But older generations persist in holding power over younger ones and will do for some time to come. Baby boomers lead countries, organizations, and businesses; they make decisions that affect Millennials at every step of their lives.

Perhaps the most significant of these are in the workplace. Millennials have been taken aside by well-meaning colleagues who tell them the way they talk is hindering their career or told it makes them 'sound stupid '. Language is one of the ways Millennials can negotiate with those that have power over them if they chose to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Millennials Talk Differently to Older Generations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now older generations have started to complain that Millennials can't even talk correctly. Recently the Daily Mail told these young adults that they need to adjust their speaking habits to address superiors - and they are also being told the way they speak is irritating.

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post talks about the word like, and how women are more likely to use like than men are. It goes on to explain the reasoning for this being that women need to be as clear and concise as possible when speaking so that they aren't looked down on because they are already at a disadvantage. The word like allows people to carefully consider the next part of their sentence and elaborate on their thoughts to reach an educated conclusion. This can be mostly associated with dominance model, but the way the article describes it is as if women need to keep using the word like in their sentences in order to assert their dominance. The dominance model proposes that men are naturally more dominant than women and women seek the validation of men. Using the word like is women trying to prove their credibility to men by being able to further explain their thoughts and sound as educated and knowledgable as possible. This example is a lexical feature because it's about a certain vocabulary being added by women in order to feel heard. Although qualitative evidence  isn't used much, there is personal experience and some numbers backing up which sex uses the word more which is linked to studies conducted to get those numbers.
I believe this article isn't biased and provides evidence with personal experience most women can relate to. Although there is a negative connotation with the word like, it explains why we use it and why it should be continued to be used in order to sort of counteract the dominance model because women are trying to assert their dominance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"You should really stop saying 'like' so much."

This is something I've heard countless times. I've heard it from professors who begin the semester with a proclamation of how the word "like" is their ultimate pet peeve. I've heard it again from my own family, some of whom have been known to stop me mid-sentence to point out my tendency to use the word "like."

Many people don't like "like," and I understand the perspective. By pointing it out to people who use the word frequently, they think they are helping them steer clear of sounding unprofessional at best, and at worst, dumb.

But despite their disdain, I love the word "like."

Having been criticized throughout my adolescence for using it, I've done my fair share of research about what the word "like" means. The word didn't drum up public attention as a "filler" word until its regular use by the Beat Generation of the 1950s - largely as an expression of wonderment. In the 1980s, the word resurfaced again as part of "valley girl" talk - a speech pattern often associated with materialistic and superficial teen girls (think the 1995 film Clueless).

Today, "like" is criticized for its use as an unnecessary "filler" word. On the surface, the word is perceived as a sign of hesitation or stupidity, largely because of its more recent connection to the valley girl stereotype. As a result, young women especially are mocked for using"'like."

Many studies have found that "filler words" such as "like" are used more by young women than any other group of people. But this research also shows that instead of a sign of airheadedness, using the word "like" often signals that the speaker is being more thoughtful and considerate in their speech. "Like" is a signal of emotional nuance.

This makes sense to me because, as women, it really matters what we say and how we say it.

In academic seminars, women are two and half times less likely to ask questions than men are. In general, men interrupt women 33% more often than they interrupt other men.

So when women do speak, it feels crucial that what we say is smart, accurate, and insightful. And using the word "like" is a tool that allows us to do just that by carefully considering our prose and adapting our language to navigate specific social contexts.

But if the first piece of feedback women receive after speaking up is criticism over how we talk, not even feedback about the quality of our contribution, what comes next? A subsequent thought may be (and I know this, having thought it myself): Was it even worth talking at all?

When I was 9, people asked me to talk all the time. I had just moved to California from the Cotswolds in England, and my classmates were fascinated by the way I pronounced things. On my first day of fourth grade, I must have said the word "water" over 50 times. The attention was on me, and I felt cool. And over the next two years, I thrived: a four square champion, writer for the student newspaper, and fraction expert.

By 13, I had grown out of my proclivity for talking "posh," and it seemed like people weren't as interested in what I had to say anymore. I became a reserved girl who found it difficult to raise her hand in class. And when I did, I would rehearse exactly what I wanted to say to make sure it came out "just right" - whatever that means. But despite the intense mental hoops I would jump through to speak up, to the bemusement of my teachers, a "like" would slip out often.

College wasn't much different. Classrooms weren't welcoming, and in an environment where blurting out answers aloud at a whim was encouraged, I felt smothered by more assertive and loud - *cough* - male voices. The difference was that now, as a young woman, I was very painfully aware of what was happening. I knew my opinion was important - so why wasn't I sharing it?

At this point, I made a concerted effort to speak out, raising my hand more and engaging with professors. But no matter my confidence, I couldn't help but lean on my old friend, the "like," to guide me through my thoughts. Sure, I was still criticized for it, but honestly, I stopped caring. If using "like" is what I need to do to get my voice out there, what is so wrong with that?

To this day, my use of the word "like" remains steady. But the one thing that has changed from youth to now is the confidence I have developed in my own voice.

Believing that what I had to say was worth hearing, and actively speaking it out, was a conscious choice I made, something that took practice and time to cement into my daily routine.

If using the word "like" actually reflected poor self-belief and inaptitude, as its opponents proclaim it does, I would have gotten rid of it through this process. But reflecting on conversations I've had just this past week, it's clear they're like, pretty wrong.

Instead, "like" symbolizes how young women, like myself, have risen above and beyond what they've been told they can be: quiet. If anything, choosing to speak despite the criticism is an act of empowerment.

So to all the young women out there, speak your mind, "likes" and all.

To everyone else, please just listen.

More articles by Category:Girls
More articles by Tag:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Hating the Word 'Like' Hurts Young Women - Women's Media Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"You should really stop saying 'like' so much." This is something I've heard countless times. I've heard it from professors who begin the semester with a proclamation of how the word "like" is their ultimate pet peeve.

# data[].attributes.body
Stage 2 update:
I currently only have 50 tokens as of right now. I plan on going to a cafe Thursday for a couple of hours and getting up to 70 tokens, then Friday after class another cafe and I'll get 30 tokens. Then most likely Sunday I will go to another cafe and get the last 20 tokens.

# data[].attributes.body
Stage 1 update:
I have chosen the topic of greetings so I'll be looking at how people greet each other and how it depends on whether they know each other/their age. As of today, Wednesday October 19, I have 35 tokens. I went to a cafe yesterday and was able to collect about 25 tokens. I'm most likely going to keep going to busy cafes to collect data and also eavesdropping on people in class when they walk in and greet their friends.

# data[].attributes.headline
Entry 3: Language & Advertising - Example 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Entry 3: Language & Advertising - Example 2

# data[].attributes.body
In my second example, this is not so much as advertising but the name of a restaurant. I'm from Boston, which is known for the Boston accent and seafood. There's a restaurant right in the touristy part of downtown Boston called Boston Chowda Co. Intentionally, the word chowder is turned to chowda, as if to imitate the Boston accent. It's located in Faneuil Hall, a landmark most tourists go to because of its historical significance. They definitely named this to attract the tourists because why would they not go to a restaurant with a punny name advertising one of the most famous dishes of the city. I don't think it targets the people living in Boston, because it seems like its too artificially and touristy with a name like that, but it definitely attracts the tourists who are there for the week and want to knock as many things off on their itinerary as possible. Most of the people in the more recent generations, before 1970s, don't have Boston accents so they cannot relate to this name, and those with Boston accents would just find the name cheesy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Entry 4: R dropping in Boston - Covert Prestige

# data[].attributes.subject
Entry 4: R dropping in Boston - Covert Prestige

# data[].attributes.body
I'm from Boston, and many people in the newer generation (below the age of 50ish) don't typically have a traditional "Boston accent" where the r sound turns into an ahh sound. Nowadays, this vernacular is associated with middle aged middle class people, since there's been a large population influx of people that have moved into the city for work opportunities who do not have this variant. That being said, a lot of middle and high school boys from Boston imitate the speech or if they have a slight variant, over enunciate it to make it sound more pronounced. Although it's typically associated with more working class people, even in rich private schools they do this so they sound more "legit" in a sense, as if they're claiming Boston as their own, since there is a huge stigma around saying you're from Boston when you're from the middle of Massachusetts or a surrounding state. It's almost like they're doing it because they're trying to say they're more of a Bostonian than others who do not have the variant. I feel like to those who are not from Boston, this can work because they'll believe they truly do speak with that variant but when you're from Boston it's almost a known fact that they're over enunciating to get their point across. Those boys want to sound like they're from a working class traditional Boston family, even if other's might look down on those people, because they want to represent their city pride.

# data[].attributes.headline
Entry 3: Language & Advertising  -Example 1 

# data[].attributes.subject
Entry 3: Language & Advertising  -Example 1 

# data[].attributes.body
My first example of specific language in advertising is this Brazilian deli market in the neighborhood I grew up in. I was raised in a very prominent Brazilian community in Brighton, Massachusetts . Because of that, there has to be some Brazilian delis and markets with international products and meat cuts. Many Brazilians in Brighton moved to America later on in their life and was never able to learn English because they had to work full time and didn't have the money to pay for English courses. So these Brazilian delis in the area have to advertise their store in Portuguese so it could be understood by their main costumers. In this example, Oliveira's has huge lettering outside their store saying Açougue, Carniceria, and Meatshop, all meaning the same thing in Portuguese, Spanish, and English, respectively. Although there aren't any hispanic specific products, they advertised Spanish because there are universal Latin product. They wanted the Latin people in the community to see they have the products to use, and the store became widely popular among all Brazilians.

# data[].attributes.headline
Entry #2: Ways to Say Cassava Root in Portuguese 

# data[].attributes.subject
Entry #2: Ways to Say Cassava Root in Portuguese 

# data[].attributes.body
In Brazil, eating cassava root or yucca root is a very staple dish in many households, and because it is eaten throughout all of Brazil that has many international influences incorporated into its culture, the word for cassava root is a linguistic variable; what people call it differs from region to region. This is a lexical variable because it involves word meaning, not how it sounds, or grammar structure. The 3 main variants of the word are mandioca, aipim, and macaxeira (even though I personally have never heard anyone say that one in real life).
Typically, it is the Northeast region in Brazil that says macaxeira, the coast that says aipim, and states like Minas Gerias, large part of Sao Paulo, and the northern states that say mandioca.
Any of these variants are accepted throughout the country.
When I was younger, I used to say aipim, as that is what is used in Rio, the city where my mother's side of the family is from. My grandma used to be the one to cook at home, and since she would be making it I learned of the vegetable from her, and learned it as aipim. As I got older, I started picking up on my dads slang and now call it mandioca. A big part of this being that in Massachusetts where I'm from, most Brazilian immigrants are from Minas Gerais, so many Portuguese speakers in Mass say mandioca rather than aipim or macaxeria.
The linked video is a clip from Big Brother Brazil and one of the cast members held up a cassava root and asked what the others called this. Interestingly enough, out of the 4 people, only 2 of the variants were mentioned, aipim and macaxeira, not mandioca, which is one of the most commonly used version. The next clip is then of another person, most likely a journalist for Globo, the Brazil broadcasting television, saying that there are many different cultures that make up our country and that is why there are so many variations for the word, and that one is not more correct than the other, because these differences is what makes the country so special and unique.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Saiba qual é o termo correto entre macaxeira, mandioca ou aipim

O BBB22, iniciado na segunda-feira (17), trouxe uma "polêmica" já nas primeiras horas de convivência dos participantes do programa. Nascidos em regiões diferentes do país, eles discordaram ao tentar definir qual o nome "correto" entre mandioca, macaxeira ou aipim. Especialistas ouvidos pelo g1 informaram que as três palavras são igualmente válidas (veja vídeo acima).

"Como é que chama isso aqui na cidade de vocês?", perguntou o cearense Vinicius segurando o alimento, que é um tubérculo (ou raiz tuberina). Quando outros participantes da edição deste ano do Big Brother Brasil responderam que o chamavam de aipim, a paraibana Eslovênia, que mora em Pernambuco, rebateu: "É macaxeira, minha gente!".

Participantes do BBB 22 discordam sobre nome 'correto' entre macaxeira, aipim e mandioca - Foto: Reprodução/TV Globo

O uso da palavra "macaxeira" é mais comum no Nordeste, enquanto o termo "aipim" é mais utilizado pelo Sudeste, e "mandioca" é usado com mais frequência no Sul, de acordo com a professora de redação Fernanda Bérgamo, que participa do Projeto Educação, da TV Globo, e é colunista da rádio CBN Recife.

"Isso tem a ver com a questão do regionalismo, com a característica de cada região. Essa variedade linguística é o que encanta na língua portuguesa, pois a gente vive em um país de dimensões continentais. O mais legal é que isso mostra que quem determina o uso da língua, de um termo ou de outro, é o seu usuário", afirmou Fernanda.

A professora considera importante o programa mostrar as diferenças que marcam a língua portuguesa falada no Brasil.

"Como o Big Brother Brasil é um assunto nacional, ter esse tipo de discussão no programa é muito interessante porque é uma forma de combater a comunicação violenta e o preconceito linguístico, pois leva as pessoas a refletirem que as diferenças não necessariamente precisam provocar desentendimentos ou rejeições", disse.

Macaxeira é consumida e chamada de formas diferentes no Brasil - Foto: Álvaro Gonçalves/Acervo pessoal

Embora seja conhecida como mandioca, aipim ou macaxeira, a depender da região do Brasil, o nome científico dessa espécie é um só: Manihot esculenta. Essa é uma planta nativa da América do Sul, de acordo com Álvaro Gonçalves, coordenador do Departamento de Agronomia da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco ( UFRPE).

"É uma planta nativa nossa. O Brasil é um dos centros de origem da mandioca, que já era uma cultivada aqui pelos índios antes da chegada dos europeus. Atualmente, os principais produtores são países africanos, sobretudo a Nigéria, mas o Brasil é um dos três maiores produtores mundiais", afirmou o professor.

Além da diferença de nomenclatura, ela é consumida de formas distintas no Brasil, segundo Álvaro.

"No Nordeste, a gente costuma consumi-la cozida ou na forma de farinha. No Sudeste e no Sul, não tem o consumo em forma de farinha, ela é mais consumida como caldo ou frita. O importante é que essa raiz é fonte de energia e serve como reposição energética, pois é rica em amido", explicou.

O pesquisador também contou que existem dois grupos de macaxeira: a mansa, com tempo de cultivo entre 5 e 7 meses, e a brava, que pode ser colhida entre 10 e 16 meses após o plantio.

Duração do plantio muda conforme os dois tipos de mandioca: mansa ou brava - Foto: Álvaro Gonçalves/Acervo pessoal

"A mandioca de mesa é a mansa, aquela que a gente consome in natura. E a brava é aquela que vai ser destinada ao processamento, à industrialização para confeccionar polvilho, farinha, goma", disse.

A diferença entre os dois grupos está no nível de ácido cianídrico (HCN) presente na raiz: se for abaixo de 50 mg/kg ou ppm (partes por milhão), a mandioca é mansa; se a quantidade for acima disso, a macaxeira é brava.

"Esse ácido se degrada em altas temperaturas. Por isso, a mandioca brava precisa ser torrada, submetida a altas temperaturas, para ser consumida", afirmou Álvaro.

Vídeos de PE mais assistidos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Macaxeira, mandioca ou aipim? Entenda 'polêmica' entre os participantes do BBB 22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Saiba qual é o termo correto entre macaxeira, mandioca ou aipim O BBB22, iniciado na segunda-feira (17), trouxe uma "polêmica" já nas primeiras horas de convivência dos participantes do programa. Nascidos em regiões diferentes do país, eles discordaram ao tentar definir qual o nome "correto" entre mandioca, macaxeira ou aipim.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The phrase "would of" seems to be coming more and more common. I have heard it used in a number of films and have also seen it used in print when the author is depicting direct speech. However, I was amazed to see it used outside of the direct speech context in a novel I am currently reading. I appreciate that "would've" could be heard as "would of" but the increasing use of this phrase is damning testimony to the malaise that afflicts our language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"would of" instead of "would have" or "would've"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The phrase "would of" seems to be coming more and more common. I have heard it used in a number of films and have also seen it used in print when the author is depicting direct speech. However, I was amazed to see it used outside of the direct speech context in a novel I am currently reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should have vs Should of - Lawless English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The phrase should have indicates a missed obligation or opportunity in the past. In informal speech, it is contracted to should’ve, not “should of.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pop quiz! What part of speech is the word ? (Slight pause while we wait for the reader to click on the link provided in the earlier sentence, or to sit there, smugly basking in the certainty of knowing the answer.)

The answer (which is not a trick answer) is that of is usually a preposition, but also may function as a verb, typically when used as a substitution for have, as in 'I could of written it correct, but wanted to see what you'd say if I didn't.' (Slightly longer pause while we wait for the reader to erupt with anger over this use, and over the fact that we enter this sense of of in our dictionary, and then again after reader cross-references several other dictionaries and finds that most of them also provide an entry for of as an auxiliary verb).

The reason for why of came to be used for have is that the latter word (and even more so its contracted form, seen in could've, should've, would've) is unstressed when spoken. There is very little phonetic difference between "I could've paid attention in English class" and "I could of paid attention in English class." The spoken version of this is far more common than the written one, but there is considerable evidence of both.

This use, it should be noted, is widely shunned by usage guides, schoolteachers, people who send you annoying articles on social media about the declining state of education today, and well-nigh everyone else. So why do we define it? Because of that considerable evidence mentioned in the last paragraph.

A scouting report written by Captain Isaac Beall during the Revolutionary War contains a couple of our earlier instances of the word used in this fashion, illustrating that of, while not terribly common in writing at that time, has been with us for well over two hundred years now.

I was inform'd by a Capt'n of Molitia that about Two Hundred would be Imbodyed by Mondy Nite a plenty of Good Pilets are amongs them-if I could of been join'd by a party of the Molitia which I apply'd for I would of attacted the body that lay in the English Nabourhood, I had not a guid nor could Get non tell the Next day.
-Isaac Beall, Letter to Adam Stephen, 20 Apr. 1777

The verb form of of begins to show up in print more often in the 19th century, generally when an author is attempting to replicate the speech of an uneducated person.

There lay the poor boy, dead enough: and all the doctors in Philadelphia couldn't of been of no manner of service, so there warn't any use in snivering and chafing.
-Jabez Rankin, Spirit of the Times, 26 Dec. 1840

Now, old fellow, you might of heard that we like to have got into a war with the British about some boundary or other.
- Portsmouth Journal of Literature and Politics, 5 Aug. 1843

The old man's heart promptly quailed. He stood dumfounded and forgot Mandy and the other man's wife in the face of his new foe. "If I'd of known it was you," he said, "I wouldn't of done it."
- The San Diego Union and Daily Bee, 3 Apr. 1893

The use appears to have been common enough that it was lampooned in an article in the late 19th century, along with questionable uses of the past tense of to do.

Possible past tense of verb done. Singular-I might, could, would or should of jest plumb done gone and done it.
- The State (Columbia, SC), 16 Jul. 1893

There are many examples of prominent authors in the 20th century using forms such as could of, typically when rendered as dialogue.

I could of ended marrying the boy, and moving, and being killed, I think, as a punishment ... I understand it.
-David Mamet, A Scene-Australia (from No One Will Be Immune), 1994

Sure, I could of let you die, but I didn't. Naw, I kept you with me-off and on.
-Langston Hughes, Soul Gone Home (in The Collected Works of Langston Hughes: Vol. 5), 2002

I don't know how you could of thought that when everybody knowed she's been married-and she had a son.
-James Baldwin, The Amen Corner, 1954

A lot of people cry. They could of heard it ... anywhere.
-Beth Henley, The Debutante Ball, 1991

The amount of written evidence produced over more than two centuries means that we are inclined to define a word, but it does not mean that we recommend that it be employed (unless, of course, it is for a desired effect). Our usage guide, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, addresses this matter in some detail and provides a stark assessment: "you had better avoid it in your own writing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is 'Could Of' an Accepted Form of 'Could Have'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pop quiz! What part of speech is the word ? (Slight pause while we wait for the reader to click on the link provided in the earlier sentence, or to sit there, smugly basking in the certainty of knowing the answer.)

# data[].attributes.headline
Entry #1: "should of" "would of" "could of"

# data[].attributes.subject
Entry #1: "should of" "would of" "could of"

# data[].attributes.body
Using the expression "would or should of" rather than "would've or should've" is one of the most commonly used incorrectly used expression. It's one I want to point out in other people because for a long time I used to think it was correct . I only stopped using it when I would get points taken off in my essays and it bothered me so much that I would be making such a sully mistake. "I would of rather have gone to Starbucks instead of Peets because I waited 15 minutes for my coffee." I mean when you read it out loud it's almost impossible to hear the difference since the "ve" sounds like "of" when said fluently in a sentence and that is probably how it originated. People hearing it said out loud and misunderstood and wrote of instead of have.
When looking these expressions up to learn more about them, I came across a blog page called "Pain in the English" where someone posted a blog/rant about the recent popularity of using of the phrase "would of" replacing "would have". the blogger mentions that she heard it frequently in film and is now even being written in books. They, like many other "grammar nazis" see this is as one example of people trying to ruin the language. I would say for those who do not use it, such as this blogger, there definitely is a negative connotation towards the people who use it and deem the users of the phrase "uneducated". I can see why this is a little annoying to some, not going as far as saying that they are the ones ruining the language because language always develops over time. Like we no longer use Shakespearean English or even the English that was used in the 50s. But, I don't see a point in people continuing to use it because it doesn't shorten anything, "of" and "ve" are the same amount of letters so it's not a shortcut, just a word that wasn't understood correctly.
Then next website I looked at, lawless english seems to be a website teaching those about the correct forms of grammar, most likely to those learning English or younger kids who are first learning rules. In this article, it states that even though "should of" is commonly used it is incorrect and "NEVER" typed in bold letters, be used. This seems to be a more unbiased article, teaching about the basic English grammar rules without sharing much input about how they really feel about it. It is juts about the actual correctness of the grammar being used, most likely for when someone is writing an essay to not get marked down for simple mistakes. But this just goes to show how even though it is addressed how it most likely came to be, which I explained earlier, it is just simply grammatically incorrect.
Merriam Webster is the third article I looked at and it goes into a lot more detail about the replacement of have with of. It says that this phrase was first seen in literature in the 19th century when authors would try to replicate the speech of uneducated people. This greatly proves that people still correlate using "should of" "would of" and "could of" with improper uneducated people.
In reading these articles I don't necessarily see anyone vouching for this and why it should be deemed correct, just that it is a very common misconception that people use and is only becoming more and more popular in literature, movies, and speech. This all definitely relates to the "standard language" and how if you don't speak exactly like that you are looked down upon and seen as uneducated.