IYKYK*: The Rapid Evolution of the Gen-Z Lexicon and Its Impact on the Legal Field

Introduction

Gen-Z may not know how to rewind a VHS tape, but they can easily explain the difference between a “stan” and a “simp.”² The Gen-Z lexicon³ may appear to those outside of the social circle as something out of a James Cameron movie, but in reality, Gen-Z’s language creation is part of a long-standing rite of passage inherent to every generation.⁴ Yet unlike preceding generations, Gen-Z is assisted by the prevalence of the internet and social media which enable them to engage in fast paced, constant connection with their peers.⁵ In fact, 97% of teenage Gen-Zers use the internet daily, and most—if not all—use some social media applications (“apps”) to connect with peers for both entertainment and information sharing.⁶ Adult Gen-Zers follow closely behind with 85% using the internet on a daily basis.⁷

The prevalence of technology assists in the rapid evolution of language since social media apps facilitate communication and normalize new language uses in a way that is difficult for outsiders to recognize.⁸ This process creates the risk that those unfamiliar with the terms used by Gen-Z may confuse or misinterpret a speaker’s intended meaning.⁹ For example, if an individual were to comment on a friend’s TikTok video, “that purse is snatched,” someone unfamiliar with the term may misinterpret that statement as a confession for shoplifting a purse.¹⁰ But, as the average Gen-Zer knows, “snatched” is used in the vernacular as an adjective to describe something that looks good or fashionable.¹¹

Such miscommunication creates a language barrier that may offer certain professions material for a punchline.¹² The Saturday Night Live skit Gen Z Hospital, for example, mocks the generation as a doctor tries to explain to a group of young people that their mom is “literally dead.”¹³ The punch line relies on the miscommunication between the Gen-Zers, who frequently use “literally dead” to express that they find something hilarious and are laughing, and the doctor, who uses the term to establish a patient’s physical condition.¹⁴ In the legal profession, however, the implications of Gen-Z’s lexicon are far more serious.¹⁵ Such a misunderstanding could result in significant consequences, such as wasting the court’s time,¹⁶ denying individuals their due process rights,¹⁷ and giving improper weight to critical evidence.¹⁸

This Note argues that Gen-Z creates and disseminates slang with a speed and ease unprecedented by preceding generations. Thus, the legal system faces a pressing quandary, where language may be outside the scope of the listener’s knowledge and difficult to accurately understand. Part I of this Note will establish the necessary background for understanding Gen-Z slang creation and the courts’ approaches to understanding slang. Part II will explain the importance of understanding slang in a tech-driven world that maintains records of colloquial statements. Part III will argue that the misinterpretation of Gen-Z slang largely stems from its borrowing from Black English and the systemic racism, which contributes to both unintentional and intentional misunderstandings. Part IV reviews three approaches to slang interpretation, and ultimately asserts corpus linguistics as the most appropriate approach for courts to adopt when seeking to understand Gen-Z slang.

I. Background

A. Spill the Tea¹⁹

Linguistics scholars may disagree on the precise definition of slang, but a common thread among definitions highlights the use of slang to reinforce individual and community identity.²⁰ Those on the outskirts of institutionalized power and facing social marginalization often coin phrases and vocabulary that becomes “a necessary key to unlock such [socially] gated communities.”²¹ Those creating new terms hold a position as the “in-group,” and can more easily identify other members of their community through their authentic slang use.²² Slang, therefore, simultaneously provides social affirmation of the speaker’s identity and a method for spotting outsiders who are out of the know.²³

Many forces contribute to an in-group’s creation of slang, but the influence of Black English—also referred to as “African American Vernacular English (AAVE)[]. . . African American Language, Ebonics, and Black Vernacular English”²⁴—plays a significant role in American culture and has been impacting language since the slavery era.²⁵ American slang users “continued to pick up and appropriate language from black culture, mostly for the coolness factor,” and much of Gen-Z slang finds its origins in Black English.²⁶ While Gen-Z continues to use these terms, knowing their origin provides a better understanding of the terms’ use and the reactions individuals may have to their use in social and legal interactions.²⁷

While slang may appear on the surface as a functional replacement for Standard English, only seeing slang for its semantic meaning ignores the social implications ingrained into its creation and use.²⁸ For instance, the phrase “throwing shade,” which originated in the LGBTQ+ community, implies a level of competition and imaginative slights towards one’s competitor.²⁹ The common simplification of using “throwing shade” to only refer to garden variety insults ignores the nuances of the term.³⁰ Truly understanding the meaning of slang terms requires an on-the-ground knowledge of the identity of the community and individuals who use the terms.³¹

The process through which young people use language also as an act of defiance and solidarity is a long-standing tradition.³² Whether someone would call it “cool,” “groovy,” or “lit,” each generation impacts the lexicon as an act of linguistic rebellion that redefines social interaction for their cohort.³³ Young people occupy a space outside the social power structure, creating the ideal conditions for linguistic creativity as a means of group solidarity.³⁴ While each iteration of generational slang offers a unique opportunity to subvert the power structure through linguistic liberalism, the tendency appears to decline as the generation ages.³⁵

Generational language creation responds to the circumstances in which it exists: groovy came into popularity in the 1960s as a backlash against the pervasive use of cool during the 1950s,³⁶ and students used quintessence during the 1990s to describe “everything from parades to pizza,” as a result of coming of age during the Persian Gulf War.³⁷ The longevity of slang terms, however, varies.³⁸ The slang term booze to describe alcohol, for example, remains popular today despite being coined in 1530.³⁹ Other slang terms may become so ingrained in popular usage that they are accepted in mainstream discourse.⁴⁰ The phrase OK originated from a joke by young people in the 1830s as an intentional misspelling of “all correct” as “Oll Korrect,” and the phrase was then shortened to just the first letters.⁴¹ Now, almost 200 years later, people of all ages still use the term.⁴²

Other slang terms come to popularity with a bang but go out with a whimper.⁴³ For example, the phrase on fleek, which functions as a way to describe something as stylish, has long been rejected from the Gen-Z zeitgeist, despite being coined as recently as 2014.⁴⁴ The rejection may be related to exploiters appropriating the language.⁴⁵ Corporations ranging from beauty brands to Domino’s, co-opted the term, contributing to its downfall in popularity.⁴⁶ Rereading Domino’s tweet from 2015, proclaiming “Domino’s is bae, pepperoni kisses on fleek,” is enough to make even the most stone-faced Gen-Zer cringe with secondhand embarrassment.⁴⁷ Commoditization by corporations is not the only way to kill a slang term; the use of the language by those out of the in-group appears sufficient, such as how Katie Couric asking adults like Dr. Phil “What’s Your YOLO?” marked the expiration date of the term with the teenage in-group.⁴⁸

The challenge then, is for those outside the in-group to accurately decode the language before it becomes too familiar among them and is abandoned by the in-group.⁴⁹ With a better understanding of slang comes a more robust picture of social interactions and the deeper meanings ingrained in informal communication, which play a pivotal role in a court of law.⁵⁰

B. It’s Giving⁵¹ Gen-Z

While identifying the cut-off for generational markers is not an exact science, the Pew Research Center defines Gen-Z as those born between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2012.⁵² In determining a meaningful distinction between Gen-Z and the preceding generation known as Millennials (born 1981–96), researchers considered political, economic, and social factors.⁵³ Factors impacting Gen-Z include the Great Recession, the creation of the U.S Department of Homeland Security, the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015.⁵⁴ Gen-Z shows the greatest diversity compared to all preceding generations in regard to racial and ethnic identity, gender identity, and sexual orientation.⁵⁵ These contributing factors impact the identity of Gen-Z as a group and, ergo, the slang they create.⁵⁶

The technology available to a generation also plays a pivotal role in shaping the group’s identity and communication style.⁵⁷ While Baby Boomers (born 1946–64) came of age with the television and Generation X (born 1965–80) witnessed the dawn of the internet, Gen-Z knows a world of iPhones, Wi-Fi, and social media.⁵⁸ This technology led to increased, fast-paced electronic communication that required language to adapt and function optimally in the virtual space.⁵⁹ Gen-Z’s language responds to online culture; they may express agreement by saying “retweet” to a statement or discussing how many likes they received on their Finsta (fake Instagram account).⁶⁰ The generation’s identity is inseparable from the technology that permeates their lives and their communication style generally reflects their proclivity for digital forms of communication.⁶¹

C. Say Less⁶²

Gen-Z’s near-constant online presence creates additional concerns for the admissibility of evidence that is easily available to law enforcement through social networking sites.⁶³ Perhaps the most notorious of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”)—and the thorn in the side of every 2L’s law school experience—are the rules governing hearsay.⁶⁴ The most fundamental building block to understanding hearsay begins with knowing that attorneys must present evidence through witness testimony in order to establish a fact.⁶⁵ While a witness may testify in regard to matters they observed, a potential hearsay issue may arise when the testifying witness discusses a statement made by another individual.⁶⁶ In order for something to qualify as a statement, it must be made by a person.⁶⁷ For example, a police dog trained to bark upon the discovery of narcotics may alert an officer to the possible presence of drugs.⁶⁸ If a trial follows and the officer is asked to testify as to why narcotics were suspected to be present, the bark does not qualify as hearsay because a dog is not a person, so the officer’s testimony regarding the bark can be admitted.⁶⁹

Additionally, in order to be a statement, the speaker must intend to convey something.⁷⁰ Imagine a law student, excited by the prospect of entering the profession, attempts to hang a poster of the Supreme Court Justices over their desk for inspiration, but in the process of hammering, misses the nail entirely and instead hits their thumb; overwhelmed by pain they scream out, “ow, that [expletive] hurt!”⁷¹ If the student’s roommate overhears the exclamation, the utterance would not be considered a statement because the hurt law student did not intend to convey anything by speaking.⁷² A statement includes both verbal and nonverbal communication, so long as the person making the statement intended to convey something.⁷³

After establishing that a communication is a statement, one can decipher whether it is hearsay by determining whether two conditions are present.⁷⁴ The first condition is whether the witness testified to a statement made outside of that specific courtroom and case.⁷⁵ Out-of-court statements create a problem for fact-finders (whether they be a judge or jury) because a fact-finder is unable to examine the demeanor of the quoted speaker, the quoted speaker never swore to tell the truth under oath, and the quoted speaker is not subject to cross-examination.⁷⁶ All of these are vital elements for a fact-finder to determine the credibility of the statement and how much weight to give it in their deliberations.⁷⁷

Second, it must be determined whether a party to the case seeks to admit the statement to establish the truth of what the speaker stated.⁷⁸ Lady Whistledown, the anonymous and seemingly omniscient gossip writer on the hit Netflix series Bridgerton, may proclaim that Nigel Berbrooke fathered an illegitimate child with his maid, but if the mother were to sue for child support, Whistledown’s statement would be inadmissible hearsay.⁷⁹ Whistledown’s statement cannot be used to establish the truth of Berbrooke’s paternity of the child because the statement was not made in court, under oath, nor in circumstances where the fact-finder could examine Lady Whistledown’s demeanor.⁸⁰

Exceptions exist that allow the admission of hearsay statements under certain conditions.⁸¹ A statement by a party to the case, offered as evidence by the opposing side, falls categorically outside the realm of hearsay—essentially the legal field’s way of saying “you said it, now eat it.”⁸² Returning once more to the Bridgerton Lord Berbrooke example, imagine that Berbrooke wrote a letter to Daphne Bridgerton admitting his paternity of the child and begging Daphne to still marry him.⁸³ If the letter were discovered by the mother’s attorney in a case for child support, the rules of hearsay would allow Berbrooke’s own words to be used as evidence against him.⁸⁴

The FRE applies to statements made in a virtual setting as much as it does to statements made in more traditional forms.⁸⁵ Gen-Z spends a significant amount of time online and communicating with peers virtually; a majority of Gen-Zers report spending more than four hours a day online and interacting weekly with peers through social media and text messaging.⁸⁶ While social media evidence must be authenticated under FRE 901 (meaning the account must be shown to belong to the attributed speaker), the rule “does not erect a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be cleared by circumstantial evidence.”⁸⁷ Statements properly attributed to the alleged speaker can fall outside the categorical definition of hearsay and be admissible in court.⁸⁸ Considering Gen-Z’s prevalent use of electronic communication, there exists an abundance of digitally stored information that can qualify under this hearsay exception and be introduced as evidence in court.⁸⁹

D. Courts Left Holding the Bag⁹⁰

Difficulty understanding language presented in evidence is not a new problem.⁹¹ One solution to overcome this difficulty is to allow parties to admit expert testimony, clarifying the meaning of such language.⁹² For example, the language used in drug-related transactions may be unclear, as in U.S. v. Hoffman, where wire-tapping the defendant’s telephone conversations led to evidence containing coded language for the sale and purchase of cocaine.⁹³ The language included terms like “six cases of wine,” “rock,” and “fluff,” which all linked back to the defendant’s drug conspiracy charge.⁹⁴

The First Circuit confirmed that the District Court properly allowed a Drug Enforcement Administration agent to clarify the meaning of these terms based on his specialized knowledge and experience from working narcotics cases.⁹⁵ Expert witnesses may rely on outside knowledge in their particular field of expertise to provide testimony on a subject—such as the agent in Hoffman—who explained that “six cases of wine” translates to six kilograms of cocaine based on his specialized training and many hours of fieldwork.⁹⁶

Where a witness cannot be established as an expert, they may still be allowed to offer opinion testimony if it is rationally based on their perception, aids the fact finder, and is not based on specialized knowledge.⁹⁷ In State v. Grant, the detective assigned to investigate a robbery obtained text messages exchanged between two defendants that were submitted as evidence at trial.⁹⁸ During the trial, the detective interpreted “IDK” as “I don’t know,” “SMH” as “shaking my head,” “strapped” as being “armed with a weapon” and “bread” as “money.”⁹⁹ The detective based his statement on eleven years of experience as a police officer.¹⁰⁰ The Superior Court of New Jersey found no abuse of judicial discretion in allowing the detective to give his opinion.¹⁰¹

Alternatively, some courts use dictionaries to determine the meaning of a word.¹⁰² The late United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) Justice Antonin Scalia—who frequently turned to dictionaries—argued that language “should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.”¹⁰³ Dictionaries allow judges or juries to establish a reasonable understanding of the intended meaning.¹⁰⁴ Recently, the courts have increased their dictionary use to ascertain the meanings of language.¹⁰⁵ In fact, SCOTUS’ dictionary use greatly increased near the turn of the twenty-first century, from citing the dictionary in only twenty-one opinions between 1900 to 1909 to relying on dictionary definitions in 225 opinions between 2000 to 2009.¹⁰⁶

Traditional dictionaries may not apply to every situation requiring clarity, especially where slang is involved.¹⁰⁷ Urban Dictionary, “a crowdsourced collection of slang words on the Internet,” provides courts with a new approach to a traditional solution.¹⁰⁸ The site includes over two million definitions for various words and phrases submitted by users.¹⁰⁹ Those who visit the site vote on the suggested definitions, a democratic approach intended to result in the most popular definition, accurately reflecting the way the term is used by speakers in everyday conversation.¹¹⁰

The Utah Supreme Court’s majority opinion in State v. Rosabout relied on Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary to determine what it meant for an individual to discharge a weapon, but Associate Chief Justice Lee’s concurrence suggested a newer approach—corpus linguistics.¹¹¹ In Rosabout, the Court contemplated whether the term “discharge” included all twelve times a firearm was fired or whether the firearm was discharged twelve different times.¹¹² Justice Lee used a pre-existing database, and found that only one of eighty-six instances of “discharge of a weapon that seemed consistent with the firing of multiple shots.”¹¹³ Justice Lee ultimately used this data to further support the holding of the majority, that the defendant discharged his weapon twelve separate times and could be tried and convicted for each separate instance.¹¹⁴

Corpus linguistics attempts to understand language through the speakers’ everyday usage by analyzing a corpus (body of texts) that provides data on the way people communicate.¹¹⁵ The body of text used in this process can potentially be collected from a wide variety of sources, ranging from published literature to Twitter feeds.¹¹⁶ Corpus linguistics then analyzes the frequency and trend usage of terms to extract relevant data.¹¹⁷ The data depends on collecting language that is naturally occurring and not artificially induced, thus offering a critical perspective by defining terms through the context and functionality assigned by the native speakers.¹¹⁸

These three methods of interpretation offer possible solutions to understanding Gen-Z slang in a court of law, a critical skill when colloquial statements play an influential role in the justice system.¹¹⁹

II. Importance

A. Don’t @ me¹²⁰

Gen-Z depends on social media for entertainment, product research, sharing content about themselves, and connecting with friends and followers.¹²¹ In response to the growing prevalence of social media use, law enforcement, prosecutors, and defense attorneys alike turn to these sources to gather information.¹²² A 2011 survey of 800 U.S. agencies revealed that 88% used social media to gather information.¹²³ Comparatively, a study in 2014 of 496 law enforcement agencies revealed that 86% were actively using social media in their investigations, and 78% of officers expected to increase their usage of social media.¹²⁴ While more recent studies of social media use by law enforcement remain scarce, an assumption can be drawn that as citizen use of social media increases, so will law enforcement’s use of it for investigations.¹²⁵

In the prosecution of the January 6^th insurrection participants, for example, seventy-one of the 119 cases involving federal charges relied on evidence collected from social media both for arrests and the trials themselves.¹²⁶ The insurrection may seem like an extreme example, but modern social norms have created an atmosphere of near-constant documentation, whether an individual is storming the capital or documenting the theft of a vehicle and subsequent joyride on their Snapchat story.¹²⁷ Social media may also provide valuable evidence in civil cases, by providing a basis for impeachment or supporting certain claims like infidelity or defamation.¹²⁸

While comments made online easily fall under the hearsay exception as statements made by a party opponent, the upward trend of using evidence from social media generates concerns over the legal field’s ability to adapt to fairly interpret the evidence.¹²⁹

B. Bestie Left No Crumbs¹³⁰

Outside of the United States, people are taking note and responding to the impact of slang on the law.¹³¹ In England, non-slang speakers had difficulty understanding the slang usage and could not articulate, for example, the difference between a “tum-tum” and “ching,” or “corn” and “gwop” (gun, knife, ammunition, and money respectively).¹³² As a result, both law enforcement and the courts are beginning to consult linguistic professors to decipher the language.¹³³ The London courts even added slang experts like Tony Thorne to their official list of foreign language translators.¹³⁴ In the Republic of Belarus, researchers are recognizing the dynamism of current slang and are attempting to “prepare a professionally-oriented dictionary of modern slang for use in the activities of law enforcement officers.”¹³⁵ This research is being conducted as a direct result of the recognition that there are no lexicographic resources for understanding slang despite the growing need for such support.¹³⁶ The problem of slang interpretation is far-reaching and, as these examples show, the problem merits discussion and the time needed to engender a solution.¹³⁷

Analysis

Each generation takes a shot at shaking up the lexicon.¹³⁸ Even William Shakespeare, whose works are now a staple of the standardized public school education curriculum, acted as a linguistic rebel during his time, employing unconventional peasant slang such as “overblown,” “watchdog,” and “dawn.”¹³⁹ While it may be true that the legal field has survived previous generations’ slang innovations, there has never been a generation quite like Gen-Z.¹⁴⁰ Where it took years for prior generations’ slang to spread, modern developments in technology enable current slang to rise to popularity, saturate the vernacular, and become obsolete at the speed of TikTok.¹⁴¹

For Gen-Z slang users, “social media has given speakers with Internet access an unparalleled substantive voice, affecting both the way language is used and the way it can be measured.”¹⁴² With a majority of the world online, people from various physical locations, social groups, and backgrounds can communicate and share ideas at a staggering rate.¹⁴³ Prior to this era of mass participation in the internet and social media, slang words had to take a much slower route to achieve popularity—word of mouth.¹⁴⁴ Even when a term could achieve popularity in a subculture, for the older generations, slang use was more likely to stay within the specific region.¹⁴⁵ Social media apps allow for far-reaching dissemination.¹⁴⁶ The language that once stayed within specific social circles now breaks out of the localized social groups and into the public spotlight with ease.¹⁴⁷ While the process of slang creation remains the same, the visibility of the language is reaching unparalleled heights.¹⁴⁸

III. Systematic Racism Is Entangled in the Misinterpretation of Gen-Z Slang

A lawyer, a federal agent, and a judge, are bamboozled by a Biggie Smalls lyric.¹⁴⁹ This may sound like the start of a cheesy joke, but it was the reality for the Eastern District of North Carolina in December of 2022.¹⁵⁰ During the presentation of a federal agent’s testimony, the judge questioned one government exhibit referencing a conversation by the defendant.¹⁵¹ The judge acknowledged the 308 twelve-gauge pigeons (type of firearm) mentioned in the conversation as genuine evidence of a “shopping list,” but then asked about the Biggie Smalls lyric “I got seven Mack 11s, about eight 38s, nine 9s.”¹⁵² The judge felt that the defendant was “just tossing a Biggie Smalls lyric into the chat” as opposed to describing further collectible evidence.¹⁵³ When the judge highlighted the lyric, neither the agent nor the lawyer recognized the lyric nor the rapper’s name.¹⁵⁴ After a quick lesson from the judge on Biggie Smalls, they realized they did not actually need to look for those listed firearms.¹⁵⁵ This case evolved from charges in August 2021 alleging a neo-Nazi terror cell’s conspiracy to manufacture and transport firearms.¹⁵⁶ Although the rest of the messages contained relevant evidence of the conspiracy, searching for the firearms described in the lyric and discussing the message in court wasted time and could have been greatly misleading had it not been for the judge’s keen observation.¹⁵⁷

Consider also Rachel Jeantel’s testimony against George Zimmerman in connection to the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2013.¹⁵⁸ Jeantel’s testimony contained heavy Black English use, which unfortunately resulted in her testimony being simultaneously misunderstood and discredited by the jury.¹⁵⁹ In one instance, the prosecution asked if Jeantel could tell who was yelling during the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, and she responded, “I could, an’ it was Trayvon” but the court transcript misinterpreted her answer as “I couldn’t know Trayvon.”¹⁶⁰ Jeantel testified for almost six hours but was largely discredited due to her manner of speaking.¹⁶¹ Jeantel was mocked, labeled as uneducated, and one juror described her testimony as “‘hard to understand’ and ‘not credible.’”¹⁶² In fact, no juror even mentioned Jeantel’s testimony during the sixteen-hour deliberation.¹⁶³ Jeantel was the prosecution’s star witness, so to have her lengthy testimony discredited due to the jury’s inability to understand her language displays a great injustice to Trayvon Martin and illustrates the court’s blindness to the impact of slang use on evidence.¹⁶⁴

In some instances, the courts’ blindness to this language problem appears willful.¹⁶⁵ The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a six-to-one decision, refused to hear an appeal from Warren N. Demesme who was denied a lawyer—or more precisely a “lawyer, dog.”¹⁶⁶ Judge Scott J. Crichton, writing a concurrence concerning the unexplained denial of appeal, stated that during questioning Demesme told detectives, “I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up” (emphasis added).¹⁶⁷ The concurrence described Demesme’s statement as ambiguous as to whether or not he requested a lawyer, so police were not required to pause the interview while Demesme obtained counsel.¹⁶⁸ The court misinterpreted Demesme’s use of “dog” as a literal dog, ignoring that “dog” functions as slang for “man, guy, fella, dude” and was an informal replacement to address the officer.¹⁶⁹ Demesme’s loss of legal rights was a consequence of the legal system’s failure to accept and understand his slang use.¹⁷⁰

A just legal system requires a reliable and accurate way for law enforcement, lawyers, and fact-finders to interpret slang.¹⁷¹ However, even though judges allow testimony interpreting foreign languages, American judges appear reluctant to allow testimony interpreting the meaning of unfamiliar English slang.¹⁷² As linguist John Baugh notes, “[l]awyers, judges, and foundations committed to social equality and justice seem almost completely uninformed about how ‘language can stand as a barrier to justice or equal opportunity.’”¹⁷³ Perhaps this behavior is because, as the examples above show, slang usage strongly relates to Black English use and Black culture.¹⁷⁴

By acknowledging the connection between Gen-Z slang and Black English, a fuller picture of the reasons for this misinterpretation comes into focus.¹⁷⁵ The racial diversity of Gen-Z far exceeds that of the previous generations and social media assists the racially diverse group to share language, rather than keeping the slang localized.¹⁷⁶ Additionally, Gen-Z influencers, who are largely responsible for shaping the virtual space, take language from Black English to use in their content.¹⁷⁷ The occurrence is so common that many terms touted as Gen-Z creations actually find their roots in Black English.¹⁷⁸

A longstanding comprehension barrier exists in the history of the court system for Black-identifying English speakers, which has resulted in mistranslation and misinterpretation.¹⁷⁹ The problem is so pervasive that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—despite sitting on the country’s highest court—went ten years without partaking in questioning during oral arguments out of worry that his Gullah dialect (a Creole language regional to Georgia and South Carolina) might cause confusion.¹⁸⁰

As previously highlighted in this Note, Gen-Z’s diversity greatly exceeds preceding generations.¹⁸¹ The dawn of social media has also broken down barriers that previously hindered the dissemination of language between individuals of different racial and ethnic groups.¹⁸² Under these circumstances, Gen-Z slang easily borrows, and in fact relies heavily on, Black English.¹⁸³ So while the issue of misinterpreting Gen-Z vernacular may impact Gen-Zers of all demographics, the problem arises as a symptom of the larger issue of systemic racism in the court system.¹⁸⁴

Comparatively, Craig v. Boren was part of a larger strategy to bring legal attention to inequality and oppression experienced by women, by bringing forth a Fourteenth Amendment case where young men could not purchase alcoholic beverages and young women could.¹⁸⁵ Craig v. Boren ended the courts’ ambivalence toward sex discrimination and established the unconstitutionality of sex-based restrictions by showcasing how the restrictions negatively impacted men.¹⁸⁶ Just as Craig v. Boren addressed a social issue through the lens of a dominant social group, the issue of slang misinterpretation will continue to be addressed in this Note as it relates to Gen-Z as a whole, with the understanding that the issue is entangled in the larger societal issue of systemic racism.¹⁸⁷ Expanding the discussion to all of Gen-Z shows how the misinterpretation of slang impacts individuals who occupy a more privileged socio-economic position in society.¹⁸⁸ Applying the issue to this group likely increases the visibility of the problem and the likelihood that the importance of accurate slang interpretations will become a focus of mainstream legal discourse.¹⁸⁹

IV. Corpus Linguistics Ought to be Used in Instances Where Courts Encounter Unfamiliar Slang

Courts have previously employed three approaches when dealing with unfamiliar language: explanations of the language through witness testimony, the use of dictionary definitions, and corpus linguistics (which examines naturally occurring language uses).¹⁹⁰ A close review reveals shortcomings in the ability of experts and dictionaries to interpret slang, while corpus linguistics provides a practical and reliable solution.¹⁹¹

A. Courts Should Be Reluctant to Accept Testimony Regarding the Meaning of Slang Where the Witness Exists Outside of the Linguistical “In-Group”

Issues arise when people outside of the in-group attempt to assert themselves in the language being used by everyday speakers.¹⁹² In 1992, The New York Times (“Times”) learned that lesson the hard way.¹⁹³ With bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam gaining mass popularity across the country, Times reporter Rick Marin started to work on an article detailing a grunge lexicon.¹⁹⁴> Unbeknownst to Marin, his source, Megan Jasper, a twenty-five-year-old sales representative for a record label, made up every word and definition during the interview.¹⁹⁵ Jasper later explained that throughout her interview with Marin she continued to escalate the absurdity of her answers, waiting for Marin to realize that he was being played—but he never did.¹⁹⁶ Jasper offered false slang such as “lamestain”, to refer to an uncool person, and “swingin’ on the flippity-flop,” to refer to hanging out with friends.¹⁹⁷ The Times, however, published Marin’s wildly inaccurate article.¹⁹⁸ The moral of the Times story: linguistic outsiders may have difficulty obtaining accurate information when attempting to play the role of translator.¹⁹⁹

A witness on the stand, defining a slang term, may easily repeat Marin’s blunder.²⁰⁰ While the witness may genuinely believe the source of their understanding is reliable, a linguistic outsider can never truly be certain.²⁰¹ In the comedy television series Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Sergeant Amy Santiago is thrilled to learn the new term “flope,” which she believes is a new way to call someone a loser.²⁰² When her colleagues doubt the accuracy of the term, she responds, “It’s new slang. People are saying it! The tween said so!”²⁰³ The audience, however, is well aware of the joke—the term is made-up nonsense.²⁰⁴ While humorous to see on television, Sergeant Santiago’s belief in her accurate knowledge of tween slang could have serious consequences if she took the witness stand in the real world.²⁰⁵ Yet, law enforcement currently testifies to slang meanings, with little follow-up to determine whether their interpretation is truly accurate, or if the interpretation contains an unintentional mistake like the interpretations by Marin or Santiago.²⁰⁶ Such lax oversight ignores the risk of shortcomings and creates a dangerous precedent where Gen-Z slang interpretation is required.²⁰⁷

Another concern with allowing law enforcement to testify to the meaning of slang is that their own involvement in the case may influence their interpretations.²⁰⁸ Fact-finders are expected to treat law enforcement testimony the same as any other witnesses’ testimony.²⁰⁹ However, unlike other witnesses, officers assigned to the case have an innate interest in its outcome.²¹⁰ Such interests may arise out of financial incentives, institutional pressure from other officers, or even the general competitive dynamic of law enforcement that generates feelings of validation and accomplishment when arrests lead to convictions.²¹¹ When an officer is asked to interpret the meaning of the evidence they used to make an arrest, the officer’s interpretation may conform to presupposed conclusions due to their professional interests in the outcome of the case.²¹² Since law enforcement testimony that interprets language is likely skewed toward prosecution-friendly conclusions, their testimony offers little assurance that the interpretation of valuable evidence is accurate.²¹³

Utilizing the testimony of a “slang expert” instead of a law enforcement officer still leaves room for doubt because these experts likely exist outside of the cultural group of native slang speakers.²¹⁴ Slang involves much more than mere words; it wraps itself in identity, emotions, and culture to create intricate nuances.²¹⁵ Even Tony Thorne, who is currently acting as a slang expert in the British courts, acknowledges that his status as an “‘elderly white guy’” places him outside of the social groups that commonly use the slang and creates “holes in his knowledge.”²¹⁶ While outsiders can study the use, these nuances will elude those who do not use the language themselves, leading to cringe-worthy moments and incomplete interpretations.²¹⁷

B. Courts Should Be Reluctant to Rely on Urban Dictionary Due to the Lack of Dependability on the Accuracy of the Definitions

Since the nature of legal proceedings puts the courts in near-constant contact with the public, courts tend to encounter new words before the dictionary can publish definitions for them.²¹⁸ Traditional dictionaries use a process in which they obtain language from “citation,” which is a “short extract from a text which provides evidence for a word, phrase, usage, or meaning in authentic use.”²¹⁹ This can create difficulty in defining slang since so much of its use occurs in verbal interactions.²²⁰ The process requires a tremendous amount of time, research, and subjective decision-making since the editors decide what words deserve to be included in the final publications.²²¹ Therefore, while traditional dictionaries can offer a point of reference for words that are more longstanding and regularly used in literary works, the tremendous amount of research and time that goes into creating a dictionary prevents them from being a viable source for quickly evolving slang.²²²

Urban Dictionary, at first glance, appears to be a practical solution to the shortcomings of traditional dictionaries.²²³ Since the real authority on the meaning of slang comes from the people who actually speak it, Urban Dictionary allows native slang speakers to define their own usage in real-time.²²⁴ This internet dictionary contains more than 2.3 million definitions, with thousands of new definitions proposed by visitors to the site each month.²²⁵ Some terms have a multitude of suggested definitions, but the creator of the site hoped to overcome this issue democratically.²²⁶ Users can vote for definitions, and the definitions are ranked by their popularity.²²⁷ However, there is no way to guarantee the highest-rated definition of a searched term accurately reflects the real meaning of the term, since this system allows people to easily submit inaccurate, made-up definitions that gain popularity simply because the definition is funny.²²⁸ In fact, Urban Dictionary’s own Terms of Service clearly state that the site “does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content.”²²⁹ Where the quality of the definitions cannot be guaranteed, fact-finders should not rely on Urban Dictionary and its artificial rating system.²³⁰

C. Courts Should Rely on Corpus Linguistics Because the Meaning of the Language Is Determined by Observing Native Speakers’ Natural Slang Use

The Gordian knot of slang interpretation may require a simpler cut.²³¹ Although social media platforms facilitated the creation of the issue by quickly disseminating slang, these sites also offer a solution.²³²> Sites like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook contain an expansive collection of naturally occurring language samples that are easily searchable by the average user.²³³ By treating social media sites as an informal corpus for linguistics, individuals can find the meaning of words present in evidence through a method that risks the lowest chance of inaccuracies and bias.²³⁴

Even without being a formalized corpus, social media sites operate as functionally equivalent resources.²³⁵ In an effort to show the possible use of Twitter as a corpus, Lauren Simpson used the site to mimic the linguistic effort of the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Canton.²³⁶ In Canton, the Court set out to determine whether the phrase “out of state” referred solely to the physical border or extended to the state’s political influence.²³⁷ The Court ultimately concluded that the phrase referred to the physical territory.²³⁸ Simpson searched the phrase on Twitter, limiting her results to the same month that the Canton Court ran a Google search of the term.²³⁹ Examining the use of the term on Twitter yielded similar results to the Canton Court’s conclusion: Twitter users overwhelmingly employed the term “out of state” to refer to being outside of the territory.²⁴⁰

Some legal scholars may scoff at the viability of such an approach, but corpora-containing slang collected from these sites is already being brought into creation by linguistic scholars, thus validating the use of social media to collect this type of data.²⁴¹ For example, Oxford professor Sarah Ogilvie and her team started work on an “iGen Corpus,” creating a bank of Gen-Z language from sources including social media.²⁴² In creating the corpus, Ogilvie’s team aimed to understand Gen-Z’s language, mindset, attitudes, and values, in the generation’s own words.²⁴³ The corpus contains over seventy million words and will be published for public use upon completion of the teams’ research.²⁴⁴

Where slang generally remains excluded from standard dictionaries, social media innately maintains a constantly updating catalog.²⁴⁵ Additionally, those outside the linguistical in-groups can examine the language without the risk of corrupting the sample with their presence.²⁴⁶ The covert surveillance protects the individuals searching for definitions against being purposely misled like New York Times reporter Rick Marin or television sergeant Amy Santiago.²⁴⁷ It also protects the language sample from being disingenuous if the slang user knows they are being observed, such as how humorous definitions are suggested and upvoted on Urban Dictionary.²⁴⁸ Therefore, this approach overcomes the issues that using witnesses and Urban Dictionary creates.²⁴⁹ The lack of known observation also makes the language far more likely to be accurate because the native slang speakers are in their own environment—without the influence of someone from outside the in-group, whose presence may cause the speakers to unintentionally change their language use.²⁵⁰ Social media is a pre-existing, free resource that naturally maps the everyday language use of native slang speakers, and the legal system should utilize it to better their understanding of where their own knowledge falls short.²⁵¹

Conclusion

OK Boomer,²⁵² story time.²⁵³ Gen-Z, like the generations before it, has responded to the era in which it exists while reinvigorating the lexicon.²⁵⁴ The technology available, however, has significantly altered this generational rite of passage by significantly increasing the speed at which the dissemination occurs and by encouraging slang use to expand beyond localized social groups to become more far-reaching.²⁵⁵ While this current linguistic renaissance displays the exciting potential for the evolution of how people in society communicate and share knowledge, it also creates a genuine concern that the legal field will have difficulty overcoming the language barrier.²⁵⁶ The disregard of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony against George Zimmerman in 2013 and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s creation of the mythical “lawyer dog” represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of slang.²⁵⁷

Courts have previously turned to dictionaries and witness testimony when interpreting unfamiliar language.²⁵⁸ However, these methods lack consistent accuracy when it comes to slang.²⁵⁹ Social media, however, overcomes this concern by cataloging the everyday use of these terms by native slang speakers.²⁶⁰ Those unfamiliar with certain terms can scan through social media like a slang archive and use the context to establish meaning.²⁶¹ The legal field would greatly benefit from utilizing social media as an informal corpus for interpreting slang.²⁶² As Gen-Z would say, that’s facts²⁶³ no cap.²⁶⁴

1
Ellen Gutoskey, 15 Gen Z Slang Terms You Should Lowkey Know, Mental Floss (Mar. 10, 2023, 5:42 PM EST), https://perma.cc/M3KZ-RHB9 (defining IYKYK as “if you know you know,” which is used to describe content shared without additional context).
2
Id. (explaining the meaning of stan as an obsessive or dedicated fan and a simp as a man who is emotionally submissive and attentive to his romantic partners).
3
Lexicon, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/7MC9-94UC (last updated Aug. 6, 2024) (defining lexicon as the vocabulary of a specific group of people).
4
See Jonathon Green, Slang: A Very Short Introduction 69 (2016).
5
See Emily A. Vogels et al., Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Aug. 10, 2022), https://perma.cc/KLX9-5NQH.
6
Id.
7
Andrew Perrin & Sara Atske, About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Say They Are ‘Almost Constantly’ Online, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Mar. 26, 2021), https://perma.cc/TW5S-9573.
8
Nicole Holliday & Ben Zimmer, Linguists Explain Slang Trends Through History, Wired (July 12, 2022), https://perma.cc/92B6-Z5N5.
9
E.g., Jimmy Rees (@jimmyrees), Gen Z vs. Millennial Gen X vs. Boomer, TikTok (Oct. 17, 2022), https://perma.cc/9BDK-RXWL.
10
Compare Snatch, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/JQ4C-W2RR (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “snatched” as seizing something), with Snatched, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/6M9Y-63HX (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “snatched” as fashionable).
11
Snatched, supra note 10.
12
See, e.g., Saturday Night Live, Gen Z Hospital, YouTube (May 9, 2021), https://perma.cc/4WYU-ETWZ.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
See, e.g., Dennis Baron, Miranda and the Louisiana Lawyer Dog: A Case of Talking While Black, The Web of Language (Nov. 4, 2017, 10:00 AM), https://perma.cc/NQ7P-YG2X; Mason McMillan, Judges Be Trippin: A Legal Analysis of Black English in the Courtroom, 57 Tulsa L. Rev. 451, 464–475 (2022); John Rickford & Sharese King, Language and Linguistics on Trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and Other Vernacular Speakers) in the Courtroom and Beyond, 92 Linguistic Soc’y of Am. 948, 950 (2016)
16
See e.g., rebmasellea1, TikTok (July 27, 2023), https://perma.cc/V59Z-VYX8 (showing an example of the Court’s time being wasted by discussing non-existent firearms).
17
E.g., Baron, supra note 15.
18
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950.
19
Spill the Tea, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/FE3Y-JTUV (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “spill the tea” as sharing particularly interesting gossip).
20
Connie Eble, Slang and Sociability 11 (1996).
21
Green, supra note 4, at 60.
22
See Green, supra note 4, at 59.
23
Katy Steinmetz, Why Slang Is More Revealing than You May Realize, Time (Dec. 12, 2018, 4:59 PM EST) https://perma.cc/5TUW-J3KG.
24
McMillan, supra note 15, at 453.
25
Constance Grady, How “On Fleek” Went from a 16-Year-Old’s Vine to the Denny’s Twitter Account, Vox (Mar. 28, 2017, 10:40 AM EDT), https://perma.cc/32MB-YQLD.
26
Id.
27
See Axis, Is it Gen Z Slang or AAVE?, Axis (May 17, 2021), https://perma.cc/WW7B-VVRS.
28
James Slotta, Slang and the Semantic Sense of Identity, 59 Tex. Linguistics F. 119, 120 (2016).
29
See Id. at 125.
30
Id.
31
See Eble, supra note 20, at 12.
32
See Green, supra note 4, at 69.
33
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
34
See Eble, supra note 20, at 18; Green, supra note 4, at 68.
35
See Thomas Moore Devlin, Talkin’ ‘Bout the Generations: Gen Z Language, Babbel Mag. (Nov. 4, 2021), https://perma.cc/6MKL-9WWD.
36
Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
37
Eble, supra note 20, at 20.
38
See generally Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
39
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
40
See Ellen Allerton, Is OK the Old OMG? How Teenage Slang Takes over the World, Goodness Exch. (March 24, 2021), https://perma.cc/6A6G-9S42.
41
Id.
42
See id.
43
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
44
Grady, supra note 25; see Devlin, supra note 35.
45
See Grady, supra note 25.
46
See Grady, supra note 25.
47
Grady, supra note 25.
48
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
49
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
50
See Slotta, supra note 28, at 120.
51
It’s Giving, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/SP4S-JLGT (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (providing a definition of “it’s giving” as the air or vibe that something or someone gives off).
52
Michael Dimock, Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Jan. 17, 2019), https://perma.cc/B6SD-UEGS.
53
Id.
54
Alison Eldridge, Generation Z, Britannica, https://perma.cc/RNA3-SL5Y (last updated Sept. 16, 2024).
55
Id.
56
See id.
57
See id.
58
See id.
59
Laila Al-Sharqi & Irum Saeed Abbasi, The Influence of Technology on English Language and Literature, 13 Eng. Language Teaching 1, 2 (2020).
60
See id.
61
See Branka Vuleta, Generation Z Statistics, 99 Firms, https://perma.cc/ZE5V-2TXP (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
62
Say Less, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/658P-W8SW (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “say less” as something fully and clearly understood).
63
See The Police & Prosecutors 💖 Social Media, Cafferty & Scheidegger, https://perma.cc/DCR3-HF3E (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
64
See generally Fed. R. Evid. 801; Fed. R. Evid.. 803; Fed. R. Evid. 804.
65
US Law Essentials, What is Hearsay?, Youtube (Aug. 9, 2014), https://perma.cc/JFV6-USJP.
66
Id.
67
Fed. R. Evid. 801.
68
See generally id.
69
See generally id.
70
Id.
71
See generally id.
72
See generally id. (“‘Statement’ means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.”).
73
Fed. R. Evid. 801.
74
See US Law Essentials, supra note 65.
75
See Fed. R. Evid. 801.
76
See generally Jarrett Stone, A Guide to Hearsay + Meaning, Definition, Overview, Law Venture, https://perma.cc/S62A-QCXA (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
77
See US Law Essentials, supra note 65.
78
Fed. R. Evid. 801.
79
See generally Bridgerton: Shock and Delight (Netflix television broadcast Dec. 25, 2020).
80
See generally id.
81
See Fed. R. Evid. 801; Fed. R. Evid. 803; Fed. R. Evid. 804.
82
See Fed. R. Evid. 801.
83
See generally Bridgerton, supra note 79.
84
Fed. R. Evid. 801. See generally Bridgerton, supra note 79.
85
Megan Uncel, Comment, “Facebook Is Now Friends with the Court”: Current Federal Rules and Social Media Evidence, 52 Jurimetrics J. 43, 44 (2011).
86
Ellyn Briggs, Gen Z is Extremely Online, Morning Consult (Dec. 12, 2022, 5:00 AM EST), https://perma.cc/R7WS-P84G.
87
U.S. v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 37 (2d Cir. 2004).
88
See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
89
See id.
90
Be Left Holding the Bag, Collins Dictionary, https://perma.cc/P7UK-7UM2 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “be left holding the bag” as being the one responsible for something because others do not take responsibility).
91
See, e.g., U.S. v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1310 (1st Cir. 1987); State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258, 1262 (Utah 2015).
92
See Hoffman, 832 F.2d at 1299.
93
Id. at 1309.
94
Id. at 1310.
95
Id.
96
Fed. R. Evid. 703; 832 F.2d at 1310.
97
Fed. R. Evid. 701.
98
State v. Grant, No. A-5470-13T4, A-0421-15T3, 2017 WL 968884, at *4, *7 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 13, 2017).
99
Id. at *17.
100
Id. at *7.
101
Id.
102
Phillip A. Rubin, War of the Words: How Courts Can Use Dictionaries in Accordance with Textualist Principles, 60 Duke L.J. 167, 168 (2010).
103
Id. at 171 (emphasis omitted).
104
See id. at 169–70.
105
See id. at 169.
106
Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier & Samuel A. Thumma, Scaling the Lexicon Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in the Twenty-First Century, 94 Marq. L. Rev. 77, 85 (2010).
107
See Leslie Kaufman, For the Word on the Street, Courts Call Up an Online Witness, N.Y. Times (May 20, 2013), https://perma.cc/QSU3-QE46.
108
Id.
109
See id.
110
Id.
111
John S. Ehrett, Against Corpus Linguistics, 108 Geo. L.J. Online 50, 59 (2019).
112
See State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258, 1271 (Utah 2015) (Lee, A.C.J., concurring in part).
113
Id. at 1282 (Lee, A.C.J., concurring in part).
114
Id. at 1271 (Lee, A.C.J., concurring in part).
115
Lauren Simpson, Comment, #OrdinaryMeaning: Using Twitter as a Corpus in Statutory Analysis, 2017 BYU L. Rev. 487, 487.
116
See generally id. at 487–88.
117
Ehrett, supra note 111, at 61–62.
118
The Federalist Society, What is Corpus Linguistics? [No. 86], YouTube (May 26, 2020), https://perma.cc/L3B8-AVP4.
119
See e.g., U.S. v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1302 (1st Cir. 1987); State v. Grant, No. A-5470-13T4, A-0421-15T3, 2017 WL 968884, at *7 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 13, 2017); Kaufman, supra note 107; Simpson, supra note 115, at 487–88.
120
Don’t @ Me, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/5RWW-4G38 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (explaining that “don’t at me” means to not mention the person in the relevant context).
121
Josh Howarth, 25+ New Generation Z Statistics (2024), Exploding Topics (Dec. 4, 2023), https://perma.cc/M5KW-QKVL.
122
See Thomas F. Harrison, Massachusetts High Court Expands Social Media Privacy Rights, Courthouse News Serv. (Feb. 7, 2022), https://perma.cc/BS37-3QJX.
123
Madison Tucker, Understanding How Law Enforcement Use Social Media Sites, 4 (Mar. 2021) (unpublished research), https://perma.cc/RA6A-VNKK.
124
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Law Enforcement’s Usage of Social Media for Investigations Infographic (illustration), in LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Social Media Use in Law Enforcement, LexisNexis (Nov. 2014), https://perma.cc/D7YF-NZZ2.
125
See Rachel Axon & Katie Wedell, ‘Pics or it Didn’t Happen’: Experts Explain Why Capitol Rioters Posted Incrimination Videos and Selfies, USA Today, https://perma.cc/86CV-ZCKV (last updated Jan. 25, 2021, 12:54 PM ET).
126
Id.
127
See, e.g., Gray Hughes, Police: Man Arrested After Snapchatting Vehicle Theft, Delmarva Now, https://perma.cc/VE63-S9T6 (last updated July 19, 2016, 3:28 PM ET).
128
Rachel Halpern, Social Media in Civil Law, Columbia Undergraduate L. Rev. (Nov. 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/9BXM-TCMU.
129
See Fed. R. Evid. 801.
130
Ate and Left No Crumbs, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/T2SP-7BX4 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “ate and left no crumbs” as someone who did something very well).
131
See, e.g., Robert Booth, ‘Ching, Wap, Ox’: Slang Interpreters Decipher Texts for Court Evidence, The Guardian (Mar. 29, 2019, 8:36 AM EDT), https://perma.cc/R9LU-Y9XL.
132
See id.
133
Id.
134
Id.
135
Venidictov S. & Ivanov E., Youth Slang as a Result of Media Consumption, 11 Frontiers of Printing 6, 9 (2022).
136
Id. at 6.
137
See id. at 9; Booth, supra note 131.
138
See Green, supra note 4, at 68.
139
Dillon Thompson, Is the Internet Changing How We Talk About Slang Words?, In The Know (May 16, 2022), https://perma.cc/6MJB-79DK.
140
See Eldridge, supra note 54.
141
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
142
Simpson, supra note 115, at 487.
143
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
144
D.W. Maurer, Slang, Britannica, https://perma.cc/DV5T-J6RU (last updated July 21, 2023).
145
See, e.g., Adrienne LaFrance, Teens Aren’t Ruining Language, The Atlantic (Jan. 27, 2016) https://perma.cc/N66R-SZVM (discussing how the use of “budge” to refer to something cheap was mainly used by high schoolers in the Philadelphia area).
146
Id.
147
Thompson, supra note 139.
148
Thompson, supra note 139.
149
See Chris Williams, The Undisputed Illest Makes a Guest Appearance in Court. Hilarity Ensues, Above The L. (Dec. 8, 2022, 6:30 PM), https://perma.cc/JDD3-LPTG.
150
See id.
151
rebmasellea1, supra note 16.
152
rebmasellea1, supra note 16.
153
rebmasellea1, supra note 16.
154
rebmasellea1, supra note 16.
155
Williams, supra note 149.
156
Jordan Green, Cop Among First to Squeal When Neo-Nazi Terror Cell Busted for Plot to Attack the Power Grid, Raw Story (Mar. 22, 2022, 6:22 AM ET), https://perma.cc/X5LB-5KHJ.
157
See id.
158
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
159
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
160
Taylor Gordon, Did the Judicial System’s Prejudice Against Certain Dialects Allow George Zimmerman to Walk Free?, Atlanta Black Star (Dec. 3, 2014), https://perma.cc/4SHJ-BF2K.
161
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
162
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
163
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
164
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950
165
See Baron, supra note 15.
166
Baron, supra note 15.
167
State v. Demesme, 228 So. 3d 1206, 1206–07 (La. 2017) (Crichton, J., concurring).
168
Id.
169
Baron, supra note 15.
170
Baron, supra note 15.
171
See Venidictov & Ivanov, supra note 135, at 9.
172
Compare Peter Tiersma & Lawrence Solan, The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts, 78 Linguistic Soc’y of Am. 221, 226 (2002), with Booth, supra note 131.
173
Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 951.
174
See Grady, supra note 25.
175
See Samantha Chery, Black English Is Being Misidentified as Gen Z Lingo, Speakers Say, Wash. Post (Aug. 17, 2022, 9:17 AM EDT), https://perma.cc/67CM-XV2F; McMillan, supra note 15, at 464–75.
176
Eldridge, supra note 54; Thompson, supra note 139.
177
Chery, supra note 175.
178
Chery, supra note 175.
179
See McMillan, supra note 15, at 464–75.
180
Jeff Nesbit, The Real Reason Clarence Thomas Rarely Speaks, U.S. News (Mar. 30, 2016 12:01 AM), https://perma.cc/4HAC-DRAU.
181
Eldridge, supra note 54.
182
See Eldridge, supra note 54.
183
See Grady, supra note 25.
184
See McMillan, supra note 15, at 464–75.
185
Elizabeth M. Schneider et al., Two Decades of Intermediate Scrutiny: Evaluating Equal Protection for Women Centennial Panel, 6 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 1, 1–2 (1997)
186
429 U.S. 190, 204 (1976).
187
See id.
188
Cf. id. at 200–04 (using males, considered the dominant social group, to illustrate inequality).
189
Cf. id. (holding that young men were “invidiously discriminated” against which lead to recognizing inequality experienced by women).
190
See, e.g., United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1309–10 (1st Cir. 1987); State v. Grant, No. A–5470–13T4, 2017 WL 968884, at *7 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 13, 2017); Kaufman, supra note 107; Simpson, supra note 115 at 487–89.
191
See Vida B. Johnson, Bias in Blue: Instructing Jurors to Consider the Testimony of Police Officer Witnesses with Caution, 44 Pepp. L. Rev. 245, 252 (2017); Booth, supra note 131; Kaufman, supra note 107.
192
See, e.g., Alan Siegel, When Grunge Was Fake News, The Ringer (Nov. 8, 2017, 10:30 AM EST) https://perma.cc/VU55-5M24.
193
Id.
194
Id.
195
Id.
196
Id.
197
Id.
198
Siegel, supra note 192.
199
See generally Siegel, supra note 192 (providing example of a linguistic outsider receiving inaccurate information from an insider).
200
See Siegel, supra note 192.
201
See Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Pimemento (NBC television broadcast Feb. 13, 2020).
202
Id.
203
Id.
204
See id.
205
See id.
206
See Siegel, supra note 192; Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Pimemento, supra note 201.
207
See, e.g., Siegel, supra note 192; Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Pimemento, supra note 201.
208
Johnson, supra note 191, at 249–52.
209
Johnson, supra note 191, at 248.
210
See Johnson, supra note 191, at 249.
211
Johnson, supra note 191, at 252.
212
See Johnson, supra note 191, at 252, 292 (“Involvement in the investigation and the investigative institution—the police department—may lead to tunnel vision and confirmation bias.”).
213
See Johnson, supra note 191, at 252.
214
See, e.g., Booth, supra note 131.
215
See Steinmetz, supra note 23.
216
Booth, supra note 131.
217
See, e.g., Xiono, I’m Just Chillin’ in Cedar Rapids, YouTube (June 9, 2016), https://perma.cc/263E-SRHD (displaying Hillary Clinton’s now infamous video of her saying “I’m just chillin’ in Cedar Rapids”).
218
Talk of the Nation: Why Urban Dictionary Comes in Handy on the Witness Stand (NPR broadcast May 22, 2013) (transcript and audio at https://perma.cc/37ZU-CMS7).
219
Rubin, supra note 102, at 178 (internal quotes omitted)
220
See Rubin, supra note 102, at 180.
221
Rubin, supra note 102, at 181–82.
222
See Rubin, supra note 102, at 178.
223
See Kaufman, supra note 107.
224
See Kaufman, supra note 107.
225
Kaufman, supra note 107.
226
Kaufman, supra note 107.
227
Kaufman, supra note 107.
228
See Talk of the Nation: Why Urban Dictionary Comes in Handy on the Witness Stand, supra note 218.
229
Terms of Service, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/EZ55-WTU5 (last updated Jan. 2024).
230
See Talk of the Nation: Why Urban Dictionary Comes in Handy on the Witness Stand, supra note 218.
231
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
232
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
233
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 504.
234
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
235
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
236
Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
237
Simpson, supra note 115, at 496.
238
Simpson, supra note 115, at 496.
239
Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
240
Simpson, supra note 115, at 510–11.
241
See Killian Fox, Dr Sarah Ogilvie: ‘Generation Z are Savvy—But I Don’t Get All Their Memes’, The Guardian, https://perma.cc/76EE-28DK (last modified Nov. 22, 2021).
242
Id.
243
Id.
244
Oxford University, iGen Language, Dictionary Lab, https://perma.cc/Y3UH-4A29 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
245
Thompson, supra note 139.
246
Thompson, supra note 139.
247
See Siegel, supra note 192; Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Pimemento, supra note 201.
248
See Talk of the Nation: Why Urban Dictionary Comes in Handy on the Witness Stand, supra note 218.
249
See Talk of the Nation: Why Urban Dictionary Comes in Handy on the Witness Stand, supra note 218.
250
Kenneth Baclawski, The Observer Effect, IEEE Conf. on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Mgmt (June 2018) (unpublished paper), https://perma.cc/TYP3-NN3F (“The observer effect also occurs in sociolinguistic research. The problem is that subjects may modify their behavior when a field worker is attempting to capture linguistic speech patterns. When attempting to observe the daily vernacular of a language, the speaker is aware that their speech is being used for scholarly research, and as a result may adopt a more formal pattern of speech.”)
251
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
252
Aja Romano, “OK Boomer” Isn’t Just About the Past. It’s About Our Apocalyptic Future, Vox (Nov. 19, 2019, 10:00 AM EST), https://perma.cc/E9RJ-XXV6 (describing how OK Boomer is used as a pithy response to the dismissal of important social, political, and economic issues).
253
Katie Louise Smith, Why is Everyone Saying Crop and Story Time on TikTok? The Comments Explained, Pop Buzz (Mar. 31, 2022, 11:47), https://perma.cc/4J5C-USXE (describing the phrase story time as a way to request more information on something that happened).
254
See Green, supra note 4, at 68.
255
See Holliday & Zimmer, supra note 8.
256
See Baron, supra note 15; Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 950.
257
See Baron, supra note 15; Rickford & King, supra note 15, at 949–50.
258
See, e.g., U.S. v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1309–10 (1st Cir. 1987); State v. Grant, No. A-0421-15T3, 2017 WL 968884, at *7 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 13, 2017); Kaufman, supra note 107; Simpson, supra note 115, at 487–88.
259
See Booth, supra note 131; Johnson, supra note 191, at 252; Kaufman, supra note 107.
260
See Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
261
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
262
See, e.g., Simpson, supra note 115, at 510.
263
Facts, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/XE82-MK65 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “facts” as something unmistakably true).
264
No Cap, Urb. Dictionary, https://perma.cc/H79Z-2FTZ (last visited Sept. 16, 2024) (defining “no cap” as a way to indicate that a statement is not a lie).

Alyssa Zduniak

J.D. New England Law | Boston (2024)

Tagged in :

Generation Z, Language, race, Supreme Court, Teenagers, United States