Tiktok and Gen Z Slang:The Functions and Its Effects on English Language Proficiency

The widespread use of social media platforms has significantly influenced the way Gen Z communicates, specifically new slang expressions. The focus of this study was to determine the functions of TikTok-derived Gen Z slang and its impact on the English language proficiency of LG240 students in Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam. The research aimed to find out which of the slang terms were more commonly used based on Callahan’s Generation Z Dictionary (Lihawa et al., 2021) and to investigate the functions of Gen Z slang in students’ daily communication based on the theory of Allan and Burridge (2006). Therefore, a mixed method approach was used in this study. The quantitative data from the questionnaires were complemented with qualitative content analysis to elicit rich data. The findings indicated that Gen Z slang can be used as a powerful tool for casual and expressive communication. It was recommended that future research should also be extended to establish how the utilisation of Gen Z slang affected the professional writing proficiency of university students, especially in internship, employment application, and organisational interactions, because it could also establish the perception of employers and the possibility of the need for remedial training to reduce communication gaps.

English language proficiency, Gen Z slang, language function, Tiktok communication

1. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Coleman, J. (2012). The Life of Slang. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eble, C. (1996). Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language Among College Students. University of North Carolina Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative Methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hajare, R. A. (2023). Slang Language and Generation 'Z': A Sociolinguistic Study. International Journal of Current Science, 13(1), 739-743. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lailatunnihayah, L., Hasanudin, C., & Rohman, N. (2023). Analisis Bentuk Frasa pada Kumpulan Cerpen Surat yang Dikirim Lewat Angin Karya Hari B. Mardikantoro. Journal of Literature and Education, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lihawa, K., Mukaji, M., Malingkas, S. R., & Fatsah, H. (2021). Word formation process of Gen Z slang in Callahan's Generation Z dictionary. Universitas Negeri Gorontalo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ponto, Julie. (2015). Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research. Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology. 6. 168-171. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Syafa’ah, L. A., & Haryanto, S. (2023). Slang semantic analysis on TikTok social media Generation Z. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Tagg, C. (2012). Exploring the language of social media: Identity and community. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Tufail, S., Asgher, M., & Ali, I. (2024). Deciphering the digital vernacular: A study of Generation Z slang on social media platforms. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 8(2), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2024(8-II)75 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study