Linguistic Anthropology and TV’s ‘Friends’
Posted by Tad McIlwraith on September 8th, 2005 filed in Class Discussions, Linguistic Anthropology
My students will be amused by a study in the journal American Speech where a linguistic anthropology student at the University of Toronto watched all episodes of the first eight seasons of Friends to try and understand the speech patterns of the characters on the show. Then, conclusions were drawn about the impact of the spoken language on the show and English spoken in the United States.
The research and its results are described in this article in the Chicago Tribune.
From the article:
Sphere: Related ContentThe study for American Speech focuses on intensifiers that accompany adjectives, as in “really hot” and “so happy.” Roberts [the student] documented every adjective uttered on “Friends” through 2002. He found that about one out of every five adjectives appeared with an intensifier …
The “Friends” data turned out to be different [from British English] — so different. On “Friends,” the word “so” made up 45 percent of all intensifiers, followed by “really” at 25 percent, “very” at 15 percent, “pretty” at 6 percent and “totally” at 2 percent.
This suggests that “so” is on the rise in American English, Tagliamonte [Roberts's supervisor] says.
“I think the movement is towards a new intensifier,” Tagliamonte says. “Either the `Friends’ actors pushed it, or maybe they just picked up on it in vernacular culture and used it. This is just speculation. If they can influence how everybody wore their hair, why not intensifiers?”
Tagliamonte cautions against the simplistic conclusion that “Friends” or any television show leads to copycat language use. Linguists have consistently found that although people may watch the same television shows, they still retain their regional ways of speaking, especially their pronunciation. But Tagliamonte says linguists need to take a new look at whether the media affect our grammar — in this case, our intensifiers.
October 5th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Wow. I never would have thought of that, although it seems obvious now to look at a popular television show for examples of how language is changing.
Intensifiers have got to be my favourite words. I think exaggeration is hilarious and I use as many and as varied intensifiers that I can come up with at any given time. Why describe something as “good” when you can describe it as “Spectacularly good”. In my opinion the longer the word the better….needless to say, I avoid “So” at all costs.
The best is using huge intensifiers on adjectives for mediocrity. For instance, a friend of mine often describes things as “Pretty alright”. Something like “Wow, that movie was amazingly okay” always tickles my funny bone.
Basically I’m just glad to hear that Linguistic Anthropologists are doing a lot of interesting work, I might have to look into it myself. Alright that’s it.
-Lindsay
October 5th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Lindsay, Thanks for weighing in … your observations themselves are very interesting. Why should intensifiers be used only in postive connotations? Surely, there are good reasons to intensify expressions of mediocrity. Why say that something is bad when you can say it is ‘really bad.’ (But in some contexts, really bad actually means really good, doesn’t it? It’s like the ways ’sick’ is now used.) But, as you say, they sound funny. We don’t use them that way.
And, as to your final comment, I believe that linguistic anthropology lends itself to all sorts of interesting observations of everyday life … and perhaps more than we might hear about. I’ll keep an eye out for other examples.