Much online discussion this year has addressed the baleful influence of the manosphere and incels on new language, and perhaps also on new attitudes and digital behaviour. Lucy Knight gathered together the strands of the debates for a feature in the Guardian, and asked me to contribute. Her article is here…
In May I was contacted by Dazed magazine for a piece on the same subject, but I declined in deference to the acknowledged authority on these cultural mutations. Author Thom Waite duly took his cues from Adam Aleksic rather than me…
The Lexis Podcast, to which I have been lucky enough to contribute to in the past, had a very interesting episode on the digital rhetoric emanating from these same dubious sources…
Despite the focus on looksmaxxing and biohacking, chads and chuds and mogging, the slang of young people who may not be radicalised or posing as influencers, especially when used online or on platforms such as TikToK, continues to intrigue, if not baffle and provoke older generations. I spoke to Amy Wild about this for her piece in the Telegraph and it was significant I think that the experts consulted did not in their quoted remarks actually endorse the negative thrust of the article…
In 2018 I began collecting new and controversial languagegenerated by the rise of conservative populism in the US and the UK, by pro- and anti-Trump sentiment in the US and by the divisions resulting from the UK’s Brexit vote. This is still a work in progress: the list of terms as it stands is below. An ideal glossary or lexicon would include detailed definitions and comments (for example, the second word in the list is my own invention, intended to describe a statement, act or policy showing effrontery, and itself a deliberate affront to a section of the population), dates of first use where traceable and a ‘lexical’ categorisation (into ‘jargon’, ‘slang, ‘catchphrase’, cliché, for instance).This more exhaustive treatment is beyond my resources for now, but googling the term in question will throw up examples which may be accompanied by dates and useful commentary.
In January 2024 I began to add words and phrases used by combatants and commentators in connection with the continuing ‘conflict’ in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.Exactly one year later the ‘coup’, as some described it, enacted in the USA by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, featured new examples of distortion, euphemism and the language of rancour.
***Please do contact me with new examples, with comments and with criticism, which will be gratefully acknowledged and credited.***
Accelerationist
Accommodationist
Administrative detention
Affrontery
Agitators
Airfix patriotism
Alpha
Alt-centre
Alt-right
Amalek
Anglosphere
Annexationist
Anticipatory compliance/obedience
Antifa
Anti-growth coalition
Anywheres
Armed intervention
Asset
Astroturfing
Asylum shopping
Attitudinarian
Australia-style deal
Autohagiography
Backstop
Bad actors
Based
Basement dwellers
Bed-wetting
Beta
Beyond satire
Bike-shedding
Birtherism
Bitterites
Black hole
Black ops
The Blob
Blowback
Body count
Boomerslop
Bot
Both-sidesism
Bourgeois
Breadcrumbs
Brectum
Bregressive
Bregret(s)
Bremain
Brengland
Brexiles
Brexit dividend
Brexiteer
Brexit means Brexit
Brexit ultras
Brexmageddon
Brexmas
Brexodus
Brexomertà
Brexpats
Brexshit
Brextension
Briefcases
BRINO
Britain deserves better
Bubble
Butthurt
Cakeism
Calling out
Canada plus plus plus
Cancel culture
Candour deficit
Canzuk union
Casino capitalism
Centrist dad
Cherry-picking
Children of light
Chilling
Chumocracy
Churnalism
Civics
Civilian Security teams
Civility
Classist
Cliff-edge
Clown car
Clown country/state
Clusterbùrach
Coerced migration
Coercive diplomacy
Cognitive elite
Cognitive warfare
Collateral
Collective narcissism
Combative
Combat propaganda operative
Compassion deficit
Competing narratives
Concern(ed)
Concierge class
Confected fury
Conflicting accounts
Consequence culture
Copaganda
Cosmopolitan
Corbynista
Corporatocracy
Coup
Coup Klux Klan
Courtier journalists
Crash out
Cronyvirus
Crowdstrike
Crybaby
Cuck
Culturalism
Cultural marxist
Culturally coherent
Culture warrior
Dark forces
Datagrab
Dead cat strategy
Death cult
Deepfake
Deep state
Defund
DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)
DEI items
Delegitimizer
Demilitarization
Democide
Deplorables
Detained
DEXEU
‘Dies’
Disappeared
Disaster capitalism
Discourse engineering
Disinformation
Divorce bill
Do-gooder
Dogpile
Dog-whistle
Doom loop
Double down
Doxxing
Drain the swamp
DREAMer
Dumpster fire
Echo-chamber
Economic nationalism
Economically inactive
Educide
Elite
Empty chair
Enablers
Enemies of the people
English exceptionalism
Ergo decedo
Establishment
Ethnics
Ethnonationalist
Ethno-state
Exchange of fire
Expert
Factuality
Fake news
Fall off a cliff
False flag operation
Fash-adjacent
Fashy
Fauxlanthropist
FBPE
Feminazi
Fifth column
Finger-sniffer
Firehosing
Flextension
Flooding the zone
FluTruxKlan
Fractionate
Fractious
Fratriarchy
Frictionless
Frit
Frontlash
FUD
Gammon
Gammonista
Gangster state
Genocide Joe
Get it done
Getting the barnacles off the boat
Gimmegrant
Girly swot
Global Britain
Globalist
GNU
Grievance studies
Grindcore
Grumpy retiree
Guardianista
Hard Brexit
Hate goblin
Hatriot
Headroom
Headwinds
Henry VIII powers
Heterophobic
High-vis nazis
Hobbit
Homonationalism
Hopepunk
Hose it down
Humanitarian bridge
Hybrid threats
Identitarian
Idiocracy
Illuminati
Incel
Indications
Indicative vote
Individual-1
Intentional explosion
Intifada
Irrational exuberance
Jambon jaunes
Jexodus
Kayfabe
Keirmacht
Kicking the can down the road
Kindercoup
King baby
Kipper
Kipper moment
Kleptofascist
Kompromat
Lamestream media
Lanyardism
Lawfare
Leave means leave
Leftwaffe
Legitimate concerns
Lentil-weaving
Lesser mortals
Lethal aid
Level up
Lexit
Libertarian
Libtard
Loss of life
“Lost their lives”
Limited ground operation
Limousine liberal
Limp-wristed
Little Englander
Lolcow
Londongrad
Londonistan
Long Corbyn
Long coup
Low-energy
Luftwaffle
MAGA
Magic Grandpa
Magic money tree
Majoritarian
Man-baby
Mangina
Manosphere
Manufactured consent
Masculinist
Matrixed
Maybot
Meaningful vote
Meat wave(s)
Mediaeval methods
Melt
Meninist
Mercurial
Metropolitan
Microaggression
Militarised nostalgia
Milkshake(d)
Mindless compassion
Ming vase
Mischievous
Mishap
Missing
Momtifa
Moral clarity
Moral emptiness
Moral grandstanding
MSM
Nakba 2
Nanny state
Narrative engineering
Nativist
Necrocapitalism
Necropolitics
Neglexit
Negotiated exit
Neon nazis
Nerd Reich
Neurotic elite
Neutrollization
No-deal
No-platforming
Normie
Nudgism
Obey in advance
Offence archaeology
Operational matter
Operation Red Meat
Operation Save Big Dog
Optics
Ordeals
Ostentatious meekness
Oven-ready
Over-briefed
Overly purist
Overton window
Palaeoconservative
Partygate
Pearl-clutching
Penumbral jobs
People’s vote
Performative allyship
Performative cruelty
Pile on
Political correctness
Political gospel
Polycrisis
Post apocalyptic warlord
Post-liberal
Postmodern
Posttext
Post-truth
Poverty porn
Prebunking
Pre-emptive strike
Price cap
Project Fear
Protesters
Prozac leadership
Pugnacious
Punchy
Purity of arms
Push (BBC euphemism for armed incursion, invasion)
Pushback
Put/stick that on the side of a bus
QAnon
Quitlings
Rabble
Race to the bottom
Rage bait
Rage farming
Rampdown
Red lines
Red pill
Red wall
Regrexit
Rejoiner
Re-leaver
Relocate
Remainiacs
Remain plus
Remigration
Remoanathon
Remoaner
Remove kebab
Replacement theory
Reply deboosting
Reputation laundering
Resistance
Restorative nostalgia
Retconning
Revoker
Roll back
Rootless
Row back
Russian asset
Saboteur
Sadopopulism
Safe space
Scumbag centrism
#ScumMedia
Sealioning
Sectarian
Sensitivity reader
Shadow blocking
Shadow war
Shallowfake
Shill
Shire
Shitposting
Shitshow
Showboating
Shylock
Sick-note culture
Singapore-on-Thames
SJW social justice warrior
Skilling up
Skunked term**
Slave populace
Sleaze
Slopaganda
Slopulism
Snowflake
Sobersides
Sockpuppet
Soft border
Soft Brexit
Somewheres
Sovereignty
Soy-boy
Spartan phalanx
Spiv
Star Chamber
Starmergeddon
Stenographer
Sticking point
Strategic self-abasement
Stunning proposal
Sunlit uplands
Supermajority
Surgical strike
Svengali
SWERF
TACO
Taking back control
Tankie
Targeted individual
Targeted strike
Technofeudalism
Tender-age shelter
“Tensions rise”
Terf
Terminability
Testy
The other team
Throw under the bus
#tfg, ‘the former guy’
Tick tock
Tigger
Tofu-eating
Tone deaf
Tone policing
Tory scum
Toxic positivity
Transactional
Transition period
Trexit
Triangulation
Tribal(ism)
Trickle-down pathology
Troll farm/factory
Trumpcession
Trump slump
Truth-squadding
Tufton Street
Tu quoque
Two-tier policing
Unconfirmed reports
Unicorns
Unpopulism
Unrest
Unspin
Urban
Values voter
Vassal state
Verbal incontinence
Vice-signalling
Vigilante journalism
Village idiot
Virtue-signalling
Voluntary emigration
Walk back
War cabinet
War of extraordinary civilian casualties (Guardian euphemism for genocide)
Watch-list
Weaponised*
Wedge issues
West(s)plaining
Whataboutery
White supremacist
Will of the people
With a heavy heart
Woke
Woke mind virus
Wokerati
Wokescold
Woketard
Woke warriors
Woke-washing
Womp womp
Workington man
Yoghurt-knitting
Zealot
I’m grateful especially to the many contacts on Twitterwho have already contributed to this modest project, particularly Duncan Reynolds @duncanr2, and will credit them all by name/handle when a final version is published.
I’m also very grateful to Rob Booth and the Guardian who, in October 2019, wrote about the glossary and its topicality in increasingly conflicted times:
In November 2018 The Guardian published a useful ‘jargon-buster’ guide to the terms being used at this late stage of (or impasse in, if you prefer) UK-EU negotiations:
I have only just come across this perceptive essay from 2017, by Otto English on his Pinprick blog, in which he coins the terms Ladybird libertarian and Ronseal academic:
**’Skunked terms’ are words or expressions undergoing a controversial change in meaning. Examples are ‘liberal’ and ‘libertarian’ which have transitioned from referring to leftist, progressive or centrist positions to denote neo-conservative or alt-right affiliations. Nearly two years on from my original post the useful designation ‘anglosphere’, describing English-speaking nations with shared cultural features, has been co-opted by far-right nativists in the UK to promote a supremacist ideology.
As a further footnote, this from Twitter in November 2020 (thanks to Alan Pulverness), a reminder that weaponised words may also be frivolous – even puerile:
Looking back to 2016, a prescient tweet by Gary Kasparov:
At the end of 2022 my friend and collaborator Dan Clayton wrote, for Byline Times, about the latest iteration of toxic terminology and rhetoric: the demonising of refugees and migrants:
In early 2024 I belatedly learned of an interestingly tendentious and sententious glossary purporting to list and explain the words used by the ‘woke’. This, compiled by Dr James Lindsay, critically examines key terms relating to gender studies, critical race theory and identity politics in the US context:
Later in June, as Israel and Iran exchanged fire, Assal Rad noted the double standards employed in reports of the conflict:
The language of manufacturing consent:
: Preemptive strikes
: Escalation
: Warns
: Threatens
: Targets
: Attacks
: Government
: Regime
: Right to self-defense
: Condemnations
: Sophisticated military (has nukes)
: Nuclear threat (has no nukes)
Most recently, in January 2026, for Byline Times, my friend and collaborator Dan Clayton wrote a penetrating analysis of the way the US right and the media had manipulated the language of the ICE atrocities in Minnesota…
As the campaigning reached its climax and the polling-stations began to open, I spoke to Kate O’Connell and Gemma Chatwin of the Corporate Communications TeamatKing’s College London about the language used by the rival candidates, their aides and their supporters during the twelve months since the election process began. Kate and Gemma’s questions are below with my replies…
As a language specialist, what have you observed/found interesting about the US election?
One thing that strikes an outsider – British or European, I suggest – is the different nature of the vocabulary and rhetoric employed in US campaigning: the seemingly chaotic and unrestrained messaging, pivoting and veering unexpectedly into new areas sometimes, showing a lack of consistency, except in tone (Trump’s particularly). There is actually less reliance on a narrow range of repeated specific keywords, slogans and soundbites than has been the case in UK political campaigning – for Brexit, during the pandemic and in the recent election: (‘Take back control’, ‘Brexit means Brexit’, ‘Eat out to help out’, ‘Stop the Boats’ etc.). The Republicans’ messages have been more consistent in emphasising a few key ‘wedge’ issues while Democrats seemed to take a long time to decide on their priorities in terms of focus.
How has the language used by both candidates differed? What does their language tell us about their campaign strategy/ voter base?
Linguists – myself included – have tried to track the formulations (not so much genuinely new language as reworking of familiar tropes) used by each side and measure the frequency with which particular topics and particular trigger-words recur. Donald Trump has employed a vocabulary containing many examples of the language of fear and violence, and much intemperate language throughout: ‘vermin’, ‘criminal migrants’, ‘the enemy from within’, ‘radical left lunatics’, and words evoking existential threats: ‘invaded’, ‘conquered’, ‘occupied’, ‘deportation’ and violence: ‘kill’, ‘death’, ‘blood’, ‘nuclear war’, ‘guns trained on her face’. One analysis concluded that Trump had used more violent language than any other recent political orator except Fidel Castro!
Trump has consistently favoured the use of ‘I’ and ‘they’, Harris more often emphasising ‘we’. The Democrats on the other hand, while perhaps favouring less inflammatory language have possibly failed, until the closing days of the campaign (‘neighbors not enemies’ is a last-minute exception), to find memorable, resonant phrases to inspire and motivate. While initially hesitant, and despite Kamala Harris being accused in the more distant past of ‘word salads’ the Democrats, apart from Joe Biden, have been measurably more coherent, while many of Trump’s recent performances have been criticised as meandering if not incomprehensible. His justification for this being that he is practising ‘the weave’, a sort of improvisational incantation that his followers appreciate.
We have seen a lot of name-calling in the 2024 election, has it been effective?
A famous example of a slur which seems to have worked is Tim Walz’s characterising of Trump and the Republicans as ‘weird’. This is effective since the word is not especially offensive or toxic but frames the opposition as odd, eccentric, unstable in worrying ways, by implication disturbing – a relatively casual criticism of a community that is old and out of touch with reality. The Republicans accusing ‘immigrants’ of eating pet dogs and cats and likening Puerto Rico to a ‘floating island of garbage’ outraged their opponents, though Joe Biden also came unstuck when he reached for the same metaphor. It’s notable that both sides have used proxies to deliver some of the most stinging criticisms of the leaders, rather than have them delivered by the candidates themselves: ‘childless cat lady’ for example, or ‘unhinged, unstable, unchecked’ – words supplied by former Trump aides and reposted by the Democrats. One rather surprising blip in the unfolding news cycle occurred when Harris suddenly approved the f-word, agreeing when it was suggested to her that Donald Trump was a ‘fascist’. He quickly returned the insult, adding the ‘N-word’ which everyone had so far avoided: ‘I’m the opposite of a Nazi’. Both sides seem to have tacitly put those words aside for the final phase of the campaigning, though tellingly, in a final peroration J.D Vance urged followers to ‘take out the trash’ in reference to the Vice-President.
I think that outsiders listening in bemusement or horror at the campaign rhetoric misunderstand the nature of the voter bases involved. Doom-laden warnings and threats and angry braggadocio can be effective, reassuring and motivating to an audience for whom ‘make America great again’ carries a conviction that the country is at the mercy of hostile forces and on the edge of social breakdown. Conversely Kamala Harris’s more upbeat, feelgood emphasis attempts to instil a cheerful positivity which may not always have been backed up with hard facts or firm commitments(apart perhaps where reproductive rights are concerned).
Could this be the first election won on TikTok?
Kamala Harris’s folksy reference, early in the campaign, to having ‘fallen out of the coconut tree’ cleverly appealed to a family audience and referenced her own potentially controversial heritage in a positive way.She has also tried, seemingly with some success, to tap into the female and feminine constituency and the relatively youthful energy displayed by users of TikTok, a platform which avoids threats and displays of anger and relies on self-promotion, performances of success and – crucially – an element of self-mockery and humour that is entirely missing from Donald Trump’s repertoire. TikTok currently occupies the high-ground of the social media landscape and is a valuable channel by which to reach millennials and GenZ (the latter voting for the first time) millions of whom are potential democrat supporters. It does not reach, however the middle-aged or elderly undecided.Celebrity endorsements apparently can motivate potential non-voters to change their minds and vote, but unsurprisingly probably only affect a demographic which is already on-side anyway (‘Swifties’ for example who are said to have added 400,000 votes to Harris’s tally). Elon Musk’s embracing of Donald Trump is more difficult to assess, as Musk’s own fanbase – tech bros, startup promoters and bitcoin traders among them – aren’t necessarily effective multipliers or influencers on his behalf or Trump’s and perhaps less likely to sway the undecided.
How did brat summer and ‘vibes’ benefit Kamala Harris’s campaign?
When pop icon Charli XCX posted her endorsement on X, ‘Kamala IS brat’, young women flooded social media with pro-Harris ‘brat’ memes, kickstarting her takeover from Biden and effectively labelling her as endearingly ‘messy, honest and volatile.’ The democrat campaign switched up to make good use of the tropes and tendencies of pop culture and entertainment media, receiving endorsements from many musicians and Hollywood names, culminating in their candidate’s surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live in which she launched viral versions of her own name -‘End the drama-la’, ‘Cool new step mom-ala’ and returned to that conflicted keyword, asserting that she would be able to open the ‘doors of the garbage truck’ that Trump had fumbled with. This confident banter in the very last moments of the campaign, along with her pivot, after Bill Clinton’s disastrous intervention, to promising some sort of support for Gaza, can only help the democrats’ chances, and these messages are featuring in places that Trump cannot usually access. Nevertheless the Republican candidate is doubling down on his insurrectionist rhetoric, welcomed by his base, saying now that he ‘should never have left the White House in the first place’.
My friend Serena Smith wrote perceptively for Dazed magazine about the role of celebrities in the presidential race…
Once the race was over the avalanche of post-mortems and recriminations began. Among them were a few which focused, as I had tried to, on the discourse of division. In the New YorkerJoshua Rothman considered the very different flavour of the two parties’ language…
“Id been spending a lot of time watching interviews with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – conversations that tended to be below average. On shows like “60 Minutes” and in her CNN town tall, Harris had been charming and trenchant but also repetitive and inflexible. Restrained by her determination to stay on message, she often failed to answer questions directly. Trump, for his part, lied, rambled and spouted nonsense as usual. And yet his lack of constraint at least made him entertaining…
…Harris and Trump’s flawed performances were typical of the duelling communications styles now wielded by Democrats and Republicans. Broadly, Democrats preach while Republicans riff; Democrats stick to their messages while Republicans let loose with whatever comes into their heads.”
In the GuardianNesrine Malik convincingly dismantled the lazy consensus that held that the result was a defeat for the Democrats’ supposedly embracing ‘woke’ policies and relying on endorsement by ‘woke’ celebrities…
During October I relished the chance to talk to the editors of DazedDigital, Serena Smith and Gunseli Yalcinkaya, and they told me about the most recent developments in online and digital communication and the new language varieties trending on social media. I have tried to make sense of a much younger generation’s performances and interactions and the notes I made follow here…
Language and the way we use it is now for the first time truly globalised. This means for example that new accents and intonations and vocal affectations take place across several cultures almost simultaneously. This gives us pronunciation and intonation novelties like Youtuber or Influencer accent, TikTok voice, etc. These are fluid, evolving and can blend more than one traditional source (UK and US linguistic styles and usages for example). The phenomenon is not new – the mid-Atlantic accent dates back many decades and both Valley Girls and users of Multiethnic London English – MLE – have played with new ways of pronouncing, but the platforms and apps of the 2020s – TikTok in particular – highlight these…
Obviously the way we consume and exploit media has changed radically with the internet and mobile technology and determines the kinds of messages we exchange and the words, sounds and visuals we actually use. Short attention-spans mean that messages need to be accelerated, brief and telling: the constraints of apps and platforms make for compressed and dense information packages. At the same time the imperative for innovation (something that has always been part of language evolution, but used to happen very gradually) – novelty, neologisms, new and more liberated attitudes to formality and informality and style in general – is integral to changing fashions, aesthetics, vibes. Even such basics as whether messages have to make sense have been destabilised by Gen Z‘s playful surrealism and absurdism and TikTok’s creative conventions.
One major change is the way that the distinction between written and spoken language has broken down since people began to type conversations and exchange rapid interactions electronically. Also Pre-existing words and expressions are hijacked, reversed, toxified, appropriated and modified as never before. And we all now have the power to do this via electronic media – we don’t need permission to publish and exchange our ideas and indulge our playful, mischievous or creative new usages.
Gunceli asked, There are so many memes joking about how we’ve ‘progressed past the need for language’. Obviously worth taking with a pinch of salt, but do you think there’s any truth to this?
We won’t evolve ‘beyond language’ since language is simply a label for human interaction and communicative practices, but the specifics of that language will continue to adapt and mutate along with our social needs and our technologies. Linguists do talk increasingly in terms of multimodality whereby both online and offline communication involves much more than speech or writing – ‘language’ as we have known it. The buzzword multimodality can refer to how IRL we blend all sorts of semiotics often simultaneously: stance and posture, facial expression, gesture, writing, speaking and using a communication device, but also refers to how online and app messages employ abbreviations, acronyms, audio, video, symbols, memes as well as or instead of words (…soon probably touch and smell as well!)
The NPC streamers phenomenon highlighted by Dazed is another example of what I described as GenZ and TikTokers’ minimalist, surrealist or absurdist treatment of language. NPC stands for ‘non-playable character(s)’, the digital background entities with a limited repertoire of utterances and repetitive actions encountered in video games, and the streaming is an online activity, primarily on the TikTok platform, whereby creators imitate these characters by livestreaming themselves, and viewers reward them with in-app gifts for doing it.
The new primacy of image (and audio) over simply text and conversation has resulted in a human imitation of cartoon sounds and seemingly meaningless bits of language that only followers and enthusiasts will recognise and be positively triggered by. Playing with identities by way of words, slogans, soundbites and catchphrases is as much influenced by the poses of cosplayers or Furries and the behaviour of video-gamers as it is by ‘traditional’ ways of using verbal and visual language.
How do you think the mainstreaming of emerging tech like AI is changing the way we communicate verbally with one another?
Algorithms being used for automated reasoning and the generating of persuasive messaging or content are already operating at sophisticated levels, but the linguistic aspect is just as much prey to error and detectable failures as, for example, deepfake images and impersonations of artistic productions. If we are digitally literate and managing to keep up, we can often see through the deception, and this is probably reassuring. AI has some interesting potential: for example, to allow us to communicate with people whose language we don’t share. But I think the limitations of AI(-its difficulties in interpreting or reproducing human nuance, implication, indirectness, etc) will lead to – is already leading to – new forms of incoherence and misunderstanding. I suspect we will soon be able to recognise a particular ‘AI style’ so that artificially generated messages can be recognised as such in some cases – at least I hope so! Translators and teachers are already grappling with potential of AI to assist, supplement or replace their work – and its limitations in doing so. More alarmingly AI is already inventing and using languages that we humans can’t understand: https://www.fastcompany.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its-own-perfect-languages-should-we-let-it
Gunceli’s fascinating review of all these themes and more is here…
Serena Smith spoke to me about the latest version of familect, the intimate, informal, often comical language invented in private domestic spaces, about which I’ve written before on this site. Her excellent account of TikTok’s #MarriageLanguage is here…
I thought it might be interesting, even informative, to look back from our post-Brexit, post-COVID vantage point in early 2023 to a time before a culture of impunity had become embedded, a time when there still seemed to be a consensus across political persuasions that competence was a first requirement of whoever was elected to govern Britain, (but a time, too, in which there was a feeling among many that profound changes were overdue). In 1997 I made a series of programmes for BBC World Service Radio, looking at how emerging words and phrases seemed to embody novel attitudes on the part of the British. The broadcasts were aimed at listeners outside the UK, although at that time also accessible inside the territory.
The first in a series of short programmes looked at the language of New Labour, at perceptions of a closer relationship between its politicians and what is now called the mainstream media and at the role of the spin doctors (one of the very new formulations heard in those days) responsible for what is now called comms and messaging and for negotiating that rapprochement.
I was fortunate to be able to draw upon insights from Derek Draper, at that time one of New Labour’s highest placed political advisors and lobbyists, journalist and columnist Julia Hobsbawm and writer and critic Peter Bradshaw. Our conclusions were at that time revealing, I think, even if now the notions and the behaviour we were looking at and the terminology that accompanied them have become commonplace.
These recordings were lost for many years, and I am very grateful, both to my then-producer Colin Babb for recovering some of them, and to Urban Mrak who has managed to restore and re-record a small selection of the damaged tapes. The first of them can be accessed here, although the first few seconds during which we listened in the studio to reiterations of the ‘New Labour, New Britain’ mantra are missing…
In the following days I will add two more of these short recordings, dealing, respectively, with the idea that late-90s Britain was experiencing an upsurge in aggressive, selfish behaviour, typified by the new concept of ‘road rage‘, and an increase in female assertiveness caricatured as ‘girl power‘.
‘Expert commentary’ on a volatile, contentious process
I was somewhat bemused to be asked, as a linguist and someone who has written about government communications and messaging, to comment recently, this time on the self-presentation of the candidates vying for leadership of the Conservative Party, hence also for the role of Prime Minister of the UK (in a series of back-and-forth slurs and clumsily staged photo-opportunities characterised today by Cabinet Office Minister Johnny Mercer as ‘puerile’). My first observations concerned Foreign Secretary Liz Truss’s identification with an earlier political icon.*
These were my comments in answer to the Daily Mail‘s questions on the performance of Lizz Truss and Rishi Sunak in the latest and final stages of the contest…
Both candidates seem to me to be reaching for very simple and basic images and messages – not complex or ‘deeper’ concepts and as a linguist I suspect that they are both trying to avoid having to demonstrate the ‘oratorical’ skills that Boris Johnson’s supporters claimed for him. In other words they are going for visual over verbal as neither of them is renowned as an inspiring public speaker.
In terms of oratorical skills or lack of them Liz Truss has been gaffe-prone and can come across as hesitant while Rishi Sunak, though articulate, has to avoid the impression of an over-eager schoolboy in his attempts to convince.
In terms of the core messages, Rishi Sunak is very obviously trying to counter the sense of him as someone removed from the concerns of ordinary people because of his privileged upbringing and his great wealth. Thus he emphasises the (quite authentic) role of the family man, devoted to wife and children, at the same time countering Truss’s projection of herself as an assertive ‘lone’ female – the image Margaret Thatcher conveyed in her exercising dominance over male colleagues. Thatcher also kept husband and children in the background and emphasised her own gravitas and steeliness above all else.
Pulling pints is another attempt by Sunak to demonstrate that he is not wholly out of touch with the ‘common man’, but this sort of posing does risk backfiring as when he fumbled in his attempts to use a bank debit card to buy fuel for a humble, borrowed car.
I’m surprised that Sunak does not more strongly emphasise his financial background and expertise gained as a financier/fund manager (the sort of professional experience that Liz Truss would have trouble competing with), but he may rightly sense that public perceptions of hedge fund manipulators are far from entirely positive.
Both candidates are attempting to focus, as they must, on the universally understandable issues of taxation and immigration/refugee management, subjects on which those entitled to vote for them (a very small number of key individuals incidentally) are already likely to have very firm views.
I added the following…
I don’t wish to seem contentious or uncharitable, but their messaging – in both cases – really does leave much to be desired, beginning with the campaign slogans, ‘Ready for Rishi!’ and ‘Liz for Leader.’
On Rishi Sunak’s part, his public postures belie the fact that he is, among many other things, a teetotaller…
And as for Ms Truss…
Which approach, I was asked, was likely to play out better with the 1600 party members entitled to vote in the leadership contest?
I think it’s very difficult to predict: I suspect that many Tories will still instinctively prefer the certainty and strength of purpose that Margaret Thatcher represented – the steely glare rather than the eager-to-please smile. But perhaps on reflection they may come to decide that someone at ease with financial manipulations (public or private!), and someone who is not really encumbered with ideological baggage could be more convincing in the long run and a safer pair of hands? It’s perhaps reassuring and worth noting that those two ancient bugbears of British political life, ethnicity and gender, probably are no longer barriers to advancement.
This is how my remarks were incorporated into the Mail’s front page of July 25 2022…
Looking back at my comments while awaiting the general election in July 2024, it’s clear that I was too kind to both the then leadership candidates. This was in part because I can’t pose as a political expert, partly as I don’t think the Daily Mail would have printed my comments if they had been much harsher. Liz Truss went on to perform surreally badly as shortlived PM, then, in more recent comments, to astonish many by her seeming intellectual confusion and lack of self-awareness. Rishi Sunak, in my strictly personal view, has shown above all an astonishing immaturity, in his parliamentary and media performances and his interactions with the public. His and his party’s communications strategies, despite the complicity of most of the the UK’s mainstream media, have been clumsy and inept. The press and the opposition equally have failed to hold him to account, focusing on his role as member of a hedge fund that helped trigger the 2008 financial crash only in the run-up to the coming election.
Earlier in May I talked to Dillon Thompson of Yahoo News about slang and its online incarnations. Dillon was exploring the ways in which slang and new language both affect the way we interact in an accelerated digital age, and the way in which digital environments such as TikTok and Instagram and Twitter and the internet-based rituals, gestures and poses embraced by Generation Z in turn might influence the sort of language we – or some of us – are creating, adopting and using.
Dillon’s article, with new insights and with contributions by me and from US linguists Sunn m’Cheaux and Daniel Hieber is here…
Following fashions is an exhausting task. And has become more exhausting still.
I have been recording the fads, fashions, cults and trends that energise popular culture, and the labels by which they register themselves on our collective consciousness, for more than thirty years. With the advent of the Internet and messaging the lifestyle innovations, aesthetic novelties and personal badges of allegiance are nowadays free to go viral, go global, and in many cases to disappear, virtually instantaneously. I talked to Olive Pometsey of The Face magazine (itself an iconic vehicle for the propagation of new ideas and images) about the latest, accelerated, overheated iterations of micro and macro-identities competing on online platforms. The equally frenzied quality of much comment and analysis is perhaps conveyed by the notes I made before we spoke…
A crowdsourced, online, free-for-all, 24/7 source of slang, catchphrases and new terminology is my friend Aaron Peckham‘s Urban Dictionary. As the Face article was going to press this was its phrase of the day…
Coined by trend forecaster Sean Monahan, a vibe shift describes the emergence of a “new era of cool.”
Fashion is a realm that experiences frequent vibe shifts, especially with the arrival of a new decade. Gone are the days when frosted tips and low-rise jeans and Abercrombie & Fitch were in.
We’re in the midst of a vibe shift right now with the widespread lifting of Covid-19 protocols and restrictions. We’re going out again and adapting in new ways to our environment; some will survive the shifting tides, and some won’t.
Yeah I’m in my vibe shift right now. You won’t catch me in the club now that things are opening back up again. I’m all about going to the Home Depot, renovating my home and hearth, yknow? Once I tried topless gardening things changed a lot for me.
Those once-thriving subjects, Cultural Studies and Media Studies, which I used to teach in the 1990s, are nowhere to be found in today’s educational landscape, and the cultural practices we used to analyse are these days ignored by most commentators, the subcultures (and microniches, hyperlocal communities) if they are mentioned at all are dismissed by older cohorts as trivial, frivolous and ephemeral. I doggedly persist, in solidarity with The Face, Wire, Dazed, i-D, TikTok, nanoinfluencers and microcelebrities, in finding them fascinating and significant.
Just a few days after the Face article appeared, the MailOnline announced the latest look for Summer 2022…
The themes of the year so far can perhaps be summarised by my hasty posts in passing, on Twitter and elsewhere, in which I considered the keywords trending in the UK’s political and media discourse during the last days of January and the first days of February…
Scurrilous
Rather late to the party – sorry, ‘gathering’ – today’s word is ‘scurrilous.’ Defined by Dr Samuel Johnson as ‘using such language as only the licence of a buffoon could warrant.’ In her resignation letter yesterday Downing Street Policy Chief Munira Mirza accused Boris Johnson of ‘scurrilous’ behaviour when he falsely linked Keir Starmer to the failure to bring paedophile Jimmy Savile to justice. The word first appeared in English in the early 1500s in the form ‘scurrile’, coarsely joking, from the Latin ‘scurrilis’, buffoonlike, itself from the noun ‘scurra’ denoting a fashionable loafer, idler, buffoon, said to be a loan word from Etruscan.
Glee
On 2/2/22, as #BorisJohnson and #jimmysavile jointly trended for the second day, the word ‘glee’ was ascribed to both. It denotes barely repressed mirth/hardly concealed febrile joy and I think describes the desperate glint of triumph in the eyes of the abuser who once again goes unpunished. ‘Glee’ was Old English ‘gliu’, ‘gliw’, ‘gleow’ – entertainment, jest, play, also music and mockery – probably from Proto-Germanic ‘*gleujam’ but its only close relation was the rare Old Norse word ‘gly’ joy. All these are related to Old Germanic ‘gl-‘ words with senses of shining, smooth, radiant, joyful and Celtic cognates such as welsh ‘gloywa’, shining. Dictionary definitions of ‘glee’ note another nuance or connotation (more technically ‘semantic component’) which is often present: ‘exultation deriving from one’s own good fortune or another’s misfortune.’
Airfix nostalgia
As Airfix promoted their 2022 calendar (cover picture above), I was asked again to explain the notion of ‘Airfix nostalgia’, an expression which mocks the delusion whereby nativists, patriots and bigots, most of them under the age of 50, like to imagine that they were personally involved in WWII or the British Imperial project. The reference is to the Airfix plastic modelling kits of fighter planes and warships bought by parents and children in the 50s and assembled at home.
Fib
In among rancorous ongoing denunciations of lying by those in public office (see elsewhere on this site and in this list by Peter Oborne*) came a passing invocation of – or attempt at disculpation by reference to – the lesser offence of ‘fibbing’. A fib is a ‘trifling lie’ or ‘white lie’, so I’m not sure it’s quite the right term in the current context, but it’s from the 1580s, the verb from 100 years later. Its exact origin and first use are uncertain, but it probably began as a jocular version of ‘fable’, perhaps reduplicated as ‘fibble-fable’ and then abbreviated to its modern form.
Rhubarb
When accused of being complicit in the authorising of an airlift of dogs from Afghanistan, PM Boris Johnson described the allegation as ‘total rhubarb’. The colloquial borrowing of the word to mean incomprehensible chatter or nonsense may have its origin in theatrical circles (as noted by Mark Peters in 2015**): it is again a telling choice of words: dated, euphemistic (like ‘mince’ as a euphemism for sh**t which seems similarly to be part of Tory groupspeak), obscure in the sense of being class/age-sensitive, hence condescending.
Endemicity
A new and tendentious, contentious example of #coronaspeak was added to my glossaries on this site in January 2022. The seemingly neutral, technical term was in fact employed in attempts to convince the public that the pandemic was subsiding and the coronavirus morphing into a less lethal presence in the community. Epidemiologist Deepti Gurdasani noted perceptively that ‘Endemicity’ is the rebranding of ‘herd immunity’ by the same people who were repeatedly wrong about how close we’ve been to achieving herd immunity. They’re now moving to claiming we’ve reached endemicity, regardless of what the term actually means – just like they did before.’
Lawfare/lethal aid
As the promoter of Brexit Arron Banks sued investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr and the US sent the first aid packages to Ukraine I added two key terms to the #weaponisedwords glossary on this site: #Lawfare, referring to vexatious litigation by a nation or individual, and ‘lethal aid’, a euphemism or (as lexicographer Jeremy Butterfield pointed out to me) a dysphemism for military assistance.
Languishing
In mid-January articles examined the effects of isolation and burnout after nearly two years of restrictions and confinement using a new characterisation of the condition***: ‘languish,’ from the 14th century, meaning to be feeble, listless, moribund or grieving, pining, is from Old French ‘languir,’ from Vulgar Latin ‘languire’ to be weak, faint, idle, from proto-IndoEuropean *'(s)leg’ the ancestor of ‘slack’, ‘lag’ and ‘lax’. ‘Anguish’ is unrelated.
Depravity
Despite the blizzard of slurs and denigrations circulating on social media and in the mainstream press since 2019, some words have been conspicuous by their absence. One such began trending in the UK national conversation, and then only briefly, in mid-January. ‘Depravity’ in the sense of immorality, degeneracy was first recorded in English in 1641, not directly formed from the earlier verb ‘deprave’ (Old French ‘depraver’, pervert, accuse, from Latin ‘depravare’ distort, disfigure) but a version of the noun ‘pravity’ from Latin ‘pravitas’, crookedness, deformity, from ‘pravus’, crooked.
Guile
On January 7 my word of the day was ‘guile’ (first ascribed to the leader of HM Opposition, and then energetically disputed on social media: ‘…it took guile to convince so many on Labour’s left that he was the natural successor to Jeremy Corbyn’ –The Times) The noun, meaning cunning, artful ability to deceive and/or duplicity, was first recorded in the 12th century. It is from Old French ‘guile’ from Frankish ‘wigila’, ruse, from Proto-Germanic ‘*wihl’, ancestor of English wile(s), from Proto-IndoEuropean ‘*weik’, consecrated, holy.
“Postmodernity is modernity without the hopes and dreams which made modernity bearable. it is a hydra-headed, decentred condition in which we get dragged along from pillow [sic] to post across a succession of reflected surfaces, drawn by the call of the wild signifier.” – Dick Hebdige, Hiding in the Light, 1988
Among the toxic terms listed in the glossary of weaponised words, elsewhere on this site*, is a term that has seemed contentious and which has been imperfectly understood since its first appearance in the late Sixties. I included the same word – Postmodernism – in my 1993 book Fads, Fashions and Cults, provocatively subtitled ‘The definitive guide to post(modern) culture.’ When my book, which was aimed at a popular, not a scholarly readership, was launched in Slovenia and featured on national television the Slovene philosopher and critical theorist Mladen Dolar dismissed it as atheoretical and trivial, two other resonant terms which I was not sure whether to resent or to celebrate at the time. An extract from the offending title follows…
Elsewhere on this site I have tried to follow the trajectory of woke**, another, rather different toxic buzzword now favoured by the same side, the opponents of BLM, eco-activism, ‘leftist’ attitudes, in the so-called culture wars that rage on despite the pandemic. In a perceptive review in the New Statesman this week William Davies sets out postmodernism’s trajectory, its recent reimaginings and reiterations by very different interest groups. His article, with his kind permission, is here…
To end with for now, another extract from my antique 1993 guide. I am still pondering the present and possible future of the second p-word, along with other characterisations of our era such as late-modern, techno-modern, post-industrial, post-capitalist and the tension between the post-individual and hyperindividualism, also thinking about the way in which critical positions which were significant for me – Situationism and McLuhanism, for instance – are today ignored or forgotten, and how more recent terms that I think encode important insights – third places, heteroglossia, superdiversity – remain marginal and under-examined. I will try to unpack these musings on these pages very soon…
“Post-Modernism, which deals with the past like one huge antique supermarket, looks very relevant indeed. Pastiche and parody is just an uncomfortable transition to a time when period references will be used without any self-consciousness.” – Peter York, StyleWars, 1980
tony thorne 