Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-17T12:34:14.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A cheeky investigation: Tracking the semantic change of cheeky from monkeys to wines

Can social media spread linguistic change?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2020

Extract

The present study focuses on the word cheeky which, in the past few decades, has taken on a new meaning of ‘mildly illicit’ in addition to, and partly overtaking, its original meaning of ‘impudent’. We examine how this semantic change is spreading in different age groups and in different parts of the English-speaking world. As we demonstrate, the newer meaning of cheeky is associated with younger speakers, so we examine whether this correlates with different age groups’ understanding of the new form. Furthermore, cheeky ‘impudent’ was used more frequently in the United Kingdom than in North America. If that earlier meaning was already marked for North America, how is the newer meaning cheeky ‘mildly illicit’ understood by speakers there?

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ahrned. 2015. ‘but what does cheeky nandos mean it has to have a meaning’. Tumblr post. Online at <http://ahrned.tumblr.com/post/118553809474/but-what-does-cheeky-nandos-mean-it-has-to-have> (Accessed February 17, 2020).+(Accessed+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
Bailey, G. 2002. ‘Real and apparent time.’ In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling–Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 312–31.Google Scholar
Durham, M. 2016. ‘Changing attitudes towards the Welsh English accent: A view from Twitter.’ In Durham, M. & Morris, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics in Wales. London: Palgrave, pp. 181205.10.1057/978-1-137-52897-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. 2018. The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship between British and American English. London: One World.Google Scholar
Oberlo. 2019. ‘10 TikTok statistics that you need to know in 2019.’ Online at <https://www.oberlo.com/blog/tiktok-statistics> (Accessed November 2, 2019).+(Accessed+November+2,+2019).>Google Scholar
Robinson, J. 2012. ‘A gay paper: Why should sociolinguistics bother with semantics?English Today, 28(4), 3854.10.1017/S0266078412000399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista. 2019. ‘Distribution of Facebook users worldwide as of July 2019, by age and gender.’ Online at <https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-global-user-age-distribution> (Accessed November 2, 2019).+(Accessed+November+2,+2019).>Google Scholar
Global Web-Based English (GloWbE). Online at <https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe> (Accessed February 17, 2020).+(Accessed+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
Global Web-Based English (GloWbE). Online at <https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe> (Accessed February 17, 2020).+(Accessed+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar