文化维度理论下中美网络热词价值观的对比研究

ChapterOneIntroductionThisisacomparativestudyinvaluedifferencesbetweenChineseandAmericanbuzzwords.Beforetheformalstudy,itisnecessarytobrieflyintroducethebackground,significanceandoutlineofthestudy.1.1BackgroundoftheStudyWithfrequentcross-culturalexchangesandstrongconnectionsbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesininternationalaffairs,understandingtheculturalvaluesofdifferentcountriesisaninevitabletendency.TheInternethasbecomethemainchannelforculturalcommunicationandtheexpressionofvalues.AccordingtoThe54thStatisticalReportonChina’sInternetDevelopment,publishedbytheCNNIC,thenumberofChinesenetizenreached1.108billionbyDecember2024.IntheUnitedStates,thepenetrationrateearlyreached90%in2023,whichindicatesthatflourishingInternetcultureinbothcountries.WrightMF(2015)foundthatculturesubtlypermeatesdigitalcommunication.TheInternetnotonlyreflectsbroadsocialattitudesbutalsoshapesinterpersonalinteractions,whilealsoeasilycontributingtoteenagers’poormentalhealth.REF_Ref23876\r\h[19]Therefore,exploringthemeaningsofbuzzwordsisanessentialandimportantpart.Buzzwordsplayanimportantroleincommunicationintheglobalinformationage.Themeaningofbuzzwordsiscontinuallychangingovertime,sincetheyvividlyrepresentchangesinthepsychologyandbehaviorofthepeople.Underthelong-terminfluenceofvariousculturalenvironments,thebuzzwordsinChinaandtheUnitedStatesnaturallypresentquitedifferentvaluesintermsofsocialrelationships,lifeattitudesandachievementconcepts.MalyugaEN,RimmerW(2021)researchedonbuzzwordsrelatedtosocialmedia,foundthatculturalvaluesplayakeyroleintheconstructionanddisseminationofbuzzwords.REF_Ref4162\r\h[10]Chinesebuzzwordsrevealthemaintenanceofabsoluteauthorityandcollectivefeelings,whileAmericanbuzzwordsbringoutindividualequalityandfreedomofinnovation.HuntingtonSP(1996)arguedthattheremaybeacultureclashanddeteriorationoftherelationshipbetweenChinaandtheWestasaresultofculturalvalues.REF_Ref23399\r\h[8]Inshort,buzzwordsnotonlyshowdifferencesinlinguisticphenomena,butalsoincarnatethecontinuationandinnovationoftraditionalChineseandAmericanvalues.Themostcriticalfactorcausingconflictsandobstaclesinculturalcommunicationbetweenthetwocountriesliesintheirlargelyculturaldifferences.Manyscholarshaveestablishedtheirowntheoriesincultureresearch.ThisstudytakesHofstede’sculturaldimensionstheory,themostinfluentialandrepresentativeframework,toanalyzethedimensionsofpowerdistance,individualismversuscollectivism,andindulgenceversusrestraint,focusingontheembodimentanddifferencesofChineseandAmericanvalues.1.2SignificanceoftheStudyFromatheoreticalperspective,buzzwords,asasignificantculturalphenomenoninthedataera,expressawiderangeofsocialconcernsandvaluedemands.Manyscholarshavestudiedbuzzwordsfromtheviewpointsofsociology,communication,psychology,etc.Bycombingthroughtheliterature,theauthorfoundthatacademicresearchonbuzzwordsbasedonculturaldimensionstheoryisrelativelylagging,withlessinvestigationconducted.Atthisstageofincompleteresearch,thestudyofculturaldifferencesinbuzzwordsisofgreatsignificanceandreferencevalueforCross-culturalcommunication.Itnotonlyfurtherunderstandstheexpressionofdifferencesinvaluesbetweenthetwonations,butalsobroadensthescopeofresearchonculturaldimensionstheory.Thepracticalimplicationsisprimarilythreefold:first,itisconducivetounderstandingthecurrentpublicthoughtandsocialissues,aswellasthedynamicsofpublic’sideologicaltrendsthroughbuzzwords;second,itcanbetterregulateandguideyoungpeople’shealthywordingusageonline,improvetheirabilitytodistinguishinformation,andestablishcorrectvalues;andthird,itcanhelpexaminediverseculturalperspectives,whichallowsforagreaterunderstandingofdifferences,considercorrespondingpolicymeasureswhendealingwithsomelocalproblems,andprovidenewinspirationforthedevelopmentofvariousindustries.Overall,inordertocopewithculturalconflictsandguidethehealthydevelopmentofonlineculture,itisvitaltograspthebasicculturalcharacteristicsofbuzzwordsandtheirintrinsicconnectionwithculturalvaluesthroughresearch.Thisprovidesnewperspectivesandstrongsupportforcross-culturalcommunication,promotestheharmoniouscoexistenceofculturesintheonlineerainthecontextofglobalization,andinturnbuildingbridgesofcommunicationandtrust.1.3OutlineoftheStudyThisessaycomprisesfourchapters:introduction,literaturereview,generalanalysisofvaluedifferences,andconclusion.Chapteroneservesastheintroduction,mainlyoutliningthesource,backgroundandsignificanceofthisstudy,andexplainsthatthisresearchhasgreattheoreticalandpracticalvalueinthecurrentperiodofswiftnetworkdevelopment.ChapterTwofocusesonliteraturereview.BycombingthroughtheliteratureontheevolutionofculturaldimensionstheoryinbothChineseandWesternresearch,providingaconciseoverviewofthecorecontentofHofstede’sculturaldimensionstheory.Atthesametime,itcombinedwiththelatestdevelopmentsinthefieldofbuzzwordresearch,exploresthecombinationofthistheorywiththephenomenonofbuzzwords,andsummarizesthecurrentresearchstatusathomeandabroad.Thisestablishesatheoreticalfoundation,andprovidesacademicsupportforthecomprehensiveanalysisinthefollowingchapters.ChapterthreeconcentratedontheculturaldimensionstheoryandprovidesaspecificanalysisofthevaluedifferencesbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesbasedonbuzzwordsinbothcountries.First,thedefinition,characteristicsanddevelopmentofbuzzwordsareclearlypresented.Second,thedifferencesinthevalueorientationsofChinaandtheUnitedStatesareexploredthroughthreeaspects:socialrelationships,lifeattitudesandachievementconcepts.Finally,thefundamentalcausesofthedifferencesinvaluesbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesareanalysedfromtheculturaldimensionsofpowerdistance,individualismversuscollectivism,andindulgenceversusrestraint,providingastrongscientificbasisforcomprehendingtheculturalpsychologyandsocialmechanismsofbothcountries.ChapterFouristheconclusion.Thissectionsystematicallysummarizestheresearchfindings,revealingthecharacteristicsofculturalvalueexpressioninChineseandAmericanbuzzwords,alongwiththereasonsbehindtheirappearance.Italsooffersaperspectiveontheresearchlimitationsandsuggestionsforfutureinvestigation.

ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewThispartcomprehensivelyreviewsthecontentofHofstede’sculturaldimensionstheoryandsummarizesthecurrentresearchstatusofculturaldimensionstheoryathomeandabroad.Itaimstoprovideasolidtheoreticalfoundationforsubsequentresearch.2.1IntroductiontoCulturalDimensionsTheoryCulturaldimensionstheorywasproposedbyDutchsocialpsychologistGeertHofstede.ThetheoryisbasedonHofstede’slarge-scalesamplesurveyofIBMemployees.HesubsequentlywrotethebookCultural’sConsequencesandproposedfourculturaldimensions,aimingtosystematicallymeasurethebehaviorpatternsandvalueorientationsindifferentsocialandculturalbackgrounds.REF_Ref31812\r\h[7]Theculturaldimensionstheoryhasbecomeoneofthemostimportanttheoreticalframeworksincross-culturalmanagementandculturalcommunication.Later,hecombinedtheresearchfindingsofmanyscholars,suchasMichaelMinkovandMichaelHarrisBond,andcontinuouslyupdatedresultstoproposethefifthandsixthculturaldimensionsREF_Ref4012\r\h[11].Powerdistance,individualityversuscollectivism,andindulgenceversusrestraintdimensionsplayanimportantroleinthispaperasanalyticalcausesofdisparities.Thepowerdistancedimensionmeasuresthedegreetowhichsubordinatepeoplesofacountryorsocietyaccepttheunequaldistributionofpower.Hofstede’sresearchindicatesthatunequalpowerdistributionexistsineverycountry,andthatthegreaterthedifferenceinpower,thedifferentwayspeoplebehaveandthevaluestheyhold.Ahigh-powerdistanceindextendstoacceptandreinforcehierarchiesandauthority,withmanagementdecisionsmadeinatop-downmanner.Peopleacknowledgetheunequaldistributionofpowerasamatterofcourse,andareaccustomedtoobeyingsuperiorsandelders.Ontheotherhand,alow-powerdistanceindexemphasizesanequaldistributionofpower.Itconsidersindividualabilitymoreimportantthanthepowerhierarchywhileadvocatingparticipatorymanagementandopenexpression.Andpeoplearemoreinclinedtocommunicateandnegotiatewiththeirsuperiorsandeldersonanequalbasis.BothChinaandtheUnitedStateshaveatendencytowardshigh-andlow-power,butonlyoneofthesedistancesisdistinctlydominant.Thisdimensionisextensivelyusedinthefieldofcross-culturalbusinessmanagement.Itrevealstheessentialdifferencesinpowerconceptsbetweendifferentculturesaswellasprovidestheoreticalguidancefororganizationalstructuredesignandcommunicationmodelsinaglobalizedcontext.Individualismversuscollectivismdimensionexplorestheextenttowhichasocietyidentifieswithindividualachievementorcollectiveinterests.HofstedebelievesthatthisdimensionisthemostsignificantdifferencebetweenWesternandChinesecultures.Individualismtendstopursuepersonalindependence,freedomandself-realization,andpersonalrightsandobligationsareconsideredthecoreofsocialbehavior.Forthem,achievingpersonalvalueisthemeaningoflife.Ontheotherhand,Collectivismemphasizesgrouprelationships,withpersonalconductaimedatmaintaininggroupharmony.Inapinch,theycansacrificeegotosuccessgroupgoal,andthereexistsastronginterdependenceamonggroups.ThisdimensionofHofstede’sresearchelucidatesthedifferentperceptionsandvalueorientationsofpeopletowardstherelationshipbetweentheindividualandthecollectiveunderdiversesocialstructures,significantlyinfluencingthewayinwhichbusinessdecisions,socialinteractionsandfamilyrelationships.Itiswidelyusedinmarketingandconsumerbehaviorresearch.TheIndulgenceversusRestraintdimensionreflectsthedegreetowhichindividualscancontroltheirdesiresandsatisfyneedsinagivensociety.The“indulgence”dimensionprioritizessatisfyone’simmediateneedsandshort-termpleasures;the“restraint”dimensionplacesmoreemphasisonnorms,self-discipline,andlong-termobjectives,oftenpostponedeferredgratification.Inotherwords,thisdimensioncorrespondstotheculturalvaluesofhedonismandasceticism.Thisdimensionhelpsscholarsgainadeeperunderstandingoftheimpactofdifferentculturesonhappiness,workattitudes,andconsumerbehavior,providingnewperspectivesforthestudyofcross-culturalcommunicationandmanagement.AccordingtothedataonHofstede’sofficialwebsite,theindexofeachculturaldimensionisnotafixedvaluebuthasbeencontinuouslyupdated.REF_Ref197772538\hTable2-1showsthelatestindexesofculturaldimensionsinChinaandAmerica,whicharepresentedbelow:CountryDimensionsChinaAmericaPowerDistance8040Individualism2091Indulgence2468Table2-SEQTable_2-\*ARABIC12.2PreviousStudiesonCulturalDimensionsTheoryatHomeandAbroadInrecentyears,domesticandforeignscholarshavecarriedoutresearchontheculturaldimensionstheoryandbuzzwordfromdifferentperspectives,someofwhichinvolvethecombinationofthetwo,butthereisstillroomforexpansioninthecomparativeresearchonthevaluesofChineseandAmericanbuzzwordsintheInternetundertheculturaldimensionstheory.Atabroad,Hofstede(1984)describesthescopeof(work-related)culturaldifferencesastheywererevealedbyresearchinmorethan50countriesaroundtheworldanddiscusseshowthesedifferencesaffectthevalidityofmanagementtechniquesandphilosophiesinvariouscountrieswithinthefunctioningandmeaningofplanning.Bysystematicallyusingfactoranalysis,heproposedfivecoredimensions,whichprovidedabasicframeworkforsubsequentcross-culturalresearch.REF_Ref8210\r\h[6]SondergaardM(1994)madeananalysisofapplicationsandreplicationsoftheworkofGeertHofstedewasbasedonacollectionofcitationsofpublishedandunpublishedmaterial.Fourtypesofusagewerefound:citations,reviews,empiricalreplications,andasaparadigm.TheroleofHofstede’sworkisillustratedbythenumberofcitations,thewidespreadusageofHofstede’sculturetypesbeyondcitationaswellasconfirmationoftheresultsandvalidationofthedimensionsbyempiricalresearch.REF_Ref7785\r\h[16]REF_Ref7785\r\hChoB,KwonU,GentryJW,etal(1999)developsacross-culturalcontentanalysisframeworkinadvertisingculturetoexamineunderlyingculturaldimensions.TelevisioncommercialsfromtheU.S.andKoreawereselectedasbeingrepresentativeofNorthAmericanandEastAsiancommercials.Bothcountriesarepresent-timeoriented,andwhileindividualismandcollectivismareprevalentinbothcultures,individualismismoredominantintheU.S.Koreancommercialsstressoneness-with-natureslightlymorethanU.S.commercials,andU.S.commercialsusemoredirectapproaches.Theresearchalsoexploredtheapplicationofculturaldimensionstheory,examininghowfactorssuchaspowerdistanceandindividualismversuscollectivismshapeadvertisingculture.REF_Ref7874\r\h[3]SoaresAM,FarhangmehrM,ShohamA(2007)measuredtheimpactofusingapluralisticcombinedresearchdesignonindividual-levelculturalvaluesinthefieldofinternationalmarketing.Andtheyfoundthatculturaldimensionstheoryhasahighdegreeofpredictiveabilityandexplanatorypower.REF_Ref3669\r\h[15]Theseseveralstudieshavegraduallyenrichedanddevelopedtheapplicabilityofculturaldimensionstheoryindifferentculturalcontexts.Subsequently,ThurlowC,MroczekK(2011)examinedthedigitizationofnewmediaindifferentcountriesandregions,whichincludedtheuseofcommunication,languageandmessages.Thestudyfoundthatindividualismversuscollectivismplayedanimportantrole.Althoughtherewasnomentionofbuzzwords,thisalsohadacertainimpactonthecreationandspreadofbuzzwords.REF_Ref23787\r\h[17]IrisOrriss(2014)foundthatglobalinterconnectionandparticipationintheknowledgeeconomyarehinderedbylanguage,justasculturalvaluesdeterminetheappealofbuzzwordswithinspecificlanguagecommunities.Healsoemphasizedthatlanguagetechnologiesontechnologyplatformsareneededtopromoteamoreinclusiveonlineenvironment,andunderstandingculturalnuancescanenablebuzzwordsandculturalexpressionstothrive.REF_Ref23843\r\h[9]AlqarniAM(2022)studiedtheassociationbetweenthetwoaspectsofHofstede’smodelinculturaldimensionswithlanguagelearningbehavioursandlearningstylesunderdifferentculturalcontextsandlearningenvironments.Forexample,thepowerdistancebetweentheEastandtheWestwillaffectstudents’willingnesstoseekhelpfromteachers.Thesamplesizewasinsufficient,sosomestudiescouldnotreflecttheassociation.Therefore,subsequentstudiesneedtointegrateavarietyofmethods.REF_Ref3525\r\h[1]MinkovM,KaasaA(2022)expandedtheoriginaldimensionalindex.TheydiscussedwhetherculturaldimensionsobjectivelyexistbasedontheMinkov-Hofstedeculturalmodel,andthediscussioncovered102countriesandregions.Thestudyfoundthattheculturaldimensionstheorywasnotcompletelysubjectiveandhadsomeobjectivity,whichbetterexplainedthedifferencesbetweencountriesandverifiedthevalidityoftheculturaldimensionstheoryinrecentyears.However,therewerealsosomeproblemsandlimitationsthatneededtobeaddressedbyfurtherresearchinthefuture.REF_Ref3499\r\h[12]Domesticscholarshavewidelyappliedtheculturaldimensionstheoryincross-culturalcommunication,managementandotherfields.TangXinhuang,GuanZhe(2006)tooktheleadinanalyzingthefivedimensionsofculturaldimensionstheoryonebyonethroughspecificcases,demonstratingtheimportanceofthetheoryincross-culturalmanagementandoperations.REF_Ref8308\r\h[26]YanMing(2007)arguedthatthetheoreticalchoiceofcross-culturalmanagementshouldbemadebysynthesizingtheobjectandcontentofthestudy.Heemphasizedthattheculturaldimensionstheorycaneffectivelyguidemanagementmethodsandtheoperationofenterpriseswithdifferentculturalbackgrounds,anditcanpromoteharmoniouscross-culturalinteractionsandoverallefficiencywithinenterprises.REF_Ref8360\r\h[28]LiWenjuan(2009)sortedoutthecoreelementsofculturaldimensionsandbelievedthatithadanindispensablepositioninthefieldofcross-culturalresearch,butthereareissueswiththistheory,suchasitsincompleteness,itsdominancebyaWesternvaluescontext,andwhetherthedistantdataiseffectivehasnotbeenverified,whichneedtobefurtherexplored.REF_Ref8468\r\h[23]WangAixia(2014)exploredtheculturalconnotationsimpliedinbuzzwords.Mostofthebuzzwordsreflectculturalexchangeandintegration.Whentranslatingbuzzwords,itisnecessarytoabidebythecriteriaofcross-culturalawarenesswhilemaintaininga"Chineseflavor".Politicallyrelatedwordsneedtobetranslatedcautiouslytoavoidculturalmisinterpretationandpromotecorrectandreasonablecross-culturalcommunication.REF_Ref3349\r\h[27]MaXingxiangandWangXingfang(2018)statisticallyanalyzedtheapplicationoftheculturaldimensionstheoryinChina’scross-culturalcommunication.Theyproposedthatthedegreeofattentiontoeachculturaldimensionvariesgreatly,andtheinvolvedfieldsareveryextensive,includingdifferencesinmanagement,media,anddailylife.Althoughthetheoryhascertainreferencevalueforcross-culturalpractice,therearestillproblemssuchasthetheoreticalapplicationboundaryandlocalizationconstructionthatneedtobestudiedandsolvedinapplication.REF_Ref3303\r\h[24]ZhangDaoxue(2022)conductedacomprehensivestudyonthecharacteristicsofbuzzwordsandproposedthatlanguageandcultureareinterdependent,andculturalvaluesareoftenimpliedinthesebuzzwords.Therefore,whendealingwithdifferentbuzzwords,correspondingtranslationmethodsshouldbeadoptedtoconveythecorrectculturalconnotationsandpromotebettercross-culturalcommunicationandexchange.REF_Ref3264\r\h[29]ZhangYue(2023)madeasix-dimensionalcomprehensivecomparisonofthepromotionalvideosoftopuniversitiesinChinaandtheUnitedStates.Throughfragmentedplots,theauthorrevealedthatthevaluesofChinaandtheUnitedStatesnotonlyshowthesurfaceimagebutalsoimplysignificantdifferencesintheculturaldimensionsandvaluesrepresentedbythetwosides.Atthesametime,thiscomparisonprovidesareferenceandabasisforcommunicationbothinsideandoutsideuniversities.REF_Ref3218\r\h[30]Tosumup,theexistingstudiesathomeandabroadhavemadesomeachievementsintheapplicationofculturaldimensionstheoryandtheresearchofbuzzwords.Itisofgreattheoreticalandpracticalsignificancetocarryouttheresearchinthisfield,whichisexpectedtoprovidemoretheoreticalsupportandpracticalguidanceforcross-culturalcommunication,culturalcommunicationandotherfields.

ChapterThreeGeneralAnalysisofValueDifferencesBetweenChineseandAmericanBuzzwordsfromthePerspectiveofCulturalDimensionsHofstedeconsidersvaluestobetheessenceofculture,sothecontentiousdisparitiesinvaluesbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesmanifestinmanyaspects.Thischaptercommencewithcomparisonsandinvestigatetheunderlyingreasonsforthesedifferences,enablingpeoplehaveadeepercomprehensionoftherootsofculturaldifference.3.1IntroductiontoBuzzwordsBuzzwordsexemplifylinguisticdiversitywhilecarryingthesentimentsandideasofsocialentities.Tocomprehensivelyexaminethecross-culturalvaluedifferences,thestudyfirstclarifiestheconceptandcharacteristicsofbuzzwords,thentracestheevolutionofbuzzwordsinbothcountries,soastofacilitateadeeperunderstandingofthemechanismsandinfluencesofChineseandAmericanvaluesintheformationofbuzzwords.3.1.1DefinitionofBuzzwordsBuzzwordsappearedwiththewidespreaduseoftheInternet,andareformedfromvariouscombinationsofnumbers,symbols,characters,andemojis.WagenerA(2021)proposeanapproachbasedonthecommunicationalroleplayedbymemesandGIFs,andalsotounderlinethefactthattheydorepresentanewformofhumandiscourse,enrichedbyculturalreferences,popularcultureandindividual,andcollectivecreativity.REF_Ref3127\r\h[18]Theconceptof“buzzword”remainsundefined.Accordingtoonlinedictionaries,CambridgeDictionarydefinesbuzzwordas“afashionableword(oftenusedontelevisionandinnewspapers)”;whileWikipediadescribesitas“acoinedwordthatbecomespopularataparticulartimeoraphrasethathasbeeninexistenceforalongtime”.Somescholarsbelievethatbuzzwordsarecreatedbynetizeninresponsetopopulartopics,withtheirmeaningsandcontextschangingfollowingextensivemediaexposure.ZhangDaoxue(2022)definedbuzzwordsasacomprehensiveproductofmultiplefactorswithdistinctcharacteristicsofthetimes,aphenomenonofInternetlanguageworthyofattention.REF_Ref3264\r\h[29]Buzzwordshaveimperceptiblypenetratedthedailylivesofthepublic.Giventheirprofoundimpact,itisnecessarytotakestockofthe“AnnualCharactersandWordsofChinese”atyearend.Notonlydonetizenspontaneouslydisposalstatistics,butofficialandacademicorganizationsalsocomprehensivelycollateandreleasedata.Theauthorfoundthroughsortingthatbuzzwordsaremainlycategorizedintothreetypes:Abbreviationisthefirsttype.Inrecentyears,Englishabbreviativebuzzwordshavegainedwidespreadusage.Peopleprefertoshortentypingdurationanduseabbreviatingwordstoexpresstheiremotionsdirectly.Forinstance,“YYDS”isthefullChinesenameof“永远的神,”whichreferstosomethingorsomeonethatisextremelyoutstandingandlegendary;yet“LOL”standsfor“LaughterOutLoud”andreferstoabriefexpressionofjoyandfun.Similarbuzzwordswithsamemeaningsincludethenumbercombination“2333”.Moreover,doubleentendretypeofbuzzwordmainlyachievesahumorousorsatiricaleffectthroughhomophonyandpuns,cleverlyusesthephoneticsandsemanticsofthelanguage.Forexample,“杯具”itselfreferstotheutensilusedtocontainliquidsindailylife,whileitspronounceislike“悲剧”,soitisoftenusedtodescribebadluckorsomethingfrustrating.“BlackandWhite”originallymeantblackandwhitecolor,itdevelopedaplainandinsipidmeaningthroughadvertisingbuzzwords.Inaddition,lexicalregenerationreferstowordsthatalreadyexistedandhavetakenonnewmeaningsthroughouttime.Thesemanticofthesebuzzwordscanvaryindifferentcontexts.RisagerK(2020)exploredthethreedimensionsoflanguageandculture.Amongthem,theSemantic-Pragmaticdimensionreflects,toacertainextent,theuniquesemanticsofinternetbuzzwordsandthespecificpragmaticscenariosandrules.REF_Ref13219\r\h[13]Thephrase“牛马”generallydenotespoultry,butinthechallengingenvironmentoftheemploymentera,ithascometosymbolizethehardworkoflaborers,workinglikeacoworahorsetodeath,butnotgettingthesalarytheydeserve;theoriginalmeaningof“sick”referstobeingundertheweather,butincertainonlinecontextswithinSkateboardingandHip-HopCulture,itsignifiespraiseforsomeoneofgreatskill.Generallyspeaking,buzzwordsaretermsorphraseswithcontemporarytrendsthatoriginatefromreallife,arecreatedbynetizen,gainpopularityforacertainperiodoftime,andpossessmanyattributes.3.1.2CharacteristicsofBuzzwordsBuzzwordshavemanycharacteristics,amongwhichtimeliness,socialreflection,usability,universality,domainspecificity,andambiguityareparticularlyprominent.Thefollowingelucidatesindetailtheoriginsofthesetraits:Buzzwordsarecharacterizedbytheirtimelinessandsocialreflection.Theyusuallyarisesuddenlywithinaspecificperiodoftime,whicharelinguisticexpressionsandbarometersofsocialandculturalchange,mirroringcurrentsocialreflection,technologicaltrendsorculturalphenomena.CornwallA(2010)usedbigdatatoanalyzealargenumberofbuzzwords,andfoundthattheirfrequencyandsemanticchangesarerelatedtosocialeventsandculturaltrends,providingnewideasforquantitativeresearchontherelationshipbetweenbuzzwordsandculturalwords.REF_Ref3006\r\h[4]Forexample,“川普”(Trump)and“TiktokRefugee”arecloselyrelatedtoeverydaylife.However,theirpopularitycycleisshort,frequentlydiminishingorbeingreplacedbynewbuzzwordsovertime.Buzzwordsexhibitgreatuniversalityandusability,servingasavitalpartindailycommunicating.Buzzwordsaremostlynounsorphrasesthatarebriefandeasytoremember,suchas“躺平”(lyingflat)“ate”.TheyareconvenientforrapiddisseminationandpublicusethroughmediaandInternetchannels,meetingpeople’sneedsforquicklytransmittinginformation.Buzzwordshavepenetratedfarintopubliccommunicationandcrossedthebordersoflanguageandculture.Buzzwordspossessdistinctdomainspecificity,typicallyemerginginspecificfieldssuchasbusiness,technology,politics,andculture,withtheirscopeofusewillexpandtomoregeneralcontextsastheyspread.BrusenskayaL,KulikovaE,BarabashV(2023)arguedthatthefunctionaldynamicsofbuzzwordsisduetobothlinguisticandextralinguisticfactors,andstudiedthemodernlanguagematerialpresentedbymediausingadescriptivemethodwithelementsoflinguoculturologicalandlinguopragmaticanalysis.REF_Ref2941\r\h[2]Buzzwordsareoftenusedinthebusinessrealmasmarketingtools,suchasthe“双11”(doubleeleven)and“BlackFriday”.Althoughthesebuzzwordsareviewedas