The goal of this page is to provide a brief, preliminary description of some Gen Z constructions that YGDP researchers are currently investigating. The judgments on this page are mostly from the respective researchers' own intuition; little to no data has been formally collected as of yet. The YGDP hopes to continue working on these constructions to eventually understand them better and publish individual phenomenon pages for each one. For now, here is an overview:
It's giving
The it’s giving construction involves a novel usage of the verb give:
1) It’s giving librarian.
‘It’s giving off librarian vibes.’
When the It’s giving construction takes a direct object, as in both of the above examples, it roughly means that the subject (which can be any type of noun) resembles, is behaving like, or has characteristics of, the object. For example, (1) could express that the subject is dressed like a librarian or acting like one. This is similar to the way the verb scream behaves in a sentence like That screams Disney Princess.
The construction can also involve other subjects and tenses:
2) You were giving Disney Princess.
‘You were giving off Disney Princess vibes.’
The It’s giving construction can also have no direct object, as in (3):
3) That dress is giving.
‘That dress is giving off (some kind of) positive vibes.’
Without a direct object, the construction means that the subject is doing something well—looking good, operating smoothly, or matching the vibe of the situation, for example.
The verb give has different properties in the It's giving construction than it does in Standard English. In Standard English, the verb give usually must have a direct and indirect object, meaning sentences like *I gave the book or *I gave her are usually unacceptable. But in the It’s giving construction, there is usually no indirect object, and a direct object is optional. In Standard English, give can only take a noun phrase as a direct object, meaning sentences like *She gave me happy (with an adjective phrase as a direct object) or *She gave me on the table (with a prepositional phrase as a direct object) are usually unacceptable. On the other hand, in the It’s giving construction, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on what the direct object can be. There are plenty of attested examples where the direct object is a noun phrase, adjective phrase, adverb phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, or even an entire clause.
Lonely transitives
English verbs can be transitive or intransitive. Transitive verbs such as borrow must take a direct object — hence, I borrowed an umbrella is acceptable but *I borrowed is not. Intransitive verbs such as sit cannot take a direct object — hence, I will sit is acceptable but *I will sit a chair is not. We use the term ‘Lonely Transitive’ to describe the use of a verb that is ordinarily transitive without an object. (1a) shows an example of a Lonely Transitive that was tested in a 2020 YGDP survey, and (1b) shows the Standard English counterpart:
1) a. I have an apple. Do you want?
b. I have an apple. Do you want it?
(1a) and (1b) mean the same thing, but speakers who do not use Lonely Transitives would find (1a) unacceptable because it omits the direct object.
The 2020 YGDP survey provides evidence that speakers accept Lonely Transitive sentences with the verbs want, have, and need, albeit to varying degrees of acceptability. The following sentences were all found to be acceptable by some speakers:
2) a. I have some extra tickets for the concert tonight. Do you want?
b. Speaker A: ‘Do you need a key?’
Speaker B: ‘No, I have.’c. I forgot my wallet. Do I need?
Sentences with Lonely Transitive want were accepted by the most speakers, and those with Lonely Transitive need were accepted by the fewest speakers. Moran (2024) provides additional attested examples with other ordinarily-transitive verbs such as bring, grab, and take. Additionally, there are countless examples online of Lonely Transitives with even more verbs beyond those. More research should be conducted to determine the full range of transitive verbs that are acceptable to speakers as Lonely Transitives.
Moran (2024) also analyzes the results of the 2020 YGDP survey to show that there is no geographical pattern to the acceptability of Lonely Transitive sentences — that is, Lonely Transitives do not belong to any particular regional dialect.
Response particle bet
Response particles are small words like yes and no that are used to respond to questions or other types of statements in conversation. The word bet, which has long been a verb and noun in English describing the wagering of money, has taken on a new function as a response particle. Response particle bet is similar to yes and ok in its usage and meaning, but bet also conveys that the speaker feels excitement, enthusiasm, or confidence (Weinbach, 2024), as seen in (1):
1) Speaker A: I just ordered us a pizza.
Speaker B: Bet.
≈ ‘I'm excited to hear that.’
Likely the most common use of response particle bet is as a positive reaction to an assertion, as seen in (1). Because it inherently conveys excitement, enthusiasm, or confidence, it's unnatural (if not ungrammatical) to use bet in a situation where a positive reaction would be surprising — in response to bad news, for example. (1) shows an example of bet as a response to a positive assertion. If Speaker A had instead announced, I decided not to order us a pizza, sorry! then bet would be a strange response.
Bet can also be a response to an imperative, as in (2):
2) Speaker A: Meet me at the coffee shop in 15 minutes.
Speaker B: Bet.
For some speakers, bet can also be a response to a yes/no question, as in (3):
3) Speaker A: Do you want to get dinner with me tonight?
Speaker B: Bet.
However, much like yes and ok, bet cannot be a response to a wh-question, as in (4) and (5):
4) Speaker A: What do you want to eat?
Speaker B: *Bet.5) Speaker A: What do you want to eat?
Speaker B: *Yes.
Spotlight not
The Spotlight not construction consists of the word not and a clause. The following sentence is an example:
1) Not me going to Starbucks for the second time today.
≈ 'I am going to Starbucks for the second time today.'(From Pereira 2023, adapted from Rior 2021)
This sentence means that the speaker is, in fact, going to Starbucks for the second time that day. The not in the Spotlight not construction doesn’t negate the clause that follows it, unlike most standard uses of not.
The “Spotlight” not (as named by Pereira [2023]) draws attention to the event described by the clause following the word not and conveys the speaker’s attitude towards that event. Often, it conveys that the speaker is embarrassed about the event, but it can also convey a range of other attitudes. If a speaker uttered the sentence in (1), users of this construction would likely understand that the speaker is embarrassed about going to Starbucks twice in one day.
This construction is associated with Gen Z, but it may also be present in the speech of many Millennials. In Pereira’s (2023) study, 91.7% of respondents aged 18-40 found the construction highly acceptable (rated it 4 or 5 out of 5), whereas only 10.3% of respondents aged 45-66 gave it such ratings. Morris (2021) provides evidence that the construction may have been present in African American English as early as 2008. However, Morris (2021) points out that its usage has skyrocketed since 2020.