This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the interjections actively used by young people in modern German, focusing on their semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic features. Interjections are particularly relevant in youth communication, as they reflect not only immediate emotional states but also the cultural, social, and technological environment of the speakers. The study traces the evolution of interjections under the influence of digital communication, popular culture, and multicultural interaction. Examples are drawn from a variety of contexts, including social networks, streaming platforms, video blogs, and online forums popular with German-speaking youth. The findings reveal significant borrowing from English, Arabic, and Turkish, as well as the emergence of hybrid expressions that blend linguistic resources from multiple languages.

Keywords: interjections, German language, youth speech, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, digital communication, multiculturalism, language change.

Introduction

Interjections are one of the most dynamic and expressive parts of speech, serving to communicate spontaneous emotions, attitudes, and reactions. In the speech of young people, they perform a dual function: enhancing the emotional vividness of interaction and acting as cultural markers of group identity. The role of interjections in shaping conversational style has grown with the proliferation of digital media, where short, impactful expressions are essential for maintaining engagement. In contemporary German, youth language incorporates elements from a variety of sources, reflecting both global and local influences. Borrowings from English, Arabic, and Turkish have become common, particularly in urban areas with diverse populations. Social networks and instant messaging platforms further accelerate the diffusion of new interjections and contribute to rapid cycles of linguistic innovation and obsolescence.

Theoretical Background

Linguists classify interjections as invariable lexical units that express emotional or volitional responses and do not enter into grammatical relations with other parts of a sentence. They may be categorised into two main types: — Primary interjections (e.g., oh, ah, hey) — basic forms not derived from other words. — Secondary interjections (e.g., krass!, geil!, Alter!) — words that originate from other lexical categories but are used in exclamatory functions. In modern youth communication, these distinctions are often fluid. Standard vocabulary items can acquire new pragmatic functions when repurposed as interjections. Furthermore, hybrid forms emerge from the mixing of languages, as in the case of English or Arabic loanwords that are phonologically and semantically adapted to German contexts.

Methodology

The data for this study was collected over a six-month period, using a targeted approach to capture authentic youth communication. The primary sources included: 1. TikTok comments on trending videos in Germany. 2. YouTube livestream chats and recorded gaming streams. 3. Discord and Telegram group conversations among users aged 14–25. 4. Instagram stories and direct message exchanges (publicly available or shared with consent). In total, over 500 instances of interjection use were compiled. Each item was coded for linguistic origin, semantic value, pragmatic function, and situational context. This approach allowed for both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Findings and Discussion

Common Interjections in Youth German

The following interjections were among the most frequently encountered in the corpus:

1. Krass! — Expresses amazement, admiration, or shock; from colloquial adjective krass («extreme»).
2. Geil! — Originally «lustful,» now a general term of approval meaning «cool» or «awesome.»
3. Alter! — Literally «old man»; used to address friends informally or express surprise.
4. Oha! — Borrowed from Arabic, meaning «wow» or «oh dear,» especially common in multicultural contexts.
5. Digga/Dicker! — From «thick» in the sense of «close friend»; an attention-getter or expression of solidarity.
6. Bro! — From English «brother»; conveys camaraderie, often used ironically.
7. Nice! — English borrowing expressing approval.
8. Eyy! — A versatile attention call or mild reproach.
9. Lol — English internet slang for «laugh out loud»; used in speech as an ironic commentary.
10. Wallah — From Arabic, meaning «I swear»; used emphatically.

Pragmatic Functions

The pragmatic analysis revealed four primary functions of youth interjections: — Expressive: conveying emotions such as surprise, excitement, or disbelief (krass, oha). — Phatic: maintaining social contact and conversational flow (alter, eyy). — Evaluative: providing quick assessments or judgements (geil, nice). — Identity-marking: signalling cultural alignment with youth and online communities (digga, bro, wallah).

Influence of Multiculturalism and Media

Multiculturalism in urban Germany has a significant impact on the vocabulary of young people. Expressions from Turkish (lan), Arabic (wallah, yalla), and English (lol, wtf, chill) are naturalised into youth speech. Media platforms like TikTok encourage the blending of linguistic repertoires, resulting in hybrid expressions and meme-based interjections that can go viral overnight. However, the lifespan of such expressions is often short, as trends evolve rapidly.

Sociolinguistic Interpretation

Youth interjections are not merely linguistic embellishments; they serve as indicators of social belonging and identity performance. By using particular interjections, young speakers align themselves with certain peer groups, subcultures, and online communities. For example, heavy use of Arabic-origin expressions may signal ties to urban multicultural environments, while English-based slang often indicates immersion in globalised internet culture. Gender also plays a role: some interjections are perceived as more masculine or feminine, influencing their adoption. The performative aspect of interjections is especially visible in online video content, where facial expressions, intonation, and gesture accompany verbal exclamations to enhance their impact. In text-based communication, the effect is replicated through capitalisation, repetition of letters, and the use of emojis.

Conclusion

Modern German youth interjections form a dynamic and culturally hybrid component of the language, reflecting the social and technological realities of their speakers. Their rapid turnover mirrors the fast-paced nature of online communication, while their multicultural origins testify to Germany’s linguistic diversity. Further research could explore regional variations, longitudinal changes in frequency, and the role of gender and socio-economic background in shaping interjection use. As youth language continues to evolve, interjections will remain a key site for observing linguistic creativity and cultural exchange.

References:

1. Androutsopoulos, J. (2007). Bilingualism in the mass media and on the internet. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Societal and individual aspects (pp. 306–334). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.17.15and
2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2009). Language change and sociolinguistic variation in German youth language. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 21(3), 257–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542709000356
3. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). Online data and social media in sociolinguistics: A few cautionary tales. Sociolinguistica, 27, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2013–0001
4. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167
5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
6. Ehlich, K. (1992). Sprachliche Markierung und Textkonstitution: Zur Rolle der Partikeln in gesprochener Sprache. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
7. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
8. Hasselblatt, C. (2021). Deutsche Jugendsprache: Strukturen, Funktionen, Entstehung. Buske.
9. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1), article 1. http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/1564
10. Jaffe, A. (Ed.). (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
11. Kiesling, S. F. (2004). Style and identity in sociolinguistics. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 492–511). Blackwell.
12. Ladewig, S. (2010). Pragmatic functions of bodily conduct in conversational interaction: The case of hand gestures. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224625
13. Ladewig, S. (2013). Interjections. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–7). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343085.wbeal0656
14. Leech, G. (2007). Discourse and pragmatics. In H. Schmid (Ed.), An introduction to linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 133–156). Pearson.
15. Lev, S. (2020). Language and identity in multilingual urban youth communities: The case of Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(3), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12415