Chapter 1 Introduction
Foucault's discourse analysis provides a solid methodological foundation for exploring the changes in meaning of tech-slang; it is no longer about describing language but rather about investigating power, knowledge and social control [1]. At its heart, this way of thinking does not consider language to be a fixed instrument for communication but rather a dynamic force that constructs reality. At its core, it is to understand how certain words, such as "cloud", "algorithm" and "viral", have moved from the realm of technical jargon to daily language and how this change affects people's perception and use of digital infrastructure. This change is seldom neutral; it shows that the boundaries of expertise are shifting and that technological ideas are being adopted or even taken over by the public.
To carry out the above analysis, a regular process should be followed to collect linguistic data from various periods in the archives. The researcher finds the main instances where there is a break in meaning, that is to say, when a word's meaning deviates from its original technical purpose. Using the concept of "power/knowledge", it can be seen that the dominant group has set certain definitions to maintain its power, and subcultures may take up these terms to resist or redefine them. In this way, one must consider the circumstances of use and trace how it has been employed in developer forums, technical manuals, mass media, social networks, etc.
It can help us better understand the current situation of digital culture in China. It has been studied how the terminology affects people's behaviour and the formulation of policies on the commodification of personal information. Through the exposure of hidden power relations in daily tech-slang, people will be able to think more deeply about the technological narratives that shape their lives. It will also provide a regular way for linguists and sociologists to study the connection between language and technology, so that changes in meaning are not only seen as trends but also as signs of deeper changes in society and ideology.
Chapter 2 Theoretical Foundation and Research Context
2.1 Core Concept Definition: Tech-Slang as a Dynamic Discursive Formation
This section will list some representative definitions of tech-slang in linguistics, communication studies and digital culture research, and point out that they all have the same problem of considering tech-slang to be a neutral, spontaneously generated informal language variety. To overcome the fixed idea, tech-slang is now regarded as a type of discourse that changes over time in light of Foucault's theory. It is not just a list of words but rather a system of statements that has arisen from various discursive practices in technical schools, grassroots digital communities, mass media, etc. Tech-slang is used to organise the world actively, not just to reflect it. The three discursive characteristics of it are as follows: First, it has broken the traditional division between formal technical terms and casual everyday language to blur the boundary between expert knowledge and popular expression; Second, its meaning is no longer fixed by the initial definition of experts but is constantly revised through continuous discourse among all sectors of society; Third, it is inherently tied to power relations and does not serve as an impartial means of communication. To be accurate in the analysis, tech-slang should be distinguished from the related categories of standard tech jargon, internet buzzwords and general youth slang. Although jargon is limited to certain professional fields and general slang does not have technical origins, tech-slang is used in the space between technical concepts and is reinterpreted by the public. This distinction is to avoid ambiguity and provide an accurate basis for the following analysis of changes in meaning and power in digital communication.
2.2 Foucaultian Discourse Analysis Framework: Power/Knowledge, Discursive Field, and Subjectification
Based on the construction of a Foucaultian discourse analysis system in this paper, changes in the meaning of tech-slang will be examined from three aspects: power/knowledge, the discursive field and subjectification. First of all, the Power/Knowledge axis believes that semantic meaning is not neutral; it is always associated with certain knowledge claims that have been verified by the power system. In the background of technology, this means that the meaning of slang is created and spread by the prevailing structure of technical authority, and specific terms are legitimised not only for their linguistic convenience but also because they align with the dominant expert knowledge. Secondly, the Discursive Field is the overlapping and contested area among all kinds of stakeholders, such as technical experts, platform operators, grassroots users, regulatory authorities, etc., where they compete to assign and stabilise the meaning of terms. Tech-slang is no longer a fixed set of words but rather a place where various interpretations of the words are contested. Thirdly, the dimension of Subjectification shows how different groups of users take up, adapt and perform these semantics to build various social identities and subject positions in the digital public sphere. By using tech-slang, people are actively constructing their own subjectivity and showing that they belong to a certain digital subculture or are resisting the mainstream narrative. Finally, the application of this combined system will be able to overcome the deficiencies of the old etymology and semantic change theory. By addressing the social and power embeddedness of language explicitly, this framework can go beyond the level of description in historical analysis and uncover the reasons for socio-political changes in meaning during the digital era.
Chapter 3 Discursive Mechanisms of Tech-Slang Semantic Evolution Under Foucaultian Perspectives
3.1 Power-Knowledge Interaction Driven Semantic Reorientation
3.1.1 Institutional Tech Discourse: Expert Power and Initial Technical Semantic Configuration
According to Foucault, at the beginning of technology, there is an exercise of expert power to define truth in the field of technology. The first is the institutional technical discourse system, which includes standardisation bodies, corporate R&D laboratories, and elite industry expert communities; it is only in these places that new technology concepts are generated and verified. At this time, expert power is based on having special access to new technology and is used to name new phenomena and set official, fixed technical definitions. The sources of this authority are early technical whitepapers, the first programming manuals, proceedings of industry conferences and official standards documents. These texts do not merely describe functions; they are the first to establish the exclusive validity of certain semantic definitions and set them as the "authentic" base for all other uses. The institutional rules are strict; there is a peer-review system and technical specifications that must be met, so the original technical meaning has been accepted by everyone as an objective truth. It is not a neutral process and is also not technically driven. Rather, it is an expression of the particular power interests and ideological priorities of the dominant technical group at the time when the term was created. To establish a norm of truth, these institutions have fixed certain meanings as the standard; thus, they favour some ways of understanding technology and exclude others, and power relations are thereby embedded in the basic semantic structure of technical language.
3.1.2 Popular Participatory Discourse: Lay Knowledge and Subversive Semantic Derivation
With the spread of technical terms in the public participation discourse, their original meanings are often changed by the addition of ordinary knowledge. Unlike the fixed and standardised definitions put forward by expert institutions, non-expert internet users have taken these terms from daily life and started a process of subversive semantic derivation. Foucault's concept of counter-conduct can be used to understand this behaviour; that is to say, the marginalised non-expert subject is deliberately opposing the rule of institutional tech discourse. Based on the analysis of corpus data from the early days of social media forums and user-generated content platforms, it can be observed that technical meanings are often replaced by colloquial and emotional expressions. It is not a random error in language or a simple misuse of prescriptive grammar; rather, it is an intentional way of speaking. Non-experts use the power of numbers to create new meanings that are more in line with the needs of society and culture. Therefore, this process is also a challenge to the monopoly of experts in defining technological reality. It can be seen that meaning is not a fixed attribute of institutions but rather a place of contestation for power. Through the reorientation of semantics by popular participation, the aura of invincibility around technical authority has been broken, and it can be seen that lay knowledge also has a unique, subversive power to change the linguistic system of technology.
3.2 Discursive Field Struggle and Semantic Stabilization of Representative Tech-Slang Cases
3.2.1 The shifting connotation of "algorithm": From technical terminology to daily life governance signifier
The word "algorithm" is a typical case that can help us understand the struggle in the discursive field and semantic stabilisation. In the beginning, within the institutional discourse of computer science, it was a precise technical concept that referred to a finite sequence of computational rules that are neutral and aimed at solving particular problems. Therefore, the term was an objective tool without any social connotation. With the rise of social media in the 2010s, the term has been used more widely in the general public's talk. As a result, there was a dispute over the meaning of this among various social forces. Technology companies have presented the algorithms as impartial and effective means of improving service quality to maintain users' trust. Critical digital scholars have pointed out that these systems are actually black boxes for data surveillance and have problems of control and opacity. At the same time, ordinary users have also used their own experiences to understand the term and believe that it is an invisible force regulating the flow of information and social interaction in daily life. The competition among many parties is the reason for the change in meaning. As a result of the above argumentation, a relatively stable hybrid meaning has been formed. Although "algorithm" still has some technical connotations in modern times, it has been widely used to refer to all kinds of hidden, automatic control mechanisms that regulate people's daily lives. This change in meaning shows that technical terms are not fixed; rather, they change due to conflicts and are now used to refer to everyday governance under the influence of various power relations among technology providers and society.
3.2.2 The semantic evolution of "emoji": From code character to affective expression carrier
The case of "emoji" is a typical example that can help us understand the discursive struggle and semantic stabilisation process. Emoji originated from the technical standards of Japanese mobile communication in the late 1990s and are essentially a set of Unicode code characters. At this time, the meaning of language was only about function; it was needed to extend the limited text-expression capabilities of the first feature-phone SMS. At that time, the operation process of using them was purely technical; only a specific code point was chosen to display a static picture, and there were no rich emotions as we know them today. With the spread of smartphones and social media around the world, however, these terms have been incorporated into a discourse of power struggle. Platform designers have used emojis to make a universal language for all people around the world and tried to standardise their meanings. At the same time, the group of marginalised users has been using language to modify and rebel against these definitions, adding their own subcultural meanings that are not standardised. Regulatory authorities and the public have also been actively discussing where to draw the line for emojis in terms of their meaning and whether they are appropriate for formal and informal communication. In the end, the layered discursive practices did not result in semantic chaos; rather, a stabilisation occurred, and the dominant contemporary meaning of "emoji" has been solidified. It is now known that it can carry subtle emotional, attitudinal and situational information that is difficult to express in plain text. The change in meaning shows that, through argument and discussion, technical words have been able to break free from their original narrow definitions and serve many purposes in rich human communication.
3.3 Subjectification Practice: Semantic Adaptation of Tech-Slang in Different User Groups
Subjectification practice is the discursive process by which people are constructed as active subjects in certain power-knowledge networks, according to Foucault's theory. Tech-slang is not just a language; it is a way of life, and at its core, semantic adaptation is used to build an identity. The main reason is that the speaker will choose different meanings of a polysemous word to express themselves and show their social status. The three steps of this operating path are: first, identify the power relations among various subjects in the digital discourse field; second, select a semantic variant that is suitable for the subject position you want to take; and third, use this variant in communication to strengthen the group's boundary.
Different groups of users have different ways of working. Professional tech practitioners are "semantic conservators" who deliberately keep the original and strict technical definitions of words such as "latency" and "bandwidth"; at the same time, they are also displaying their expert status and drawing boundaries for the professional community to enhance their own power in the specialised power structure. At the same time, the general young digital natives are "semantic subversives" who intentionally abandon technical accuracy for irony, derivation or other emotional connotations. Thus, they are considered discerning insiders of grassroots digital culture and have managed to distance themselves from both the technical elite and non-digital natives; therefore, they possess agency through language. Finally, institutional public communicators, such as journalists and government officials, are in a position of "semantic bridging"; that is to say, they choose common, stable and often metaphorical meanings to create an accessible public subject image. This selection is a kind of strategic discourse that aims to simplify complex knowledge and thus narrow the communication gap between the technical community and the public. Finally, these different semantic adaptations are all collective discursive practices. They show how subjectivity is constructed and reveal that the use of tech-slang is a purposeful act within the intertwined power-knowledge network to define one's own existence and relationships in the digital age.
Chapter 4 Conclusion
In short, a Foucaultian framework can be used to study the changes in meaning of tech-slang and thus uncover the power relations that exist in digital communication. In fact, this way of thinking does not consider linguistic changes to be merely vocabulary trends; rather, it is believed that they are different forms of discourse that reflect and promote the technological ideology of a particular period. By studying how the words "cloud" and "algorithm" have changed from neutral descriptions to metaphors with social connotations, we can learn more about the production and control of knowledge in the tech industry. At the heart of this analysis is the understanding that language is not a passive carrier but an active tool of power that can influence people's behaviour and establish certain technological norms. In terms of operation, this paper argues that systematic discourse analysis should map the changes in meaning over time in light of changes in technology, and then identify when there are breaks or continuities in the ideas. Thus, the tech company and the community have changed the words to show their power or agreement. The results of this study can be applied to the problems in technical communication, digital literacy and interface Design. To understand the changes in meaning of tech-slang, one can better predict how users will perceive it and thus reduce the problem of technocratic alienation. It can also help people think critically about the marketing stories and learn to perceive the material world behind the digital symbols. Finally, acknowledging the political nature of semantic change can help us engage with technology more openly and democratically; thus, the language that shapes our digital future will not be dictated by corporations alone but will be subject to public discussion and scrutiny.
References
\[1\]Chen, S., Carter, E.. Discourse, Power, and Semantic Change: A Foucauldian Framework for Analyzing the Dynamics of Digital Technology Slang[J]. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2021, 25(3): 345-367.
\[2\]Morales, L.R., Zhang, H., Kim, J.. Technological Neologism Evolution as Subject Formation: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Internet Slang in Chinese Tech Communities[J]. Critical Discourse Studies, 2023, 20(4): 489-507.