Is slang a word for linguist

Slang is vocabulary (words, phrases, and linguistic usages) of an informal register, common in verbal conversation but avoided in formal writing.^[1] It also sometimes refers to the language generally exclusive to the members of particular in-groups in order to establish group identity, exclude outsiders, or both. The word itself came about in the 18th century and has been defined in multiple ways since its conception.

Etymology of the word slang[edit]

In its earliest attested use (1756), the word slang referred to the vocabulary of «low» or «disreputable» people. By the early nineteenth century, it was no longer exclusively associated with disreputable people, but continued to be applied to usages below the level of standard educated speech.^[2] In Scots dialect it meant «talk, chat, gossip»,^[3] as used by Aberdeen poet William Scott in 1832: «The slang gaed on aboot their war’ly care.»
^[4] In northern English dialect it meant «impertinence, abusive language».^[5]

The origin of the word is uncertain, although it may be connected with thieves’ cant^{[citation needed]}. A Scandinavian origin has been proposed (compare, for example, Norwegian slengenavn, which means «nickname»), but based on «date and early associations» is discounted by the Oxford English Dictionary.^[2] Jonathon Green, however, agrees with the possibility of a Scandinavian origin, suggesting the same root as that of sling, which means «to throw», and noting that slang is thrown language – a quick and honest way to make your point.^[6][7]

Defining slang[edit]

Linguists have no simple and clear definition of slang, but agree that it is a constantly changing linguistic phenomenon present in every subculture worldwide. Some argue that slang exists because we must come up with ways to define new experiences that have surfaced with time and modernity.^[8] Attempting to remedy the lack of a clear definition, however, Bethany K. Dumas and Jonathan Lighter argue that an expression should be considered «true slang» if it meets at least two of the following criteria:^[8]

Michael Adams remarks that «[Slang] is liminal language… it is often impossible to tell, even in context, which interests and motives it serves… slang is on the edge.»^[9] Slang dictionaries, collecting thousands of slang entries, offer a broad, empirical window into the motivating forces behind slang.^[10]

While many forms of lexicon may be considered low-register or «sub-standard», slang remains distinct from colloquial and jargon terms because of its specific social contexts. While viewed as inappropriate in formal usage, colloquial terms are typically considered acceptable in speech across a wide range of contexts, while slang tends to be perceived as infelicitous in many common communicative situations. Jargon refers to language used by personnel in a particular field, or language used to represent specific terms within a field to those with a particular interest. Although jargon and slang can both be used to exclude non-group members from the conversation, the purpose of jargon is said to be optimizing conversation using terms that imply technical understanding.^[11] On the other hand, slang tends to emphasize social and contextual understanding.

While colloquialisms and jargon may seem like slang because they reference a particular group, they do not necessarily fit the same definition, because they do not represent a particular effort to replace the general lexicon of a standard language. Colloquialisms are considered more acceptable and more expected in standard usage than slang is, and jargon is often created to talk about aspects of a particular field that are not accounted for in the general lexicon.^[12] However, this differentiation is not consistently applied by linguists; the terms «slang» and «jargon» are sometimes treated as synonymous,^[13] and the scope of «jargon» is at times extended to mean all forms of socially-restricted language.^[14]

It is often difficult to differentiate slang from colloquialisms and even high-register lexicon, because slang generally becomes accepted into common vocabulary over time. Words such as «spurious» and «strenuous» were once perceived as slang, though they are now considered general, even high-register words. The literature on slang even discusses mainstream acknowledgment of a slang term as changing its status as true slang, because it has been accepted by the media and is thus no longer the special insider speech of a particular group. For example, Black American Music uses a lot of slang based on nationality and origin. The use of slang is a combinations of slurring and slurping words as a result. Nevertheless, a general test for whether a word is a slang word or not is whether it would be acceptable in an academic or legal setting, as both are arenas in which standard lexicon is considered necessary and/or whether the term has been entered in the Oxford English Dictionary, which some scholars claim changes its status as slang.^[12]

Examples of slang (cross-linguistic)[edit]

Formation of slang[edit]

It is often difficult to collect etymologies for slang terms, largely because slang is a phenomenon of speech, rather than written language and etymologies which are typically traced via corpus.

Eric Partridge, cited as the first to report on the phenomenon of slang in a systematic and linguistic way, postulated that a term would likely be in circulation for a decade before it would be written down.^[15] Nevertheless, it seems that slang generally forms via deviation from a standard form. This «spawning» of slang occurs in much the same way that any general semantic change might occur. The difference here is that the slang term’s new meaning takes on a specific social significance having to do with the group the term indexes.

Coleman also suggests that slang is differentiated within more general semantic change in that it typically has to do with a certain degree of «playfulness». The development of slang is considered to be a largely «spontaneous, lively, and creative» speech process.^[15]

Still, while a great deal of slang takes off, even becoming accepted into the standard lexicon, much slang dies out, sometimes only referencing a group. An example of this is the term «groovy» which is a relic of 1960s and 70s American hippie slang. Nevertheless, for a slang term to become a slang term, people must use it, at some point in time, as a way to flout standard language.^[12] Additionally, slang terms may be borrowed between groups, such as the term «gig» which was originally coined by jazz musicians in the 1930s and then borrowed into the same hippie slang of the 1960s.^[12] ‘The word «groovy» has remained a part of subculture lexicon since its popularization. It is still in common use today by a significant population. The word «gig» to refer to a performance very likely originated well before the 1930s, and remained a common term throughout the 1940s and 1950s before becoming vaguely associated with the hippie slang of the 1960s. The word «gig» is now a widely accepted synonym for a concert, recital, or performance of any type.

Generally, slang terms undergo the same processes of semantic change that words in the regular lexicon do.^[15]

Slang often forms from words with previously differing meanings, one example is the often used and popular slang word «lit», which was created by a generation labeled «Generation Z». The word itself used to be associated with something being on fire or being «lit» up until 1988 when it was first used in writing to indicate a person who was drunk^[16] in the book «Warbirds: Diary of an Unknown Aviator». Since this time «lit» has gained popularity through Rap songs such as ASAP Rocky’s «Get Lit» in 2011. As the popularity of the word has increased so too has the number of different meanings associated with the word. Now «lit» describes a person who is drunk and/or high, as well as an event that is especially awesome and «hype».

Words and phrases from popular Hollywood films and television series frequently become slang.^[17]

[edit]

Indexicality[edit]

Slang is usually associated with a particular social group and plays a role in constructing identity. While slang outlines social space, attitudes about slang partly construct group identity and identify individuals as members of groups. Therefore, using the slang of a particular group associates an individual with that group. Michael Silverstein’s orders of indexicality can be employed to assign a slang term as a second-order index to that particular group. Using a slang term, however, can also give an individual the qualities associated with the term’s group of origin, whether or not the individual is trying to identify as a member of the group. This allocation of qualities based on abstract group association is known as third-order indexicality.

As outlined in Elisa Mattiello’s book «An Introduction to English Slang»,^[18] a slang term can assume several levels of meaning and can be used for many reasons connected with identity. For example, male adolescents use the terms «foxy» and «shagadelic» to «show their belonging to a band, to stress their virility or their age, to reinforce connection with their peer group and to exclude outsiders, to show off, etc.» These two examples use both traditional and untraditional methods of word formation to create words with more meaning and expressiveness than the more direct and traditional words «sexy» and «beautiful»:

• The slang term «foxy» is arguably not even a case of word formation since this process (denominal adjective with -y suffix from «fox») already occurred in the formation of this word with its standard English meanings of «foxlike, crafty, cunning». Instead, the traditional word’s meaning is extended^[19] to «attractive, desirable, pretty, sexy» with the following added implications according to Mattiello:

From the semantic point of view, slangy foxy is more loaded than neutral sexy in terms of information provided. That is, for young people foxy means having the quality of: (1) attracting interest, attention, affection, (2) causing desire, (3) excellent or admirable in appearance, and (4) sexually provocative, exciting, etc., whereas sexy only refers to the quality indicated in point (4).

• «shagadelic» is a combination of a slang term with a slang suffix and therefore is considered an «extra-grammatical» creation.

Matiello stresses that those agents who identify themselves as «young men» have «genuinely coined» these terms and choose to use them over «canonical» terms —like beautiful or sexy—because of the indexicalized social identifications the former convey.

First and second order indexicality[edit]

In terms of first and second order indexicality, the usage of speaker-oriented terms by male adolescents indicated their membership to their age group, to reinforce connection to their peer group, and to exclude outsiders.^[18]

Higher-order indexicality[edit]

In terms of higher order indexicality, anyone using these terms may desire to appear fresher, undoubtedly more playful, faddish, and colourful than someone who employs the standard English term «beautiful». This appearance relies heavily on the hearer’s third-order understanding of the term’s associated social nuances and presupposed use-cases.^[18]

Subculture associations[edit]

Often, distinct subcultures will create slang that members will use in order to associate themselves with the group, or to delineate outsiders.

Slang terms are often known only within a clique or ingroup. For example, Leet («Leetspeak» or «1337») was originally popular only among certain internet subcultures such as software crackers and online video gamers. During the 1990s, and into the early 21st century, however, Leet became increasingly commonplace on the internet, and it has spread outside internet-based communication and into spoken languages.^[20] Other types of slang include SMS language used on mobile phones, and «chatspeak», (e.g., «LOL», an acronym meaning «laughing out loud» or «laugh out loud» or ROFL, «rolling on the floor laughing»), which are widely used in instant messaging on the internet.^[21]

As subcultures are often forms of counterculture, which is understood to oppose the norm, it follows that slang has come to be associated with counterculture.

Social media and internet slang[edit]

Slang is often adopted from social media as a sign of social awareness and shared knowledge of popular culture. This type known as internet slang has become prevalent since the early 2000s along with the rise in popularity of social networking services, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. This has spawned new vocabularies associated with each new social media venue, such as the use of the term «friending» on Facebook, which is a verbification of «friend» used to describe the process of adding a new person to one’s group of friends on the website, despite the existence of an analogous term «befriend». This term is much older than Facebook, but has only recently entered the popular lexicon.^[22] Other examples of slang in social media demonstrate a proclivity toward shortened words or acronyms. These are especially associated with services such as Twitter, which (as of November 2017) has a 280-character limit for each message and therefore requires a relatively brief mode of expression.^[23] This includes the use of hashtags which explicitly state the main content of a message or image, such as #food or #photography.^[24]

Debates about slang[edit]

Some critics believe that when slang becomes more commonplace it effectively eradicates the «proper» use of a certain language. However, academic (descriptive) linguists believe that language is not static but ever-changing and that slang terms are valid words within a language’s lexicon. While prescriptivists study and promote the socially preferable or «correct» ways to speak, according to a language’s normative grammar and syntactical words, descriptivists focus on studying language to further understand the subconscious rules of how individuals speak, which makes slang important in understanding such rules. Noam Chomsky, a founder of anthropological linguistic thought, challenged structural and prescriptive grammar and began to study sounds and morphemes functionally, as well as their changes within a language over time.^[25]

In popular culture[edit]

The 1941 film, Ball of Fire, portrays a professor played by Gary Cooper who is researching and writing an encyclopedia article about slang.^[26]

See also[edit]

• A New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew
• Slang dictionary
• Urban Dictionary

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant, Albert Barrère and Charles Godfrey Leland (1889 edition, full text, at Wikimedia Commons).
• The Online Slang Dictionary – American and English terms, features other statistical information.
• Bradley, Henry (1911). «Slang» . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). pp. 207–210.
• SlangLang – Popular slang words with their meaning, origin and spread

Работа добавлена на сайт samzan.net: 2016-06-20

Tony Thorne

Slang, style-shifting and sociability

Encounters with what is loosely called ‘slang’in speech or in print are ubiquitous. In the UK ‘well-brought-up’speakers move easily in and out of slang in conversation and the previous reluctance by the print and broadcast media to admit slang terms has given way to a tendency to embrace and in some cases to celebrate this extremely informal level of lexis. Interest in collecting and analysing slang is keen especially among adolescent learners, but in Britain, as opposed to the US and certain European countries, teachers and academics have hitherto paid it little or no attention. Although there may be valid reasons for this — it is obvious that the study of non-standard varieties of language is of little use in teaching communication skills or preparing for examinations — we should remind ourselves that any disapproval of slang can only be a social and not a linguistic judgement. Indeed, there are grounds for seeing slang, diffuse and ill-defined as it is as a category, as a particularly interesting aspect of language, both formally in that it mobilises all the morphological and metaphorical possibilities of English (Eble 1996 25-60) — rather as poetry does, but without the dimension of allusiveness and ambiguity — and functionally in that it often occurs in association with heightened self-consciousness and charged social interactions. Lexical innovation is also, of course, a function of cultural change, notoriously raising problems of decoding by ‘non-natives’(and some natives, too), but worthy of attention for that very reason, especially for working or trainee teachers and translators. 

An obvious reason for choosing to concentrate on slang is that it is itself a controversial and spectacular social phenomenon, an ‘exotic’aspect of an otherwise predictable language environment. An even better reason is that it is a variety which belongs (to a varying degree — of course some young people are quite innocent of non-standard usages) to young people themselves.

The recorded slangs of the past have been quite rightly characterised by Halliday in terms of ‘antilanguages’, the secretive codes of transgressive or deviant subcultures — criminals, beggars, travelling entertainers — with their salient features of relexicalisation and overlexicalisation (Halliday 1978). Later sociolinguists have focused on the role of adolescent slangs in the construction of social identity, among for example street gangs or high school students (Labov 1982, Eckert 1989), showing how acceptance into and exclusion from peer-groups is mediated by slang nomenclature and terminology.

Researchers into adolescent language usage have tended to concentrate on the links between language and hierarchies, status and deployment of social capital. More recently, however, some specialists have started to look at such ‘carnivalesque’manifestations as profaning, mischief, banter and teasing, the borrowing of ethnically marked codes to signal empathy and solidarity in ‘crossing’(Rampton 1995), and anticipated a change of emphasis in Bernstein’s words ‘from the dominance of adult-imposed and regulated rituals to dominance of rituals generated and regulated by youth’(Bernstein, cited in Rampton 2003). None of these studies has taken slang into account although there has been a plea, again by Rampton, for more attention to ‘the social symbolic aspects of formulaic language’.

Eble, in the only book-length study in recent times devoted to North American campus slang, has shown that the slang of middle-class college students is more complex and less a product of alienation than has been assumed in the past (Eble 1996). Her recordings of interactions reveal, too, that the selective and conscious use of slang itself is only part of a broader repertoire of style-shifting in conversation, not primarily to enforce opposition to authority, secretiveness or social discrimination, but often for the purposes of bonding and ‘sociability’through playfulness. 

Eble’s tally of student slang, collected at Chapel Hill, North Carolina since 1979, prompted the compiling of a similar database at King’s College London. A crude categorisation of the London data (as in the American survey largely donated by students rather than recorded in the field) by semantic clusters gives a picture of student preoccupations that can be compared with the US findings (Thorne 2004 forthcoming). Interpretation is problematical — for example, the large number of terms for intoxication do not prove that London students are necessarily drunkards, but suggest that they do enjoy talking about excessive behaviour.

Tentative insights from the lexicology have been bolstered by analysis of conversations in which slang is used extensively. This also shows in many cases that speakers are operating not as deficient or restricted linguists but as empowered actors, not exactly, in Claire Kramsch’s phrase, the ‘heteroglossic narrators’of recent myth, but enabled to vary their language strategies just as they use assemblage and bricolage in their presentations of self through dress, stance, gesture and accessorising.

By bringing the study of slang into the classroom and helping students to reflect upon their own language practices — especially on how they are potentially or actually able to style-shift and thereby play with identities — we can sensitise them to issues of register, appropriacy and semantic complexity. At a deeper level we can explore together what Bhabha calls the ‘social process of enunciation’ (Bhabha 1992, cited in Kramsch 1997) and bring into play students’values, feelings and allegiances. 

If we turn from the mainly monolingual, although multi-ethnic environment of the London campus to that of the international learner, there seem to me to be potential experiential links which suggest themselves in terms of Byram and Zarates’ notion of the intercultural learner (1994) and more especially Kramsch’s promotion of the ‘third space’or ‘third place’, a metaphorical or actual setting in which language learners move beyond appropriation or assimilation and explore the actual boundaries between themselves and others, and begin to focus less on the formal features of language and more on the ludic, aesthetic or affective qualities of encounters across languages and cultures (Kramsch 1997). It has been proposed that there are certain boundary activities, including for instance pastiche, re-telling of stories and code-mixing, etc, that are especially useful in this context. To these I would modestly suggest that we could usefully add a number of slang-based activities.

Of course slang itself has gone global; there are now local hybrids, often incorporating English lexis alongside the pervasive effects of dominant inner-circle varieties such as the high school argot propagated by Hollywood movies and TV soaps, and the black street codes of rap and hip-hop. Authenticity — not just a concept among analysts but an emblematic term for members of subcultures — is complicated by the development in the media and in literature of pseudo-slangs (a phenomenon that goes back at least as far as Raymond Chandler and P.G. Wodehouse). So-called virtual or electronic literacies developing for the Internet, email or text messaging have generated new slangs and an enormous proliferation of websites designed to celebrate or decode them.

Looking at young peoples’ small-culture codes, whether these be wide-ranging alternative lexicons or the narrower hobbyist (surfboarding, DJ-ing) or media-influenced (pop music and fashion) or technological (email, text-messaging, internet) vocabularies that shade into jargon, revalues young people as expert linguists and their own experiences as worthwhile and meaningful. In nearly all cultures there are examples of this expertise, sometimes also involving catchphrases, media quotes, one-liners, jokes and puns. Language crossing is also a feature of many slangs, bringing into play the question of linguistic imperialism (I recall lessons looking at Franglais, Chinglish and Spanglish, and, in Slovenia, debating the borrowing of ‘cool’.)

Published materials presenting English slang to international students have generally been limited to glossaries; a recent exception being the listening material prepared by Beglar and Murray (2002). Expertise in slang incidentally is not a requirement of the teacher: definitions, usage guidance and even etymologies can be provided by reference materials or come from students themselves. In the classroom I have used componential and cultural analysis of slang keywords, comparison and contrast of slang vocabularies from various languages and regions, critical reading of slang in the media and literature and scripting of slang-rich interactions. Outside the classroom, students have carried out surveys and ethnographies to observe slang usage and uncover attitudes to it held by different speech communities.

Halliday suggested that ‘a study of sociolinguistic pathology may lead to additional insight into the social semiotic’(Halliday 1978). I should emphasise that focusing in this way on stigmatised or taboo language, if it is culturally permissible at all, does not, in my experience, restrict learners’ability to operate with privileged varieties (whether ‘British English’ or EIL); it does not, as some fear, subvert standard usage or devalue it in the eyes of young people but rather the opposite. It helps language users to objectify the way that spoken varieties can be fitted to contexts and enriches their sense of the possibilities of lexical variety.

The idea of the adolescent as the master or mistress of his or her subcultural identity and owner of his or her idiolect and sociolect is not new, nor is the notion of the intercultural learner as a bilingual or multilingual actor consciously operating across boundaries. What is still lacking, however, are materials which set out the kind of ‘boundary activities’ that teachers can draw upon in order to activate third places and empower learners. I have suggested that slang is worthy of the attention of linguists in its own right, but further that, as an exciting and controversial form of language which belongs to young people and to youth culture, it is a valuable entry-point into discussion of sociocultural issues, whether in a monolingual or multilingual setting. Using or talking about slang is only one of many experiences which can be mobilised ‘at the boundaries’in this way, and as a final cri de coeur I would add that whether or not we are interested in slang per se, the urgent need is for practical, usable methods and materials — whether developed and exchanged informally or published commercially — which will help the teaching of language-and-culture in the global classroom to catch up with and profit from a decade or more of theory.

References

Andersson, L. G. and P. Trudgill. Bad Language. London: Penguin Books,1990.

Beglar, D. and N. Murray. Contemporary Topics 3. New York: Longman, 2002.

Crystal, D. Language Play. London: Penguin Books,1998.

Dumas, B.and J. Lighter. “Is slang a word for linguists?” American Speech 53 (1978). 5 — 17

Eble, C. Slang and Sociability. London and Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Eckert, P. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in High School.New York: Teacher’s College Press, 1989.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978), Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, London: Edward Arnold.

Kramsch, C. (1997), ‘The cultural component of language teaching’in Wadham-Smith (ed) British Studies Now 8, London: British Council

Labov, T. (1982), ‘Social structure and peer terminology in a black adolescent gang’, in Language and Society 2, 391 – 411

Rampton, B (1995), Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents, Harlow and New York: Longman

Rodriguez Gonzalez, F. (ed) (2002), Comunicacion y cultura juvenil, Barcelona: Ariel

—————————(2002), El lenguaje de los jovenes, Barcelona: Ariel

Sornig, Karl (1981), Lexical Innovation: A Study of Slang, Colloquialisms and Casual Speech, Amsterdam: Benjamins

Thorne, T. (1998), The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang (New Edition), London: Bloomsbury.

———————-(2004 forthcoming) ‘Campus talk’, in King’s English Vol 1.2, King’s College London

Wierzbicka, A. (1997), Understanding Cultures through their Key Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press

This article first appeared in Multicultural Perspectives on English Language and Literature (Tallinn/London 2004)

NovaInfo 94, с.84-87, скачать PDF
Опубликовано 13 декабря 2018
Раздел: Филологические науки
Просмотров за месяц: 1

Аннотация

The article illustrates Slang and non-standard English are often used in informal conversations among close friends and is a more private vocabulary than we would use in professional communications within the business and academic world. Slang as a phenomenon of the English language covers a lot of drawbacks.

Ключевые слова

COMPETENCE APPROACH, LEARNING STYLES, CRITICAL THINKING, CONTENT BASED APPROACH, FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING

Текст научной работы

The first thing that needs to be said is the etymological origin of the word “slang”, the same as its definite definition, is on the position of changeability. There are several supposition concerned the origin. In fact slang words and expressions are usually characterized by a high degree of informality, familiarity and the richness of the vocabulary. In addition they are realized by a specific group of people whose members are connected with some particular link, for example territory, age, subculture, and generally are found in the spoken form of the language. As slangs are applied more among a specific group, the definitions of slangs are sometimes an obstacle for the researcher to analyze and translate. I would like highlight that phenomenon in my qualification paper.

As the Slang and non-standard English are often used in informal conversations among close friends and is a more private vocabulary than we would use in professional communications within the business and academic world. Slang as a phenomenon of the English language covers a lot of drawbacks. It is often said that slang it is one-third part of the colloquial speech. There are a lot of disagreements and debates about this phenomenon. It is interestingly enough that the majority of the teachers consider slang as the vulgar part of the language. They stay on position that only the illiterate and uneducated part of the Americans uses slang words during communication. This leads them to the conclusion that there is no reason of studying slang at all. However the ignorance of slang causes a great miscommunication and misunderstandings between students and native speakers. All this gives the sense for asking the following question: “Is it worth studying English for many years in order to understand none of the words of the native speaker?»

It is a well-known fact that life does not stay in the same position. It always develops and changes. And it keeps the language in step with the modern condition of the time. That is why the present work is devoted to this social phenomenon.

In the modern world, slang has become so much a defining trait of so many groups that it is impossible to ignore the impact it has had on western society. The question whether it should be considered a healthful source of vocabulary development or a manifestation of vocabulary decay has been often discussed. «Slang» is a word that many of us usually get used to associate with poor grammar and questionable diction; however what most of us do not catch is how much slang we use in our personal life, we just consider slang as a part of our normal language. Slang has personal characteristics which include gender, race, region, and income differs, among these many other variables, for example reflecting and affecting all societal and socioeconomic stereotypes. Every social group like uses some type of slang and by association, those words and grammar become appropriately of that group, something that defines them in a certain way.

As I mentioned previously today language tends to be changing and no one knows all the reasons why it changes, however it continue to do so as long as people speak them. In a few cases, the changes can be explained. For instance, words are added to a vocabulary to refer to new ideas or objects between speakers of different languages may cause words from one language to enter another language. Another essential reason sounds like language has a propensity to transform from complication to easiness and extent to accuracy. Taking into the consideration the historical facts it can be seen that for hundreds of years, English has been continuously changing. For example if the words that were unacceptable 300 years ago now take a common place in our daily-life. Grammar changing is the natural process, and English is always has been confronted with these changes. General slang is mostly words and phrases that have escaped from the myriad subcultures of society and found favor in wider usage. With the development of the society, slang is widely used by more and more people. It is accepted by both upper-classes and lower-classes, and especially college students who tend to use up-to-date words that form a kind of characteristic style of them.

Slang, as a linguistic phenomenon has always been confined to spoken language. It was always difficult to locate, identify, explain and grasp as a unitary phenomenon. It goes without saying that slang forms are widely used among people of all age groups and cultures. Slang is not geographically restricted vocabulary. By using linguistic theories, slang can be analyzed and looked at just like regular everyday language. It is usually used in proper grammatical construction and the structure of the sentence. Slang is innovative, but so is language in general, therefore there is no evidence that it is formed in a special way.

During the whole history periods the slang took an essential position among all countries. It shows the features of contemporary daily life in a unique way. This is true because they all have had words with varying degrees of social acceptance and popularity. All representatives of society use some slang words and expressions, including the most educated, talented, smart cultivated speakers and writers. For example:

• George Washington used redcoat (British soldier)
• Winston Churchill used booze (liquor)
• Lyndon B. Johnson used cool it (calm down, shut up)

Over a period of time the slang has been the subject of controversial topic for people of different occupations. It is generally known that so many different opinions have been said concerning the nature of the slang, its boundaries and the attitude that should be adopted towards it. In the modern time, we cannot ignore the fact that if one is not familiar with slang, he or she could not deeply understand the slang words or expressions in the movie, TV program or even in their favorite songs, it will get you into an awkward situation and lead to making mistakes during talking with foreigners. The one of the most important rule you have to learn by heard to order to fully understand slang, means that use of words, popularity, and acceptability can change. Words can change in social level, moving in any direction.

Slang as it is said used for many different purposes, but actually it expresses a certain emotional attitude; you should remember that the same term may express completely opposed attitudes when it is used by different people. We know that people use slang consciously and unconsciously in the course of ordinary, everyday interaction. Actually, slang allows speakers the freedom to play with and enjoy the language, make words up, adopt new expressions indiscriminately, and use language for humor, irony, sarcasm, and irreverence. Also slang allows people to name things indirectly and figuratively, especially through metaphor, metonymy, and irony.

Many slang words and expressions are primarily insulting, even they may be equivocal when used in affection. For the same reasons, slang as I mentioned before is an essential part of the life of modern cities, or more correctly today, of modern society in general. By this reason most slang is urban; slang about the city is a special case of it. People may feel various attitudes towards slang. For example they may like or hate it, they may respect of ignore it; however whatever they feel they should not forget about the fact of the slang popularity today. The related idea of «street speech» lays stress on the urban side of popular speech. Analyzing all that has been said it follows that Slang seems to mean everything that is below the standard of usage of present-day English. Much has been said and written about it. This is probably due to the uncertainty of the concept itself. Unfortunately, no one has yet given a more or less clear definition of the term.

Список литературы

1. Судзиловский Г.А. Сленг — Что это такое? – М: Военное издательство Министерство обороны, 1973 г.
2. Abakulova V.V. Slang as a part of the English language. – Tomsk: Tomsk polytechnic university, 2010.
3. Bethany K. and lighter J. Is slang a word for Linguists? – N.Y.: American Speech Vol., 1978.

Цитировать

Ахмедова, Н.Д. Slang as a linguistic phenomenon / Н.Д. Ахмедова. — Текст : электронный // NovaInfo, 2018. — № 94. — С. 84-87. — URL: https://novainfo.ru/article/16029 (дата обращения: 14.04.2023).

Поделиться

From slang to slanguage: a description based on teenage talk

Anna-Brita Stenström

1  Introduction

In a brief article in The Mirror issued 18 July 1997 and headed ‘Mind your slanguage. Kids reveal their new lingo’, the reporter Jo Butler comments on the latest slang words in English teen-speak. He quotes words such as bonkers, (‘fun’), chonged (‘tired’), eggy (‘stressed’), sconned (‘drunk’), snash (‘cash’) and skank (‘horrible’), which result from a survey of the language of 800 boys and girls aged between 11 and 18 made by the book sellers Dillons and Oxford Dictionaries. What I find particularly interesting, although not entirely unexpected, is that none of the slang words mentioned in the article, except bonkers, occur (at least not as slang words) in a corpus of London teenage speech compiled only four years earlier. What this points to very clearly is the tendency for new slang words to crop up at any time and at very short intervals, especially in teenage language and especially teenage language in metropolitan centres.

          In this paper, I will discuss the question of ‘What is slang?’ from the point of view of teenage language, notably as it emerges in The Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT)[i].  COLT is a half-a-million-word corpus, compiled in 1993. It consists of surreptitiously recorded spontaneous conversations involving 13 to 17 year-old boys and girls with various social backgrounds and from different school districts in London. The conversations were recorded by the students themselves, so-called recruits, equipped with a small Sony walkman and a lapel microphone, and take place in a variety of settings, most of which are connected with school (eg classroom, school playground, common room, study) or home (eg TV lounge, the street outside).

          Words and expressions have been identified as slang if they are identified as such in The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang (1992) and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987). With reference to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED 1989, vol xV: 651), the lexicographers Ayoto & Simpson, who compiled the former dictionary, state that slang includes the vocabulary of ‘the underworld’ (street gangs, drug-trafficking) as well as the specific vocabulary of ‘a particular  calling or profession’ and colloquial language ‘below the level of standard educated speech’, consisting of ‘new words or of current words employed in some new special sense.’ (1992: V). According to the former dictionary, slang is

          very informal language that includes new and sometimes

          not polite words and meanings, is often used among

          particular groups of people and is usu. not used in serious

          speech or writing.’ (1987: 987).

          As everybody is aware, teenage language differs a great deal from adult language and, as this paper will demonstrate, it is not easy to draw the line between ‘pure slang’ and ‘slangy language’.

2 What has been said about slang in general

Slang is notoriously difficult to define. Consequently, the range of words and expressions regarded as slang varies in the literature. Opinions differ not only with regard to the definition of the concept of slang but also as regards the etymology of the word slang.   

2.1  The word slang

The origin of the word slang is regarded as ‘uncertain’ or ‘unknown’ by most linguists and lexicographers. One notable exception is Skeat, the lexicographer behind A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (1965: 490), who claims that slang (‘vulgar language’) is of Scandinavian origin and a derivation of Icelandic slyngva (‘to sling’), which can be  compared with the Norwegian verb slengja (‘to sling the jaw’) and the Norwegian noun slengjeord  (‘slang word’), used for insulting words. In a similar vein, Partridge (1970: 2), referred to by Eble  (1996:11) in her book Slang and sociability; in-group language among college students, says that certain resemblances between the English word slang and the Scandinavian sling suggest that the words have developed from a common Germanic root. 

          In contrast, one of the Swedish dictionaries consulted, Bonniers Stora Lexikon, maintains that the Swedish word slang comes from English slang, and that the origin is not known (1989, vol 12: 91). The same opinion is advanced in the recently published Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin (1996, vol 16: 614), which states that the word slang was not introduced in the Nordic countries until the middle of the  19th century. As far as English is concerned, the first occurrence of  the word slang is dated 1756 in the OED, according to which its ultimate source is ‘not apparent’ (1989, vol. X: 651).

          Thus, according to the later sources the origin of the word slang is still wrapped in obscurity.

2.2  The concept of slang

The meaning of the concept of ‘slang’ and what it includes was much clearer in the old days. Originally, it was ‘used by British criminals to refer to their own special language’ (Andersson & Trudgill (1990: 77). Later ‘the idea of slang gradually evolved to denote other subcultural speech, both high and low’ (Allen 1998: 878), whereas, today, there is no clear-cut definition of slang to be found either in dictionaries, encyclopedias or the literature.

          Among the more expressive and colourful descriptions of slang is that of Ayoto & Sampson (1992: V) in The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, who characterize English slang as ‘English with its sleeves rolled up, its shirt-tails dangling, and its shoes covered in mud.’. Allen (1998: 879), in the Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, points to the uncertain existence of slang, describing it as ‘vocabulary in limbo … awaiting acceptance or rejection by standard usage.’, while Eble (1996: 11) stresses the social aspect:

          Slang is an ever changing set of colloquial words and      

          phrases that speakers use to establish or reinforce social

          identity or cohesiveness within a group or with a trend or

          fashion in society at large.

Some linguists and lexicographers give a rather sweeping definition. In the Swedish Nationalencyklopedin, for instance, slang is said to vary from casual to vulgar, but that the distinction cannot be specified, since it is all a matter of attitude (1996 Vol 16: 614). Similarly, Quirk et al (1985: 27), in A Comprehensive Grammar of  the English Language, mention ‘slang’ under the heading ‘Varieties according to attitude’. Others, such as Dumas & Lighter (1978: 14-16; quoted in Eble, (1996: 11), avoid definitions altogether by instead providing identifying criteria, for instance, ‘Its presence will markedly lower, at least for the moment, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing.’ and ‘It is used in place of the well-known conventional synonym …’, while still others describe slang by stating ‘what it is and what it is not’ (eg  Andersson & Trudgill 1990: 69 ff).

          What is generally agreed upon among linguists and lexicographers alike is that slang is a short-lived, group-related, ever changing colloquial language variety that is below the level of stylistically neutral language. It is described as creative and innovative, often playful and metaphorical (eg OED 1989, vol XIV: 651; Andersson & Trudgill 1990; Eble 1996; Kotsinas 1996;  Allen 1998). Moreover, the general opinion appears to be that slang occurs predominantly in teenage talk, and some sources say that it occurs especially in male talk (eg Svensk Uppslagsbok 1953 Vol 26: 642; Allen 1998: 881f) and that it tends to emerge in large metropolitan centres before spreading elsewhere (eg Andersson & Trudgill 1990: 78; Allen 1998: 880).

          It is also usually pointed out that slang affects vocabulary but not grammatical constructions. In this connection, Andersson & Trudgill (1990: 73) comment, however, but without giving examples, that ‘[t]here are perhaps a handful of features which could be regarded as typical of slang grammar.’. Eble (1996: 22) quoting Munro (1990:13), gives the following example of ‘slang syntax’ represented by the unorthodox use of the definite article, observed among American college students: ‘Susan set me up with her big brother. She’s the homie’. Unlike other scholars, Eble (1996: 21) also mentions the important role of body language and sounds, and the combined effect of pitch, stress and pauses, without which some words would not convey the slang meaning at all.

          Opinions differ as to whether cant, jargon and swearing should really be considered slang. Eble, for instance, excludes both cant, although it has contributed a great many items to slang (1990: 19-21), and jargon, which is characterized as a specific professional language with its own terminology. Andersson & Trudgill exclude all three, cant and jargon (1990: 77-78) because they are both specialized terms, and swearing because, unlike slang, it is ‘always connected with taboos of some kind.’ (1990: 74). In contrast, Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary defines slang as ‘the jargon of any class, profession, or set’ (1985: 935), and in the OED we find that slang refers both to ‘the cant or jargon of a certain class or period’ and to ‘abuse’ and ‘impertinence’ (1989: 651).

          Slang is said to be short-lived. This, of course, is not true for all slang words. Some were created a very long time ago and are still defined as slang. Such words, still used by today’s teenagers, are for instance bogs (‘lavatory’), dated  1789 in The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, doss (‘sleep’), dated 1785, fucker, a term of abuse dated 1598, and grub (‘food’), dated 1659. Notice, however, that the dates refer to written language, which most certainly means that the first occurrence of the respective words in spoken language was much earlier. Other old slang words would seem hopelessly outdated if uttered by somebody today. Still other words, which were originally referred to as slang, have been adopted in the standard language but are labelled ‘informal’, such as the short forms super in the sense of ‘wonderful’ and telly for ‘television’, to mention but two.

2.3  Why use slang?

Slang is often used on purpose. One reason could be to  show belonging to a group or adherence to a trend, another to ‘keep outsiders outside’ (Andersson & Trudgill 1990: 79). Allen (1998: 878) emphasizes very strongly that slang is a sociological rather than a purely linguistic phenomenon, used to mark social differences and, on a similar line, Eble, as mentioned above, argues that slang is used by speakers for the purpose of creating or reinforcing relationship with a group or a trend.

          In the Swedish Nationalencyklopedin, it is argued that the adoption of slang terms is dominated by ‘reversed prestige’, ie prestige based on toughness, power (and even criminality) and, moreover, that slang functions to mark the stylistic level of the situation, to emphasize, shock, ease the atmosphere, to express oneself down to earth, show that one masters the situation, and that one is able to play with language and be creative. But it is emphasized that what finally decides its function is the situation.

          Most of this is characteristic of teenagers’ use of slang and leads automatically over to the language of the London teenagers in COLT.

3  Slangy language

The above review has shown that, although there is consensus that slang covers a large spectrum of colloquial words and expressions, opinions vary when it comes to deciding exactly how wide that spectrum is.

          As regards London slang in general, the London Slang Page on the internet reminds the reader that a great number of slang terms derive from Cockney and constitute so-called ‘rhyming slang’, while many other slang terms have been incorporated as a result of the contact with immigrant cultures (cf http://www.geezer.demon.co.uk/index.html). This, together with other language features, especially accent, it is said, has created what is often referred to as ‘Estuary English’.

          Certain features to do with accent that are typical of Estuary English are also observed in the teenage language in COLT, for instance glottal stop instead of /t/. Rhyming slang, in contrast, has apparently not caught on among the London teenagers, and surprisingly enough, very little influence can be traced from immigrant languages in the recorded material.

3.1 The language in COLT

At the beginning of this paper, I said that I rely on two dictionaries, The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang (1992) and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987) for deciding whether a word or expression is to be referred to as slang or not. Briefly, this includes anything from the vocabulary of the underworld to colloquial language below the level of educated standard speech, which is a very wide area indeed. The question is, however, what exactly is to be included in ‘colloquial language below the level of educated standard speech’. This question is crucial when it comes to defining slang in general and, as the following extracts from COLT will show, teenage slang in particular.

3.1.1  Examples

The speakers in extracts [1] to [4] below are 16 year-old boys and girls who attend a boarding-school in the Greater London area. They all have a more or less identical social background, (upper) middle class.

          In extract [1] Paula and Sandy are gossiping about two other girls at school:

[1]  Gossip

Paula:  … you know that I go on about Jenny

Sandy:  Yeah

Paula:  but I like, I like Jenny really.

Sandy:  Yeah I know I like Jenny I mean, but I never really say anything bad about [Jenny]

Paula:  [unclear] say anything about you … like it’s only if I … <laughing>got nothing else to say really</>

Sandy:  Yeah.

Paula:  <unclear> about me don’t you when I’m not there, yeah?

Sandy:  No I don’t, I don’t ….. but I mean anyway I dunno I just get really pissed off with Angela.

Paula:  Yeah but I get really pissed off as well cos I … well I, I won’t like when I talk about Jenny and then I feel sort of like really two faced when I like start talking to Jenny and stuff …

Sandy:  Yeah I know, but I mean

Paula:  Cos I mean like do you do that as well, you know when you’re with Catherine like you talk about people like Rosie or anybody [unclear]

Sandy:  [Yeah yeah I d= do] I mean I do that, yeah. I dunno who, who do I m= … I don’t know, I d= do that to s= er see there is somebody that I do that quite a bit to but I can’t remember who it is … or a few people maybe …

 Paula:  cos Jenny didn’t even know that you could bloody put on weight by drinking.

Sandy:  <laughing>Yeah well it’s a bit</> that’s the truth though I mean that is a bit silly isn’t it?

Paula:  Yeah.

Sandy:  I mean I, I mean I dunno I mean I just, I just ha=, I just had to tell you because I mean it really is pissing me off the way fucking Angela treats me, she was alright before … like and when I’m on my [own, no]

Paula:  [What, before] she met me.

Sandy:  Yeah I mean I’m not, I’m not saying you’re a bad influence on her now, I think she … just sort of jumping in at the chance for someone to victimise personally … And l= and, especially yesterday yeah, you know when we were standing in the foyer after school yeah?

Paula:  Yeah.

Sandy:  And I,  and you, you were going on about something to do with your job yeah? And I said I want a job, and and she said something like oh well it doesn’t include you so ha ha ha ha and thought it was really funny, How would, how would she like it? That’s like saying piss off I don’t like you you stupid cow, why don’t you go and kill yourself.

This relatively short extract contains a plethora of colloquial words and expressions, some of which are regular slang words and expressions, while others are fairly marginal, and still others do not qualify as slang at all – although they definitely belong to ‘slangy’ language.

          The first category is represented by expressions used for abusing (fucking Angela, piss-off, stupid cow) and  expressions reflecting the speaker’s feelings (pissed-off, it really is pissing me off) and the second by a regular swearword (you could bloody put on weight). The third category includes the ‘set-marking tag’[ii] and stuff (talking to Jenny and stuff) and a large variety pragmatic markers, for instance, the ‘appealer’[iii] yeah (when I’m not there, yeah?), the ‘monitor’I mean (but I mean anyway), the ‘hedges’ like[iv] (like it’s only if I) and sort of (just sort of jumping in), and the ‘empathizer’ you know (you know when you’re with Catherine). Notice also the multifunctional word really, which is particularly common as an ‘intensifier’ when teenage girls talk about personal affairs, as in this extract (eg really two faced, really funny). Another common pragmatic marker which reflects the speaker’s attitude is just, which can have a minimising function[v] (I just had to tell you) as well as an emphasizing function[vi] (I just get really pissed off). Finally, there is the reduced form cos (from because), which does not always serve as an subordinating conjunction introducing a clause of reason but rather as a take-off for further talk with no syntactic link with preceding discourse. One example in this extract is when Paula says ‘cos Jenny didn’t even know that you could bloody put on weight by drinking’ despite the fact that Jenny was only mentioned at the beginning of the extract[vii].   

          Extract [2] is a boys’ conversation, Nick tells some of his friends how badly he was treated by some of the other boys at the school, when he said he wanted to watch football on TV in the common room:

[2] The TV incident

Nick:  And they wouldn’t let me watch the match with Dave last night

Many: Oh no!

Nick:  Well stressed

Many:  <nv>laugh</nv>

Nick:  Well you see, all see them Van den Berg he’s <unclear> and their fucking faces they come in yeah right you wanna wait for this bloody football na I just wanna watch the Chelsea please can I must watch the Chelsea no piss off please just let me watch the Chelsea please just once let me watch the Chelsea and they turned the telly off and said right you’ve turned the channel over and telly doesn’t go back on, [Fucking annoyed]

Jock:  [Mm]

Nick  The fucking so sad ones is going right you’re clearing up house fuck off! I’m not fucking clearing up the house and he goes, right that’s it you’re clearing up the house for the rest of your life!

Jock:  Bet you were well fucked off.

This extract illustrates the use of three different taboo words. One is used for swearing (bloody football), while one, depending on its form, is used both as a swearword (fucking faces) and as a slang word (fuck off as a synonym for ‘go away’, well fucked off for ‘angry’, ‘irritated’). The third is used only as a slang word, equivalent to fuck off (piss off for ‘go away’). But it is hard to say whether fucking in fucking annoyed is used as a swearword or as a slang intensifier?

          Other interesting features illustrated in this extract are represented by the word sad in so sad ones, which shows how an old, established word has suddenly acquired a new meaning (‘hopeless’, ‘impossible’), and the irregular use of well as an adjective intensifier, as in well stressed and well fucked off. The fact that this usage is neither referred to in modern dictionaries nor grammar books would seem to suggest that it is very recent, but a look in the OED reveals that it was used in this function at least as far back as the 9th century – but that it fell out of use during the first half of the 19th century[viii]. Another usage that is definitely recent is that of GO and as a reporting verb replacing SAY, here represented by and he goes right that’s it (for BE like in the same function see Extract [3]).

          Forms like wanna for want to (you wanna wait; I just wanna watch), like dunno (don’t know), gonna (going to), gotta (got to), dunnit (doesn’t it) and wunnit (wasn’t it), are examples of reduced, simplified pronunciation (phonological reduction), which typically cooccur with teenage slang in general.

          Telly, finally, is an example of a former slang word which is lagelled ‘slang’ in som dictionaries and ‘informal’ in others, which shows that it is on the verge of being accepted in the standard language and no longer regarded as below the stylistically neutral level.

          Extract  [3] illustrates BE like used as a reporting verb, or ‘quotative complementizer’ in the terminology of Romaine & Lange (1991). Kate and Jess are discussing James, who is also a student at the school:

[3]  James

Kate:  but think about all the people that we are nice to, I mean look at James, prime example have I ever been a bitch to him, never but I <laughing> dtand up here, when I se him I’m like oh yeah ha ha you know laugh along with his jokes

Jess:  I’m a bitch to him I tell him I see you love yourself James

142602: 444-445

BE like used in this way, apparently inherited from American teenage language, is typically found in narratives, especially lievely narratives, and girls’ narratives in particular. The taboo slang word bitch (from the animal kingdom) is generally only used about females, as in this extract.

          In extract [4], where Julian and Alex talk about the way they speak, the main emphasis is on the use of yeah and well:

[4]  Mum’s opinion

Julian: … and I keep saying yeah after each each sentence when I’m describing something to my mum like saying last match yeah, we won yeah eight nil yeah, and i I keep sahing yeah yeah, my mum’s going

Jock:  I’ve done that

Julian: yeah shut shut up, that’s what my mum

Jock:  my mum says, I go yeah that’s well nice, and she goes erm she goes well nice

Alex:  oh [<nv>laugh</nv>]

Julian: [that’s it yeah I know] I’m always saying well well cool

Jock:  and I keep saying that, I’ve said it like, about so many things when we’re home and she goes what is this you always saying well with everything 141606: 28-35

There is no doubt that the parent generation, here the boys’ mothers, are not in favour of the use of well as an adjective intensifier, nor of yeah as a kind of combined punctuation mark and appealer for feedback. Incidentally, in the COLT material, both these items were found predominantly in the boys’ talk.

          Extract [5], finally, illustrates the use of the invariant marker innit, which is particularly common among younger speakers with a lower social class background. The speakers are 14-year-old Cassie and her friend Shelley:

[5]  The tapes

Shelly:  Well hang on, so who does it go to then?

Cassie:  It goes to Norway.

Shelly:  Ah?

Cassie:  A college in Norway.

Shelly:  You’ve probably gotta give the tapes, you gotta, you gotta give the                tapes to Miss, erm

Cassie:  No! I give [the tapes]

Shelly:  [<name>]

Cassie:  to the wa=, student from Norway.

Shelly:  No you don’t, give it [to]

Cassie:  [I] don’t give it to [Miss <name>]

Shelly:  [And Miss gives it ] to the student innit? 132607: 254

Since the verb in the statement is gives, one would have expected the tag doesn’t it. But in teenage language, and especially the language of teenagers with a low socioeconomic background, innit is used as an invariant which can be tagged on to any statement, regardless of the preceding verb or verb form. 

          This extract also shows that not only the ‘recruit’, ie the student who is responsible for the recording, in this case Cassie, is aware of what is going on. This not at all surprising. It is not easy to hide even a small Sony walkman and a little lapel microphone. Moreover, having this responsibility is probably something the students are quite proud of and like to brag about. 

3.1.2  Attempting a model

What I hope to have shown by the conversational extracts quoted above is that teenage language involves more than is usually regarded as slang. But instead of trying to broaden the concept of slang any further, I will adopt the term ‘slanguage’ from the above-mentioned article in The Mirror, which I find is a very appropriate term for the slangy language that is typical of  teenagers.

          In a simplified version, I see slanguage represented by the following linguistic categories on the basis of observations in COLT:

                                                general

                   Proper slang         

                                                specific

                                                                             abusives

                                                slang words           intensifiers

                   Taboo words                                     reflectors

                                      swearwords  expletives

SLANG-

UAGE         Vogue words

                                                                             quotatives

                   Proxy words                  

                                                                             set markers

                                                                             appealers

                                                                             hedges

                   Pragmatic markers                              empathizers

                                                                             monitors

                                                                             others

Figure 1: A model of slanguage

·     Proper slang is the largest category and consists of words and expressions that correspond most closely to the dictionary definitions of slang presented in this paper. Here I make a distinction between general slang words, which are not related to a particular group or trend, etc, such as booze (‘drink’), dude (‘fellow’), fag (‘cigarette’), rip-off (‘swindle’), spooky (‘frightening’), and specific slang words that are typical of a group or trend, for instance bunk (leave), dorm (‘dormitory’) and prep (‘preparatory’) belonging to school slang and junkie (‘drug addict’), speed (‘drug’) and spliff (‘cannabis cigarette’) to do with the drug traffic.

·     Taboo words consist of two categories. Some taboo words are regular slang words, that is substitutes for accepted synonyms, eg piss somebody off (‘irritate’), bugger up/screw up (‘ruin’), to be pissed (‘drunk’), take the piss out of (‘make fun of’). Some of these are used as ‘abusives’ (dickhead, sod, motherfucker, bugger off, screw you), some as ‘intensifiers’ (fucking crap), while some serve as ‘reflectors’ of the speaker’s feelings (fucked-off, pissed-off). Other taboo words are regular swearwords used for nothing but swearing, ie as ‘expletives’ (bollocks,  for fuck’s sake, what the fuck, shit). These are sometimes met with in the form of euphemisms (cor blimey).

·     Vogue words are words that already exist in the standard language but which are suddenly used very frequently for a short period of time before going back to normal usage. Examples in COLT are massive (‘impressive’), paranoid (‘afraid’), and rough (‘exciting’). In this category one might include old words that are used with a new meaning, such as sad (‘contemptible’) in expressions like you’re a sad bastard and wicked  (‘excellent’) in for instance she’s wicked, I love her song.

·     Proxy words (words which act for other words) consist of ‘quotatives’, which replace the verb SAY to report what somebody said and are realized by a form of BE plus like (he was like I didnt do, I was like wow!) or a form of the verb GO (he goes I didn’t do it, I go(es) wow!) and of so-called ‘set-markers’[ix], which replace and refer back to a previously mentioned ‘set’ (coffee and cookies and stuff (like that, Josie and Shelley and that lot).

·     Pragmatic markers consist of ‘appealers’, for instance the ‘invariant’ tag innit[x] (he’s so bloody stupid innit) and yeah (and then I went home yeah and had dinner yeah), ‘hedges’, realized by sort of (it’s sort of mad) and like (she like follows me around), which often cooccur (it was sort of like fashionable), ‘empathizers’, such as you know (I met Alex you know and …), the ‘monitor’ I mean (that’s the truth though I mean that is a bit silly isn’t it) and finally just and really, which are both used very frequently for a variety of functions in colloquial language.

3.1.3  Comments

Judging by Extracts [1] to [5], which are by no means unique in the London teenage vernacular, the use of taboo words and expressions and words that are not usually regarded as slang is a more noticeable feature in teenage language than what can be described as ‘proper’ slang, judging by dictionary definitions.

          A brief survey involving part of the COLT corpus of all the categories outlined in the model (Figure 1) indicated that, although proper slang makes up more than half of the ‘types’, the situation is quite the opposite when it comes to ‘tokens’. In other words, the list of different proper slang words is much longer than that of words belonging to the other categories, but the individual proper slang words do not recur as frequently.

          It is the proper slang words that point to creativity and innovation. These are the ones that reflect new trends and tastes etc. They consist of  single words as well as multiwords. The single words are realized by adjectives (cool ‘very good’,  funky ‘fashionable’, poxy ‘worthless’, titchy ‘small’), nouns (dude ‘guy’, john ‘toilet’, rave ‘party’), and simple verbs (frame ‘deceive’, nab ‘seize’, nick ‘steal’). The multiwords are realized by phrasal verbs (wind up ‘irritate’, swan around ‘move aimlessly’) and prepositional phrases (for yonks ‘a long time’, off one’s rocker ‘mad’).

          The inventory of taboo slang words is far more stable, although the same lexemes tend to appear in various forms and combinations. The majority are related to sex (wanker, tramp, fucked out of one’s head). Others have to do with body parts (arsehole, bum), and bodily functions (crap oneself, no shit, a piss-up session). Abusives, which constitute the most common category, are realized by nouns and adjectives and are generally used about a third person (I don’t really care what Pete’s doing, the prat, But the guy is an arsehole) but are also said directly to the person talked to (Where d’ya get on you dickhead?, Ah you cunt), also in the form of direct commands (bugger off, piss off).

          Vogue words, unlike the preceding categories of words, are represented by only a handful of different types. Some of these words are used only by the middle-class teenagers, for instance paranoid, while other words are used by all, regardless of social background, for instance massive, reckon and rough.

          The proxy words, too, are represented by relatively few types, which are all the more frequent, however. This refers to the quotatives in particular, which are only realized by BE like and GO. Among the set-markers we find for instance and all that (sort of thing), and everything, and something (like that), or something (like that) besides and stuff (like that), and them, and that lot, and so on. Most of these expressions can of course also be observed in adult standard speech, but not usually and stuff (like that), and them, and that lot.

          Pragmatic markers add a different dimension to talk by putting interaction, in the form of appealers and empathizers, and discourse processing, in the form of hedges and monitors, and subjective attitude in the form of reflectors, in focus. Pragmatic markers are realized by relatively few types but all the more tokens. The fact that they are so frequent in teenage talk can be seen as a direct reflexion of the teenagers’ way of interacting; they are lively, expressive, engaged, and very keen on getting feedback.

4  Conclusion

Teenage slang properly speaking is extremely informal, often obscene, although it would be an exaggeration to go as far as characterizing it as the language of ‘the underworld’, as in the OED. But I agree with what is said in Nationalencyklopedin, that much of what is characteristic of teenage language, at least as manifested in the COLT material, is appropriately referred to as ‘reversed prestige’.

          Teenage talk also contains plenty of new slang words and quite a few current words used with a new sense, but, as has been illustrated above, taboo words, both in terms of proper slang words and swearwords, tend to dominate, together with an overuse of pragmatic markers with partly new functions.

          One of the most recent innovations is the use of BE+like (beside GO) as a quotative replacing SAY. That this is a recent phenomenon is hinted at by Romaine & Lange (1991), who write that ‘At the moment the use of like as a quotative complementizer appears to be confined to American English, though there are perhaps traces of a similar development in British English.’ (1991: 248-249). A usage that might seem to be even more recent is that of well as an adjective intensifier. However, a look in the OED (1989, vol. XX:117) reveals that well in this function can be traced back at least to the 9th century. However, it turns out  that it fell out of use during the first half of the 19th century, which suggests that it  has been revived in the London teenage talk.That the use is spreading is manifested by examples in recent fiction, for instance,  Llewellyn’s (1998) The man on platform 5 399), where we find ‘I’m up for getting well pissed.’ (1998:399).

          Contrary to what has been said in some of the literature, slang words do not seem to be gender-specific judging by the COLT conversations; ie they are not used particularly by boys. This refers to proper slang as well as taboo slang. It is very likely, however, that much slang is used on purpose, by girls as well as by boys, whether it be for the sake of showing group belonging and keeping outsiders outside, showing off or just being ‘friendly’. Taboo words, in particular, are obviously used to shock a potential audience in many of the recordings. In other cases, they just seem to indicate a bad habit. Most of the taboo slang words are used as abusive and would probably be perceived as extremely rude by the outsider, but in the actual situation, they seem to have no negative effect whatsoever. Apparently, none of the speakers involved takes offense. On the contrary, the taboo words rather seem to contribute to the ‘chummy’ atmosphere.           

          Summing up, what I have tried to show in this paper in answer to the question ‘What is slang?’ is that, in teenage talk in particular, we are faced with is a gradient, ranging from prototypical, generally acknowledged slang words and expressions, (eg  thick ‘stupid’, nick ‘steal’, take the mickey out of ‘make someone seem foolish’) via marginal cases, such as words more or less accepted in the standard language (telly) and swearwords to the typical teenage use of pragmatic markers (eg GO and BE like for SAY as quotative verbs and the use of pragmatic markers such as innit, like, really and yeah). This is what I prefer to call ‘slanguage’ rather than ‘slang’.

References

A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. 1965. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allen, I. L. 1998. Slang: Sociology. In J. Mey & R. Asher (eds). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 878-883.

Andersen, G. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that. The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In M. Ljung (ed). Corpus-based Studies in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 37-48.

Andersson, G. & P. Trudgill. 1990. Bad language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bonniers Stora Lexikon. 1989. Stockholm: Bonnier Fakta.

Butler, J. 1997. Mind your slanguage. Kids reveal their new lingo. In The Mirror, Friday July 18, 1997.

Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary. 1989. Edinburgh: Chambers.

Dines, E. 1980. Variation in discourse – and stuff like that. Language in Society 1: 13-31.

Dumas, B. & J. Lighter 1978. Is slang a word for linguists? American Speech 53: 5-17.

Eble, C. 1996. Slang and sociability: in-group language among college students. The University of North Carolina Press.

Erman, B. 1996. ‘Guy’s just a dickhead’; the context and function of just in teenage talk. In Kotsinas, U-B., Stenström. A-B. & A-M. Carlsson. (eds). Institutionen för nordiska språl, Stockholms universitet,  96-110.

Kotsinas, U-B. 1996. Ungdomsspråk. Stockholm: Norstedts Förlag AB.

Lee, D. 1987. The semantics of just. In Journal of Pragmatics 11: 377-398.

Llewellyn, R. 1998. The man on platform 5. Hodder & Stoughton: Coronet books.

London Slang. http://www.geezer.demon.co.uk/index.html.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. London: Longman.

Munro, R. 1990. Slang U. New York: Harmony House.

Nationalencyklopedin. 1996. Höganäs: Bokförlaget Bra Böcker AB.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.

Romaine, S. & D. Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalization in progress. In American Speech: 228-278.

Stenström, A-B. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.

Stenström, A-B. 1995. Taboos in teenage talk. In G. Melchers & B. Warren (eds). Studies in Anglistics. Stockholm Studies in English 85. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 71-80.

Stenström, A-B. 1997. Tags in teenage talk. In U. Fries et al (eds). From Aelfric to the New York Times. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Stenström, A-B. 1998. From sentence to discourse: cos(because) in teenage talk. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds). Discourse Markers. Description and Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 127-146.

Stenström, A-B. In press. It’s enough funny man: Intensifiers in Teenage Talk. To appear in J. Kirk (ed). Corpora Galore. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Svensk Uppslagsbok. 1953. Malmö: Förlagshuset Norden AB.

The Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Talk (COLT). http://www.hd.uib.no/colt/

The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang. 1992. Oxford: Oxford

          University Press.

Ward, G. & B. Birner. 1993. The semantics and pragmatics of and everything. In Journal of Pragmatics 19: 205-214. 

---