1. Historical review of youth slang in Modern English

1.1 Short survey of the slang history

Most of us think that we recognize slang when we hear it or see it, but exactly how slang is defined and which terms should or should not be listed under that heading continue to be the subject of debate in the bar-room as much as in the classroom or university seminar. To arrive at a working definition of slang the first edition of the Bloomsbury Dictionary of Contemporary Slang approached the phenomenon from two slightly different angles. Firstly, slang is a style category within the language which occupies an extreme position on the spectrum of formality. Slang is at the end of the line; it lies beyond mere informality or colloquialism, where language is considered too racy, raffish, novel or unsavory for use in conversation with strangers … So slang enforces intimacy. It often performs an important social function which is to include into or exclude from the intimate circle, using forms of language through which speakers identify with or function within social sub-groups, ranging from surfers, schoolchildren and yuppies, to criminals, drinkers and fornicators. These remain the essential features of slang at the end of the 1990s, although its extreme informality may now seem less shocking than it used to, and its users now include ravers, rappers and net-heads along with the miscreants traditionally cited. There are other characteristics which have been used to delimit slang, but these may often be the result of prejudice and misunderstanding and not percipience. Slang has been referred to again and again as ‘illegitimate’, ‘low and disreputable’ and condemned by serious writers as ‘a sign and a cause of mental atrophy’(Oliver Wendell Holmes), ‘the advertisement of mental poverty’(James C. Fernal). Its in-built unorthodoxy has led to the assumption that slang in all its incarnations (metaphors, euphemisms, taboo words, catchphrases, nicknames, abbreviations and the rest) is somehow inherently substandard and unwholesome. But linguists and lexicographers cannot (or at least, should not) stigmatize words in the way that society may stigmatize the users of those words and, looked at objectively, slang is no more reprehensible than poetry, with which it has much in common in its creative playing with the conventions and mechanisms of language, its manipulation of metonymy, synechdoche, irony, its wit and inventiveness. In understanding this, and also that slang is a natural product of those ‘processes eternally active in language’, Walt Whitman was ahead of his time.

More recently some writers (Halliday being an influential example) have claimed that the essence of slang is that it is language used in conscious opposition to authority. But slang does not have to be subversive; it may simply encode a shared experience, celebrate a common outlook which may be based as much on (relatively) innocent enjoyment (by, for instance, schoolchildren, drinkers, sports fans, Internet-users) as on illicit activities. Much slang, in fact, functions as an alternative vocabulary, replacing standard terms with more forceful, emotive or interesting versions just for the fun of it: hooter or conk for nose, mutt or pooch for dog, ankle-biter or crumb-snatcher for child are instances. Still hoping to find a defining characteristic, other experts have seized upon the rapid turnover of slang words and announced that this is the key element at work; that slang is concerned with faddishness and that it’s here-today-gone-tomorrow components are ungraspable and by implication inconsequential. Although novelty and innovation are very important in slang, a close examination of the whole lexicon reveals that, as Whitman had noted, it is not necessarily transient at all. The word punk, for example, has survived in the linguistic underground since the seventeenth century and among the slang synonyms for money - dosh, ackers, spondulicks, rhino, pelf - which were popular in the City of London in the 1990s are many which are more than a hundred years old. A well-known word like cool in its slang sense is still in use (and has been adopted by other languages, too), although it first appeared around eighty years ago.

Curiously, despite the public’s increasing fascination for slang, as evinced in newspaper and magazine articles and radio programs, academic linguists in the UK have hitherto shunned it as a field of study. This may be due to a lingering conservatism, or to the fact that it is the standard varieties of English that have to be taught, but whatever the reasons the situation is very different elsewhere. In the US and Australia the study of slang is part of the curriculum in many institutions, in France, Spain, Holland, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe slang, and especially the slang of English, is the subject of more and more research projects and student theses; in all these places slang is discussed in symposia and in learned journals, while in Russia, China and Japan local editions of British and American slang dictionaries can be found on school bookshelves and in university libraries.

Slang was the main reason for the development of prescriptive language in an attempt to slow down the rate of change in both spoken and written language. Latin and French were the only two languages that maintained the use of prescriptive language in the 14th century. It was not until the early 15th century that scholars began pushing for a Standard English language. 

During the Middle Ages, certain writers such as Chaucer, William Caxton, and William of Malmesbury represented the regional differences in pronunciations and dialects.  The different dialects and the different pronunciations represented the first meaning for the term “slang.” 

However, our present-day meaning for slang did not begin forming until the 16th or 17th century.  The English Criminal Cant developed in the 16th century.  The English Criminal Cant was a new kind of speech used by criminals and cheats, meaning it developed mostly in saloons and gambling houses. The English Criminal Cant was at first believed to be foreign, meaning scholars thought that it had either originated in Romania or had a relationship to French.  The English Criminal Cant was slow developing.  In fact, out of the four million people who spoke English, only about ten thousand spoke the English Criminal Cant.  By the end of the 16th century this new style of speaking was considered to be a language “without reason or order” (Thorne 23).   During the 18th century schoolmasters taught pupils to believe that the English Criminal Cant (which by this time had developed into slang) was not the correct usage of English and slang was considered to be taboo. 

However, slang was beginning to be presented in popular plays.  The first appearance of the slang was in a play by Richard Brome’s and later appeared in poems and songs by Copland.  By the 1700’s the cultural differences in America had begun to influence the English-speaking population, and slang began to expand. 

Almost all of the slang words during this time were anatomical and well known all through Britain and in America due to the British colonists.   Furthermore, certain events happened in the 18th century that helped the development of slang such as, Westward expansion, the Civil War, and the abolitionist movement.  By this time scholars such as Walt Whitman,  W. D. Whitney, and Brander Matthews all considered slang to be anything that sounded new, and that was not in the “glossaries of British dialects” (Thorne 26).  Walt Whitman considers slang to be the life of the language.  Whitman wrote “that slang was a wholesome.....of common humanity to escape the form bald literalism, and express itself illimitably” (Thorne 26). 

This was a turning point for slang it was starting to escape the harsh criticism of being associated with criminals or foreigners.  It was not until the early 1920’s that slang had gained the interest of popular writers.  It was during the post-World War I era that society gained new attitudes about slang.  There was now a demand for entertainment, mass media, and slangy fiction. 

Today modern American slang has been shaped and reshaped by the different cultures and the emergence of technology, which has left our society with varieties of slang from extremes like Street/Drug Slang to African-American Slang. 

Definition

Main Entry: 1slang

Pronunciation: 'sla[ng]

Function: noun

Etymology: origin unknown

Date: 1756

1 : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2

2 : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages,

arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of

speech

- slang adjective

- slang•i•ly /'sla[ng]-&-lE/ adverb

- slang•i•ness /'sla[ng]-E-n&s/ noun

- slangy /'sla[ng]-E/ adjective

Main Entry: 2slang

Date: 1828

intransitive senses : to use slang or vulgar abuse

transitive senses : to abuse with harsh or coarse language

Main Entry: rhyming slang

Function: noun

Date: 1859

: slang in which the word intended is replaced by a word or phrase that rhymes with it (as loaf of bread for head) or the first part of the phrase (as loaf for head)

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Slang nonstandard vocabulary composed of words or senses characterized primarily by connotations of extreme informality and usually by a currency not limited to a particular region. It is composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties.

Slang consists of the words and expressions that have escaped from the cant, jargon and argot (and to a lesser extent from dialectal, nonstandard, and taboo speech) of specific subgroups of society so that they are known and used by an appreciable percentage of the general population, even though the words and expressions often retain some associations with the subgroups that originally used and popularized them. Thus, slang is a middle ground for words and expressions that have become too popular to be any longer considered as part of the more restricted categories, but that are not yet (and may never become) acceptable or popular enough to be considered informal or standard. (Compare the slang "hooker" and the standard "prostitute.")

Under the terms of such a definition, "cant" comprises the restricted, non-technical words and expressions of any particular group, as an occupational, age, ethnic, hobby, or special-interest group. (Cool, uptight, do your thing were youth cant of the late 1960s before they became slang.)

"Jargon" is defined as the restricted, technical, or shoptalk words and expressions of any particular group, as an occupational, trade, scientific, artistic, criminal, or other group. (Finals used by printers and by students, Fannie May by money men, preemie by obstetricians were jargon before they became slang.) "Argot" is merely the combined cant and jargon of thieves, criminals, or any other underworld group. (Hit used by armed robbers; scam by corporate confidence men.)

Slang fills a necessary niche in all languages, occupying a middle ground between the standard and informal words accepted by the general public and the special words and expressions known only to comparatively small social subgroups. It can serve as a bridge or a barrier, either helping both old and new words that have been used as "insiders' " terms by a specific group of people to enter the language of the general public or, on the other hand, preventing them from doing so. Thus, for many words, slang is a testing ground that finally proves them to be generally useful, appealing, and acceptable enough to become standard or informal. For many other words, slang is a testing ground that shows them to be too restricted in use, not as appealing as standard synonyms, or unnecessary, frivolous, faddish, or unacceptable for standard or informal speech. For still a third group of words and expressions, slang becomes not a final testing ground that either accepts or rejects them for general use but becomes a vast limbo, a permanent holding ground, an area of speech that a word never leaves. Thus, during various times in history,

American slang has provided cowboy, blizzard, okay, racketeer, phone, gas, and movie for standard or informal speech. It has tried and finally rejected conbobberation (disturbance), krib (room or apartment), lucifer (match), tomato (girl), and fab (fabulous) from standard or informal speech. It has held other words such as bones (dice), used since the 14th century, and beat it (go away), used since the 16th century, in a permanent grasp, neither passing them on to standard or informal speech nor rejecting them from popular, long-term use. Slang words cannot be distinguished from other words by sound or meaning. Indeed, all slang words were once cant, jargon, argot, dialect, nonstandard, or taboo. For example, the American slang to neck (to kiss and caress) was originally student cant; flattop (an aircraft carrier) was originally navy jargon; and pineapple (a bomb or hand grenade) was originally criminal argot. Such words did not, of course, change their sound or meaning when they became slang. Many slang words, such as blizzard, mob, movie, phone, gas, and others, have become informal or standard and, of course, did not change in sound or meaning when they did so. In fact, most slang words are homonyms of standard words, spelled and pronounced just like their standard counterparts, as for example (American slang), cabbage (money),

cool (relaxed), and pot (marijuana). Of course, the words cabbage, cool, and pot sound alike in their ordinary standard use and in their slang use. Each word sounds just as appealing or unappealing, dull or colourful in its standard as in its slang use. Also, the meanings of cabbage and money, cool and relaxed, pot and marijuana are the same, so it cannot be said that the connotations of slang words are any more colourful or racy than the meanings of standard words. All languages, countries, and periods of history have slang. This is true because they all have had words with varying degrees of social acceptance and popularity.

All segments of society use some slang, including the most educated, cultivated speakers and writers. In fact, this is part of the definition of slang. For example, George Washington used redcoat (British soldier); Winston Churchill used booze (liquor); and Lyndon B. Johnson used cool it (calm down, shut up).

The same linguistic processes are used to create and popularize slang as are used to create and popularize all other words. That is, all words are created and popularized in the same general ways; they are labeled slang only according to their current social acceptance, long after creation and popularization.

Slang is not the language of the underworld, nor does most of it necessarily come from the underworld. The main sources of slang change from period to period. Thus, in one period of American slang, frontiersmen, cowboys, hunters, and trappers may have been the main source; during some parts of the 1920s and '30s the speech of baseball players and criminals may have been the main source; at other times, the vocabulary of jazz musicians, soldiers, or college students may have been the main source.

To fully understand slang, one must remember that a word's use, popularity, and acceptability can change. Words can change in social level, moving in any direction. Thus, some standard words of William Shakespeare's day are found only in certain modern-day British dialects or in the dialect of the southern United States. Words that are taboo in one era (e.g., stomach, thigh) can become accepted, standard words in a later era. Language is dynamic, and at any given time hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of words and expressions are in the process of changing from one level to another, of becoming more acceptable or less acceptable, of becoming more popular or less popular.

Most linguists and lexicographers admit that the origin of the word slang is “uncertain” or “unknown”. One notable exception is Skeat, a lexicographer, 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 referred by Eble in her book “Slang and Sociability; in-group language among college students” says that certain resemblances between English word slang and the Scandinavian sling suggest that the words have developed from a common Germanic root. In contrast, one of the Swedish researchers on slang Anna-Brita Stenstrom, in her article “From slang to slanguage: a description based on teenage talk” shows that one of the Swedish dictionaries consulted “Bonniers Stora Lexicon” maintains that the Swedish word slang comes from English slang, and that the origin is unknown. Also she provides an identical opinion of Swedish encyclopedia “Nationalencyclopedin”, which states that the word slang was not introduced in the Nordic countries until the middle of the 19th century. The first occurrence of the word slang is dated 1756 in the OED, according to which ultimate source is “not apparent”. Consequently, word “slang” appeared in English language earlier than in the languages of Scandinavian countries. Another view on the appearance of the word slang suggests that it is not an English word; it is the Gipsy term for their secret language. Some other philologists consider it derived from French. The phenomenon of slang appeared before it got the name “slang”. According to Swift slang is as old as speech, and traces of this may be found as far as we can refer back. Old English Slang was coarser, and depended more upon downright vulgarity than our modern slang. Slang of those days was generally termed “flash” language which represented both cant and slang. It is important to underline that the term “slang” was firstly recognized by Grose in 1785. He defined it as “cant or vulgar language”. Italian researcher Winona Bullard writes that different dialects and pronunciations in the Middle Ages represented the first meaning of the term “slang”. It was represented by certain writers such as Chauser, William Caxton and William of Malmesbury. The present-day meaning for slang began to form only in 16th or 17th century. English Criminal Cant is considered to be the starting point of slang. It was a new kind of speech used by criminals in saloons and gambling houses. It was at first believed that English criminal cant originated in Romania or had occurred in France. She also argues that some popular plays of Richard Brome (1635), poems and songs by Copland (1925) already contained some slang words. By the 1700’s the cultural differences in America had begun to influence the English-speaking population, and slang started to expand. During the 18th century slang was thought as incorrect usage of English and was considered forbidden. Eric Partridge in “Slang Today and Yesterday” notes that from about 1850’s, slang has been the accepted term for “illegitimate” colloquial speech. John Ayto in the Introduction to the “Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang” writes that the first to which the term “slang” was applied, in the mid-eighteen century, was the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low and disreputable character. In the earlier centuries it was referred to as thieves’ cant or patter of earlier centuries. Nowadays slang is not associated with criminals. It acquires its form and is influenced by different cultures and the innovations of technology, which has left the society a variety of slang extremes from Street slang to Afro-American slang. Moreover, slang tends to originate in subcultures within a society. Slang expressions often embody attitudes and values of group members. They thus contribute to a sense of group identity and may convey information to the listener concerning the speaker’s background. Before an apt expression becomes a slang, it must be widely adopted by the members of the group. The vocabulary of slang changes rapidly: what is new and exciting for one generation is old-fashioned for the next. Old slang often either drifts to obsolescence or becomes accepted into the standard language, losing its eccentric colour. Flapper, for instance, started life in the late 19th century as a slang term for a young or lively woman, but subsequently moved into general language as a specific term for such a young woman of the 1920s. Similarly, the use of gay in the sense “homosexual” has its roots firmly in slang, but is now widely accepted as standard terminology. Slang has always been difficult to locate, to explain and to grasp as a unitary phenomenon. This has discouraged overall formal accounts. Therefore, the concept of slang has been inaccurately defined by many lexicographers who tend to restrict it to colloquial or bad language, and the term has been imprecisely used by many sociolinguists who conflate it with such language varieties as cant, jargon, dialect, vernacular, or accent. Galperin in “Stylistics” stresses that “no other European language has singled out a special layer of vocabulary and named it slang, though all of them distinguish such groups of words as jargon, cant, and the like”. Many attempts have been made to define slang, but many have been unable to come up with a distinct meaning. In addition to the complexity involved in finding a more accurate definition to the term, is the attitude that the public and scholars alike have about slang. The word “slang” evokes different reactions among the general public, scholars and linguists in particular. These reactions are often antagonistic and discordant, ranging from a perception of slang as simply “bad” English to slang as creative language variety worthy of academic investigation. Some linguists and lexicographers give a rather sweeping definition of the term “slang”. Quirk et all. mentions slang as a variation from casual to vulgar, but the distinction cannot be specified, since it is all the matter of attitude. Others, such as Dumas and Lighter (1978) avoid definitions altogether by instead providing identifying criteria, for instance, “its presence will markedly lower, at least for one moment, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing” and “it is used in place of the well known conventional synonym”. Other researchers define slang in direct opposition to the conventional and standard language, and view it in terms of deviant and rebellious nature. They argue that slang is improper, unsystematic, unacceptable language usage, and unconventional vocabulary that diverges from that of standard lexicon (Munro, 1997; Burke, 1939; Lighter, 1994). Elisa Mattiello (2008) investigating the definitions provided by different scholars concludes that there are different approaches in composing a definition of slang. Most definitions of the term show tendency towards a sociological view of the phenomenon. The followers of this approach define slang as a social means of identification and cohesiveness of a group. According to Mattiello (2008) “within the sociological approach, slang is ascribed the two opposite purposes of keeping insiders together and outsiders out”. For instance Eble (1996) stresses the social and interpersonal aspects of slang and its function “to establish and reinforce social identity or cohesiveness within a group or with a trend or fashion in society at large”. Obviously, use of the same slang vocabulary helps to gain the acceptance in a group and to preserve group solidarity. Slang in sociological approach serves such social purposes as being on the same speech level with one’s audience, facilitating social intercourse, and inducing friendliness or intimacy. Another approach to define slang is the stylistic approach. Within this approach it is defined as a level of usage. Partridge (1947) neutrally and rather vaguely defines slang as “the quintessence of colloquial speech”, or as in Flexner (1960) that it is “not accepted as good, formal usage by majority.” In brief, slang is put into opposition to formal language: namely, it is below standard discourse and the neutral stylistic level, and typical of informal relaxed speech. Furthermore, slang is also juxtaposed to other non-standard varieties: it is neither dialect nor register, nor can it be assigned to the concepts of cant, argot, or jargon. Slang is changing rapidly; therefore it can be regarded as a short-lived ephemeral vocabulary that is expecting either to pass into obsolescence or becomes accepted in standard language. According to linguistic approach slang is regarded as the use of ordinary words in extraordinary senses or of extraordinary words in ordinary senses. This approach emphasizes the aspects of novelty and freshness of slang. Jespersen (1922) states that slang “finds amusement in the creation and propagation of new words and in attaching new meanings to old words”. Sornig (1981) defines slang as “an experimental language”. Mattiello (2008) highlights that slang distinguished from standard language in its morphology and its semantics. In morphology, “it is characterized by clear insubordination as regards the standard word-formation rules”, and in semantics, “it only renames everyday objects, but also enriches, qualifies and complexifies them”. If on the one hand, it is agreed that slang is a certain lexical layer, then giving to it the rank of language leads to miscomprehension and ambiguity. But, if slang is a language or a dialect, then it should be characterized not only by its peculiar use of words but also by phonetic, morphological and syntactical peculiarities. Nowadays slang covers both the specific and general sense. Usually it consists of new words and novel or extended meanings, and develops from the attempt to find fresh, vigorous, colourful, pungent or humorous expressions. To conclude, the theme should be investigated more carefully, because slang is changing rapidly. It is obvious that even existing researches are not enough in the sphere of slang investigation. Therefore, additional researches should be carried out.

Creators of slang

Civilized society tends to divide into a dominant culture and various subcultures that flourish within the dominant framework. The subcultures show specialized linguistic phenomena, varying widely in form and content that depend on the nature of the groups and their relation to each other and to the dominant culture. The shock value of slang stems largely from the verbal transfer of the values of a subculture to diametrically opposed values in the dominant culture. Names such as fuzz, pig, fink, bull, and dick for policemen were not created by officers of the law. (The humorous "dickless tracy," however, meaning a policewoman, was coined by male policemen.)

Occupational groups are legion, and while in most respects they identify with the dominant culture, there is just enough social and linguistic hostility to maintain group solidarity. Terms such as scab, strike-breaker, company-man, and goon were highly charged words in the era in which labour began to organize in the United States; they are not used lightly even today, though they have been taken into the standard language.

In addition to occupational and professional groups, there are many other types of subcultures that supply slang. These include sexual deviants, narcotic addicts, ghetto groups, institutional populations, agricultural subsocieties, political organizations, the armed forces, Gypsies, and sports groups of many varieties. Some of the most fruitful sources of slang are the subcultures of professional criminals who have migrated to the New World since the 16th century. Old-time thieves still humorously refer to themselves as FFV--First Families of Virginia.

In criminal subcultures, pressure applied by the dominant culture intensifies the internal forces already at work, and the argot forming there emphasizes the values, attitudes, and techniques of the subculture. Criminal groups seem to evolve about this specialized argot, and both the subculture and its slang expressions proliferate in response to internal and external pressures.

Sources

Most subcultures tend to draw words and phrases from the contiguous language (rather than creating many new words) and to give these established terms new and special meanings; some borrowings from foreign languages, including the American Indian tongues, are traditional. The more learned occupations or professions like medicine, law, psychology, sociology, engineering, and electronics tend to create true neologisms, often based on Greek or Latin roots, but these are not major sources for slang, though nurses and medical students adapt some medical terminology to their slang, and air force personnel and some other branches of the armed services borrow freely from engineering and electronics.

Linguistic processes forming of modern slang.

The processes by which words become slang are the same as those by which other words in the language change their form or meaning or both. Some of these are the employment of metaphor, simile, folk etymology, distortion of sounds in words, generalization, specialization, clipping, the use of acronyms, elevation and degeneration, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, borrowings from foreign languages, and the play of euphemism against taboo.

The English word trip is an example of a term that has undergone both specialization and generalization. It first became specialized to mean a psychedelic experience resulting from the drug LSD. Subsequently, it generalized again to mean any experience on any drug, and beyond that to any type of "kicks" from anything. Clipping is exemplified by the use of "grass" from "laughing grass," a term for marijuana. "Funky," once a very low term for body odour, has undergone elevation among jazz buffs to signify "the best"; "fanny," on the other hand, once simply a girl's name, is currently a degenerated term that refers to the buttocks (in England, it has further degenerated into a taboo word for the female genitalia). There is also some actual coinage of slang terms.