I.2 The problem of definition

In linguistics, where definitions at best are often imprecise and leaky, that of slang is especially notorious. The problem is one of complexity, such that a definition satisfying to one person or authority would seem inadequate to another because the prime focus is different. Like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant, all correctly, none sufficiently, we tend to stress one aspect or another of slang [5].

There is hardly any other term that is as ambiguous and obscure as the term slang. 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. No one has yet given a more or less satisfactory definition of the term. Nor has it been specified by any linguist who deals with the problem of the English vocabulary.

“The first thing that strikes the scholars is the fact that no one European language has singled out a special layer of vocabulary and named it slang, though all of them distinguish such group of words as jargon, cant and the like. Why was it necessary to invent a special term for something that has not been clearly defined as jargon or can't have? Is this phenomenon specifically English? Has slang any special features, which no other group within the non-literary vocabulary can lay, claim to? The distinctions between slang and other groups of unconventional English, though perhaps subtle and sometimes difficult to grasp, should nevertheless be subjected to a more detailed linguistic specification” [24].

Slang is informal, nonstandard words and phrases, generally shorter lived than the expressions of ordinary colloquial speech, and typically formed by creative, often witty juxtapositions of words or images. Slang can be contrasted with jargon (technical language of occupational or other groups) and with argot or cant (secret vocabulary of underworld groups), but the borderlines separating these categories from slang are greatly blurred, and some writers use the terms cant, argot, and jargon in a general way to include all the foregoing meanings [7].

Webster’s “Third New International Dictionary” gives the following definition of the term slang:

1. Language peculiar to a particular group as:

a) the special and often secret vocabulary used by a class (as thieves, beggars) and usually felt to be vulgar or inferior: argot;

b) the jargon used by or associated with a particular trade, profession, or field of activity.

2. A non-standard vocabulary composed of words and senses characterized primary by connotations of extreme informality and usually a currency not limited to a particular region and composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties usually experiencing quick popularity and relatively rapid decline into disuse.

The “New Oxford English Dictionary” defines slang as follows:

a) the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or disreputable character; language of a low and vulgar type;

b) the cant or jargon of a certain class or period;

c) language of a highly colloquial type considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense.”

As it is seen from these quotations slang is represented both as a special vocabulary and as a special language. This is the first thing that causes confusion. If this is a certain lexical layer, than why should it be given the rank of language or a dialect of even a patois, then it should be characterized not only by its peculiar use of words but also by phonetic, morphological and syntactical peculiarities.

J.B. Greenough and C.L. Kitteridge define slang in the following way:

“Slang… is a peculiar kind of vagabond language, always hanging on the outskirts of legitimate speech but continually straying or forcing its way into the most respectable company.”

Another definition of slang, which is worth quoting, is one made by Eric Partridge, the eminent student of the non-literary language.

“Slang is much rather a spoken than a literary language. It originates, nearly always, in speech. To coin a term on a written page is almost inevitably to brand it as a neologism which is either be accepted or become a nonce-word (or phrase), but, except in the rarest instances, that term will not be slang”[12].

In most of the dictionaries slang is used as convenient stylistic notation for a word or a phrase that cannot be specified more exactly. The obscure etymology of the term itself affects its use as a stylistic notation. Whenever the notation appears in a dictionary it may serve as an indication that the unit presented is non-literary, but not pinpointed. That is the reason why the various dictionaries disagree in the use of this term when applied as a stylistic notation.

Any new coinage that has not gained recognition and therefore has not yet been received into Standard English is easily branded as slang [2].

The different and heterogeneous phenomena united under the vague term slang cause natural confusion and do not encourage scholars to seek more objective criteria in order to distinguish the various stylistic layers of the English colloquial vocabulary. The confusion is made still deeper by the fact that any word or expression apparently legitimate, if used in an arbitrary, fanciful or metaphorical sense, may easily be labeled as slang [4].

The term “slang” which is widely used in English linguistic science should be clearly specified if it is to be used as a term, i.e. it is should refer to some definite notion and should be definable in explicit, simple terms. It is suggested that the term “slang” should be used for those forms of the English vocabulary which are either mispronounced or distorted in some way phonetically, morphologically or lexically. The term “slang” should be also used to specify some elements, which may be called over-colloquial. As for the other groups of words hitherto classified as slang, they should be specified according to the universally accepted classification of the vocabulary of the language [9].

Slang is nothing but a deviation from the established norm at the level of the vocabulary of the language. V.V.Vinogradov writes that one of the tasks set before the branch of linguistic science that is now called stylistics, is a thorough study of all changes in vocabulary, set phrases, grammatical constructions, their functions, an evaluation of any breaking away from the established norm, and classification of mistakes and failures in word coinage [13].

Some scholars define standard slang, the slang that is common to all those who, though employing received standard in their writing and speech, also use an informal language which, in fact, is no language but merely a way of speaking, using special words and phrases in some special sense. The most confusing definition of the nature of slang is the following one given by Partridge: “…personality and one’s surroundings (social or occupational) are the two co-efficients, the two chief factors, the determining causes of the nature of slang, as they are of language in general and of style.”

According to this statement one may get the idea that language, style and slang all have the same nature, the same determining causes [3]. Personality and surroundings determine:

· nature of the slang used by a definite person;

· nature of the language he uses;

· kind of style he writes.

There is a general tendency in England and to some extent in the US to over-estimate the significance of slang by attaching to it more significance than it deserves. Slang is regarded as the quintessence of colloquial speech and therefore stands above all the laws of grammar. Though it is regarded by some purists as a language that stands below standard English, it is highly praised nowadays as “vivid”, “more flexible”, “more picturesque”, “richer in vocabulary” and so on [22] .

Unwittingly one arrives at the idea that slang, as used by English and Americans, is a universal term for any word or phrase which, though not yet recognized as Standard English, has won general recognition as a fresh innovation quite irrespective of its nature: whether it is cant, jargon, dialect, jocular or pure colloquialism. It is therefore important, for the sake of a scientific classification of the English vocabulary, to make a more exact discrimination between heterogeneous elements in vocabulary, no matter how difficult it may be [18].

It is suggestive that there is a tendency in some modern dictionaries to replace the label “slang” by informal or colloquial. Such a practice clearly manifests the dissatisfaction of some lexicographers with the term “slang”. This is mainly due to the ambiguity of the term [14].

On the other hand, some lexicographers, as has already been pointed out, still make use of the term “slang” as a substitute for “jargon”, “cant”, “colloquialism”, “professionalism”, “vulgar”, “dialectal”. Thus, in his dictionary Professor Barnhart gives the label “slang” to such innovations as “grab - to cause, to react; to make an impression on”, which should be classified as newspaper jargon; “grass or pot - marijuana”, which are positively cant words (the quotation that follows proves it quite unambiguously), “groove - something very enjoyable”, “grunt - US military slang”, which in fact is professionalism; “guppy tummy, British slang - a common intestinal upset experienced by travelers”, which is a colloquialism; “hangup - a psychological or emotional problem”, which is undoubtedly a professionalism, which has undergone extension of meaning and now, according to Barnhart also means “any problem or difficulty, especially one that causes annoyance or irritation.”

The use of the label “slang” in this way is evidently due to the fact that Barnhart’s Dictionary aims not so much at discrimination between different stylistic subtleties of neologisms but mainly at fixation of lexical units which have already won general recognition thorough constant repetition on newspaper language.

Slang, according to the American poet, Carl Sandburg is “Language which takes off its coat, spits on its hands-and goes to work”.

U.M.Skrebnev defines slang as a part of the vocabulary consisting of commonly understood and widely used words and expressions of humorous or derogatory character-intentional substitutes for neutral or elevated words and expressions.

M. Goldenkov gives the following definition:

“Slang is everything which is out of the books.”

Slang is also the idiom of the life force. It has roots somewhere near those of sexuality, and it regularly defies death.

The term “slang” is ambiguous because, to use a figurative expression, it has become a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none.

There are a lot of definitions of slang and all of them seem to be correct. They characterize this many-sided phenomenon from all the points of view.

The Oxford English dictionary provides a more judicious account: “Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of educated standard speech, consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense”. In a related definition, it also describes slang as “language of a low or vulgar type” and “the special vocabulary or phraseology of a particular calling or profession”. This sums up the paradox of slang very well. People look down on it, but can hardly avoid using it.

Though some scholars ignore slang the English language contains a rich array of slang words and phrases. This can be particularly seen when examining the day-to-day language of an average speaker. Some words and phrases are perhaps not suitable for general consumption and have omitted these. Even so, many of the following will offend some people and it is worth stating that their inclusion is to provide a realistic representation of the language, not to be sensational or abusive. It’s the nature of slang that it is either used to replace taboo phrases or to playfully enhance them.

In some cases slang may provide a needed name for an object or action (walkie-talkie, a portable two-way radio; tailgating, driving too close behind another vehicle), or it may offer an emotional outlet (buzz off! for go away!) or a satirical or patronizing reference (smokey, state highway trooper). It may provide euphemisms (john, head, can, and in Britain, loo, all for toilet, itself originally a euphemism), and it may allow its user to create a shock effect by using a pungent slang expression in an unexpected context.

Slang is used for many purposes, but generally it expresses a certain emotional attitude; the same term may express diametrically opposed attitudes when used by different people. People use slang consciously and unconsciously in the course of ordinary, every day interaction. Essentially, 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 terms are primarily derogatory, though they may also be ambivalent when used in intimacy or affection. Some crystallize or bolster the self-image or promote identification with a class or in-group. Others flatter objects, institutions, or persons but may be used by different people for the opposite effect. "Jesus freak," originally used as ridicule, was adopted as a title by certain street evangelists. Slang sometimes insults or shocks when used directly; some terms euphemize a sensitive concept, though obvious or excessive euphemism may break the taboo more effectively than a less decorous term. Some slang words are essential because there are no words in the standard language expressing exactly the same meaning; e.g., "freak-out," "barn-storm," "rubberneck," and the noun "creep." At the other extreme, multitudes of words, vague in meaning, are used.

H.Wentworth and S.Flexner in their “Dictionary of American Slang” write: “Slang is the inescapable means of communication. Sometimes it is used to escape the dull familiarity of standard words, to suggest an escape from the established routine of everyday life. When slang is used, our life seems a little fresher and a little more personal. Also, as at all levels of speech, slang is sometimes used for the pure joy of making sounds, or even for a need to attract attention by making noise. The sheer newness and informality of certain slang words produce pleasure. But more important than this expression of a more or less hidden aesthetic motive on the part of the speaker is the slang’s reflection of the personality, the outward, clearly visible characteristics of the speaker. By the large, the man who uses slang is a forceful, pleasing, acceptable personality.”

Whatever the reason(s), slang is here to stay, and its longevity demands attention and explication. Crystal cites examples from Eric Partridge's Slang, Today and Yesterday to illustrate the many uses of slang. Partridge, according to The Historical Dictionary of American Slang, is "perhaps the century's best-known collector of unconventional English." Of Partridge's "fifteen important impulses behind the use of slang," Crystal notes that he considers numbers 13 and 14 to be the most significant:

13. To show that one belongs to a certain school, trade, or profession, artistic or intellectual set, or social class; in brief, to be 'in the swim' or to establish contact.

14. Hence, to show or prove that someone is not 'in the swim'.

Slang may appeal, or it may be disgusting. It may be popular, or may be ignored. But it is really used, so it has to arouse some interest.