Jake Barren
ENGL 587
Fall 2013
Dr. Grund
Slang: Defined by Its Most Popular Purveyors
Introduction
The definition of slang in American English has escaped conformity since its
inception in language many years ago (Partridge). This is interesting, as most people
will be able to identify words as slang, but be unable to explain why (Dumas and
Lighter). Systematic innovations and trends in speech are most often attributed as
the cause of slang; despite this, or perhaps because of it, constraints for quantifying
(conceptualizing?) slang remain elusive (Partridge)(Adams). Several key qualities
are often attributed to slang (context, formality, among others), however there is no
concrete parameter that constitutes how much of a certain quality or how many
qualities must be present in order for specific words to qualify as slang (Eble). Slang
shares many of these qualities, as well as other conventions, with standard language
in general, which further complicates the creation of a functioning definition of slang
(Dumas and Lighter). Context, or intent is commonly considered a distinguishing
trait that sets slang words apart from standard language, as are transiency,
formality, and familiarity (Bradley).
A factor commonly agreed upon when discussing slang is the age group of its
most frequent users. Young people, particularly students, have been found to utilize
slang most often; therefore this linguistic phenomenon has become associated with
them (Coleman)(Lighter).
Purpose
This paper seeks to define slang through the analysis of data obtained from
surveys taken by college students. The survey was developed to flush out the
characteristics that students believe are associated with slang based on the opinions
of experts old and new alike in a quantitative research study. The use of college
students as subjects adds a unique insight into what the most prevalent users of
slang believe about their language.
Literature review
The literature review has provided conflicting ideas and perceptions of slang
that the author referred to when designing the survey. Connie Eble declared that,
“slang cannot be defined independent of its functions and use” (Eble). With that in
mind, a functional definition of slang must include aspects of what it is, and how it’s
used. This project will focus on the criteria that prominent language experts, past
and present, believe to qualify language as slang, as well attempt to identify what
circumstances slang is most often used.
The elements of slang
The primary reason for slang’s ambiguity in the English language is hard to
pinpoint. Webster’s Third Dictionary attempts to distinguish slang labels in their
usage labels section: “There is no completely satisfactory objective test for slang,
especially with application to a word out of context. No word is invariably slang and
many standard words can be given slang connotations or used to inappropriately as
to become slang.” Despite this, many scholars have attempted to provide guidelines
that encapsulate the essence of slang. In their article, “Is Slang a Word for Linguists?”
authors Bethany Dumas and Jonathan Lighter list four criteria they consider telling
of slang. If a word or expression fulfills two of the criteria, then it constitutes as
slang, summarized as according to Dumas and Lighter:

Its presence will lower the formality or dignity of the context or
environment in which it’s used

It implies familiarity with either the environment in which it’s used, or the
aspect it connotes

It’s considered “taboo” or inappropriate for the present occasion or company

It is a euphemism for a common synonym whose use will cause discomfort,
embarrassment, or annoyance (Dumas and Lighter)
Lighter went on to publish A Historical Dictionary of American Slang where he
provided an actual definition of slang: “Slang denotes an informal, nonstandard,
nontechnical vocabulary composed chiefly of novel-sounding synonyms (and nearsynonyms) for standard words and phrases; it is often associated with youthful,
raffish, or undignified persons and groups; and it conveys often striking
connotations of impertinence or irreverence, especially for established attitudes and
values within the prevailing culture” (Lighter). This comprehensive overview of
slang gives both generalizations and specifics, but denotes a negative aspect of slang
that is absent among most of his (their) contemporaries. Julie Coleman, author of
Life of Slang, believes slang is more loosely defined through spontaneous creativity
and Michael Adams’, Slang: The People’s Poetry, defines slang by what it represents
rather than what it is (Coleman) (Adams). These conceptual definitions can be
useful in identifying slang, but cannot independently define the qualities of every
slang expression. There are several characteristics that stand out in the various
definitions of slang: the evolutionary nature of slang, which will be referred to as
transiency, the contextual situation words are used in, the intentional use of words
outside of their denotative meanings, the idea that slang is used to determine group
identity, and the informal tone associated with slang, and deviance of language.
Aspects of slang
Transiency
In 1968, Virginia Olesen and Elvi Whittaker gave their insight as to the
elements of slang: “a central attribute of slang, most writers agree, is the rapidly
changing character of those new words, old words with new meanings, and half
words that come to be thought of as belonging to this category of language.” (Olesen
and Whittaker). Connie Eble supports the idea of slang constantly evolving in her
book, Slang and Sociability, where she calls slang, “ever changing” and “ephemeral”
(Eble 1996). This quality of evolution suggests that slang is a trend, a phenomenon
that comes and goes. While this seems to complicate the task of identifying
individual words as slang, it gives criteria for defining slang as a feature of language.
Context and Intent
In addition to transiency, speaker intent and context is often including in the
definition of slang. A word is often considered slang when it is used outside of its
original context and this usage can be classified by the intention of the speaker. A
popularized example is apparent in the way the word “hot” has come to mean
attractive (Adams). While this usage has become standard in some circles, other
words are constantly being treated with this kind of flippancy. “It [slang] is used
deliberately, in jest or in earnest, to flout a conventional or social semantic norm”
(Dumas and Lighter). This sentiment is echoed by Henry Bradley’s entry for Slang in
the Encyclopaedia Britannica where he states that the speaker’s intent is important
in recognizing slang (Bradley). While this publication is rather dated, the idea that
the intended meaning (of a slang word) overrides the literal meaning of the word is
still a principle defining feature of slang. Often, words are chosen for the attitude
they convey rather than their literal meanings. This is why understanding the
context in which the (slang) word is used in is important. This doesn’t only occur
when vocabulary is used out of context, but also with derivation and
grammaticalization (the shift in grammatical function), which Eble calls “functional
shift” (Eble). This trend of intentionally using words outside of their original context
is useful in identifying slang.
Formality, Group Identity, and Deviance
Perhaps the biggest issue with slang amongst academics developed from its
classification as nonstandard or informal. Coleman asserts that slang indicates that a
conversation isn’t formal and that the use of slang words is a “rejection of a more
formal alternative” (Coleman). Coupled with the idea that formality in language is
exhibited through standard language use marks slang as deviant. As James Sledd
remarks in his article, On Not Teaching English Usage, “Typically, slang is a paracode, a system of substitutes for statusful expressions which are used by people who
lack conventional status and do not conduct the important affairs of established
communities. Slang flourishes in the semantic areas of sex, drinking, narcotics,
racing, athletics, popular music, and other crime-a ‘liberal’ language of things done
as ends in themselves by gentlemen who are not gentlemen and dislike gentility.
Genteel pedagogues must naturally oppose it, precisely because slang serves the
outs as a weapon against the ins. To use slang is to deny allegiance to the existing
order, either jokingly or in earnest, by refusing even the words which represent
convention and signal status; and those who are paid to preserve the status quo are
prompted to repress slang as they are prompted to repress any other symbol of
potential revolution” (Sledd). Again, this critic of slang is speaking from half a
century in the past and the sentiment he describes no longer dominates the field of
study. Nonstandard language is not marginalized to the extent Sledd describes and
traces of slang have been found in formal settings of speech, if not writing
(Coleman). Despite the fact that slang carries fewer stigmas than it used to, the
common perception remains that slang is an informal language feature that’s used
casually amongst groups who “identify each other by correct usage” (Adams). Eble
echoes this sentiment that slang is “a group identifying function… however
association with a group is not essential to slang” (Eble). The deviant perception of
slang evolves from its function as a group-identifying characteristic when associated
with negative groups. Often, groups that develop their own slang fit in Sledd’s
description (such as drug dealers, and other criminals), but this may no longer be
exclusively true. Adams rebukes Sledd’s distinction, saying, “most of what were once
vices are now popular pastimes of the middle class” (Adams). This understanding
puts the informal nature and negative perception of slang in jeopardy as defining
traits. Are they (informality and deviance) still identifying aspects of slang, or is
slang becoming more socially acceptable? Additionally, is slang only found in
groups, as Sledd described, or is Eble correct in assessing that slang is not always
associated with a particular group and has become prevalent in popular culture?
This study will shed light on these questions in respect to the opinions of college
students, a group often perceived to use slang copiously.
Method
Slang is a unique and interesting part of language that is harder to define
than it is to identify. Based on the opinions of experts from the past and present,
slang can roughly be classified as an ephemeral feature of language that exists
primarily to denote a group involvement through the intentional use of words
outside of their original context in mostly informal situations. This definition spans
almost 80 years and is composed foremost of academic observations.
To compare with this definition, this project surveyed 20 college students
regarding their opinions on the meaning of slang based on the characteristics in this
definition. Twelve males and eight women participated in the survey and the
average age of the respondents was 21 years old. Forty percent of respondents were
seniors and forty-five percent were juniors. The survey consisted of nine questions,
of which three were demographic. The other six questions regarded the
characteristics of slang. Students answered these questions by reporting the degree
to which they agree or disagree with the five statements (e.g., Slang words are
always changing) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.)
The items were created using the traits discussed in the literature review.
They can be found in appendix A.
Results
Because this study was not looking for a relationship, but rather a trend in
belief and understanding that could be compared to the academic discussion, there
was no statistical testing that could be applied. Instead, the researcher compiled the
results so that the average respondent level of agreement could be compared with
the academic assertions. Items four through nine correspond with the
characteristics of slang as set forth by the definition. These will be discussed in turn.
Transiency - Ephemeral Nature
When asked if they agreed with the statement “slang words are always
changing,” 90% of respondents agreed (a quarter of participants strongly agreed)
while the remaining ten percent were neutral to the statement. This corresponds
with the opinions of Eble and the others who stated that the ever-changing aspect of
slang is essential to its definition. It’s important to note that no respondents
disagreed with this statement, which further supports its necessity in the definition.
Context and Intent
When asked if they agreed that “the context in which a word is used can
make it slang,” 95% of respondents agreed. Forty percent of the respondents
strongly agreed while again there was no disagreement with the statement. These
statistics indicate that context is important when determining if language is slang.
Intention is closely related to the contextual use of words and respondents were
asked if they agreed with the statement “the intention behind the use of a word
determines if that word is slang.” All respondents agreed with this statement, with
40% strongly agreeing. These results are in line with Dumas and Lightener’s idea
that slang is used deliberately and Bradley’s statement that slang is intentional.
Eble’s description of functional shift in slang describes the contextual properties
that the respondents agreed with.
Formality, Group Identity, and Deviance
The final three questions in the survey were in regard to the three aspects of
slang that may have changed with the perception of language in general. Question
seven asked respondents if they agreed with the statement, “slang is used by
members of a particular group to identify each other.” The answers varied from
disagreement (10%) to strong agreement (5%). The average response was a 3.6 out
of 5; this indicates a very slight agreement overall. This challenges the scholarly
outlook held by Adams that slang is used by groups to identify each other, but
resonates with Eble’s proclamation that slang has a group identifying function, but it
[a group association] is not essential to slang. The ideas presented by Sledd are in
conflict with the collective opinion of the students, which, coupled with the ideas of
Adams and Eble, suggest that his writings may be becoming outdated. This indicates
a change in slang, maybe not in form, but in function. Question eight asked
respondents if they agreed with the statement, “all slang is informal language.” Fifty
percent of students disagreed with this statement while only a quarter agreed. The
remaining 25% responded with neutral. Again, this finding contradicts the experts’
ideas regarding slang. Most scholars and almost all mentioned in this study describe
slang as an informal feature of language. This contradiction may stem from the
separation of written and spoken language, which was not addressed in the survey
or clarified in the literature review, but may very well provide an explanation for
this phenomenon. The final statement about slang asked respondents if they agreed
that, “slang is deviant language”. Deviancy, while not a part of the composed
definition of slang used in this study, has a significant relationship with group
membership. Some experts considered slang deviant language because they treated
slang as an extension of groups they viewed negatively. The respondents hide the
widest range of answers for the above statement, but overall 65% disagreed that
slang was deviant while only 15% believed that it was. The remaining 20% were
neutral. The average score was 2.45, which indicates that respondents only slightly
disagreed overall that slang was deviant. This makes the guidelines that Dumas and
Lighter created seem less credible, as deviancy was a factor in three out of four of
their criteria, with familiarity being the fourth criteria. This also helps Adams’
assumption that the vices of old are the pastimes of the new seem more realistic.
The perception of slang has obviously evolved in the last half-century to be more
acceptable and this acceptability will potentially change the way slang is used. If
slang is no longer considered deviant, then it could very well find its way into formal
language. Coleman argues such in her book, The Life of Slang, where she discusses
the role of slang in new technologies and how these technologies potentially play a
role in the more acceptable understanding and use of slang.
Conclusion
The definition used to formulate the survey used in this study called slang an
ephemeral feature of language that exists primarily to denote a group involvement
through the intentional use of words outside of their original context in mostly
informal situations. This definition draws on the work of the scholars who have
been referenced and closely resembles several of their own definitions. Based on the
feedback of the student respondents, we can modify this definition to incorporate
their responses. While students agreed that slang is indeed transient, intentional,
contextual, and often denoted group identification, there was less unification in the
ideas that slang is altogether informal and a deviant portion of language. The
standard deviation was under one for the characteristics of transiency, intent,
context, and group membership, but informality and deviancy were both between
1.1 and 1.2. This means that there was a wider range of disparity amongst the
respondents. With this disparity, it can’t be certain that these characteristics are
significant in slang or not. As deviancy deals with the perception of slang, and not
the functions or use, it was left out of the initial definition. Informality is another
matter altogether. This trait seemed to be a dominant aspect of slang, in the past and
in the present. Coleman argued that slang was the rejection of a more formal
alternative and an indication that a conversation was informal, but the results have
shown that this idea may be slightly overstating the informality of slang. While slang
definitely hasn’t appeared widely in publication or political rhetoric, the perception
of how informal slang is thought to be may allow a more widespread, less
stigmatized use of the language. Overall, the data gathered supports most of the
contemporary scholarly assumptions of slang, except perhaps the informal
restraints of slang. Adams, Eble, and Coleman, three authors of books defining and
explaining slang, agree that slang encompasses more than a simple definition can
provide, however trying to define slang is an important part in the process of
understand language.
Further Study
Just as the definition of slang is highly debated, the perception of slang is
equally as controversial. Some language experts believe slang is detrimental to
standard language, while many others argue that slang is a linguistically positive
expression of everyday life (Partridge). The most passionate arguments against
slang are very old and it seems that slang has become increasingly acceptable over
the past half-century. (While it’s possible to believe that slang is a positive linguistic
function, the belief that it can be harmful to a standard language can be held
concurrently, it would depend on the opinion about language standards.) An
individual’s positive or negative perception of slang seems to be associated with
their contextual use. If a speaker has a positive perception of slang, are they more
likely to use slang in more circumstances? Conversely, if a speaker perceives slang
negatively, will they limit there use of slang to certain occasions, or not use it at all?
This thought process is important in the discussion circumstantial use of slang and
therefore, perception is essential to the conversation of definition. Additional
studies that focus on the perception of slang would be useful in more fully
developing a functional and practical definition of slang. Eble was right that slang
cannot be described independent of use and function, and the perception of slang by
the people who use it will modify both the way slang is used and the functions it
provides.
Resources
Adams, Michael. Slang: The People's Poetry. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Bradley, Henry. 1911. "Slang." In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Web.
Coleman, Julie. Life of Slang. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Dumas, Bethany K., and Jonathan Lighter. "Is Slang a Word for Linguists?" American
Speech 53.1 (1978): 5-17. JSTOR. Web.
Eble, Connie C. Slang & Sociability: In-group Language among College Students.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1996. Print.
Lighter, Jonathan E. A Historical Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Random
House, 1994. Print.
Olesen, Virginia, and Whittaker, Elvi. 1968. "Conditions under Which College
Students Borrow, Use, and Alter Slang." American Speech 43: 222-28. JSTOR.
Web.
Partridge, Eric. 1935. Slang To-Day and Yesterday. London: Macmillan. Print.
Sledd, James. 1965. "On Not Teaching English Usage." English Journal 54: 698- 703.
JSTOR. Web.