8. The lexicography of slang: slang’s dictionaries

‘The lexicography of slang: slang’s dictionaries’ considers the slang-related texts that make up the slang lexicographical ‘canon’. Traditional English-language slang lexicography can be broken down into three successive periods. The ‘canting’ or criminal slang dictionaries of the 16th to 18th centuries, the ‘vulgar tongue’ works of the late 18th to mid-19th, and the ‘modern’ productions that have appeared since. A fourth category can now be added: on-line dictionaries. Works discussed include Thomas Harman’s Caveat for Common Cursetors (c.1566); The Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, Grose (1785); John Camden Hotten’s Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar Words (1859); and Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Partridge (1937).

6. The components of slang

‘The components of slang’ outlines the forms and etymological roots of slang and considers how the terms are validated. Slang offers no forms unique to itself. It borrows much of its lexis from standard English and employs similar methods of constructing it. The simplest, and most popular use is in varieties of combining, whether as phrases, compounds, or derivatives. Slang offers many agglomerations and it seems that once a pattern is accepted, all suggested combinations are justifiable. The role of synonymity within slang could be seen as a means of avoiding the real world by conjuring up an infinity of parallel terms or better ways of burrowing deeper inside it.

1. ‘Slang’: the word

The exact etymology of the word ‘slang’ is unknown. ‘“Slang”: the word’ divides the possible origins and various theories behind the meaning of the term into three groups: (1) Romani; (2) Scandinavian; (3) variations on SE language or lingo or French langue. The shift in slang’s primary meaning of ‘vagrant jargon’ to ‘vulgar speech’ may be attributed to the long-established assumption that if slang is used by those outside social respectability it must be categorized as being outside the linguistic equivalent. The nature of slang—the marginal speech of marginal individuals—naturally makes its recording problematic, especially in its earliest period.

5. The users of slang

Who uses slang? ‘The users of slang’ suggests two groups: the ‘primary’ users who coin and develop the vocabulary and for whom it works as the basis of their everyday speech, and the ‘illustrative’ users who employ slang for authenticity. The earliest examples of both groups reach back to early modernity. Various forms, sources, and users of slang are considered: theatricality, the underworld, prisons, tramps, drug users, the military, college and school, teenagers, African-Americans, jazz and blues, race novels, and gay slang. The use of slang is invariably seen as an indication of the speaker’s class. The working class, criminal or not, have always been slang’s leading creators and speakers.

4. The words of slang: themes and development

Slang’s thematic range is not wide, though its synonymy runs very deep. It is stripped down, modern, and cutting edge. ‘The words of slang: themes and development’ outlines the main themes of slang: sex, money, alcohol. Slang is sexist, racist, nationalist, ageist, sizeist, and variously -phobic, but it is also urban. The history of slang is also the history of the urbanization of modern life as reflected in this influential subset of the language. The development of the slang vocabulary from the 16th and 17th centuries to the present day, and how British slang has been joined by slang from Australia and the New World, is also described.

2. ‘Slang’ as a linguistic register

‘“Slang” as a linguistic register’ considers the definitions of slang and asks what qualifies as slang and what does not. Slang indicates a marginal, contrarian lexis, created and largely used by those beyond the social—and by extension—linguistic pale. Its use may have become more extensive alongside the more relaxed social mores of contemporary speech, but it continues to offend language purists and slang remains tainted by its criminal and underclass associations. The various types of slang are considered: cant (criminal jargon), rhyming slang (including Cockney language), backslang, occupational slang, and obscenities.

9. The future of slang

Slang’s future is interwoven with our new connected, digitized world. ‘The future of slang’ asks if we are, any longer, able safely to talk of ‘slang’ as a discrete language group, or are the varieties of non-standard language to become subject to the promotion of niche interests, in this case forms of speech, that the digital world encourages? It also considers whether the nature and content of slang, or slangs, will change. The increasing volume of ‘girl talk’ on social media, for example, flouts many of slang’s male conventions. Of slang’s continuing existence, there is no doubt, but the question that remains is what, now, makes up ‘slang’?

7. Recording slang

‘Recording slang’ considers the defining of slang terms, the spelling of slang, the dating of slang terms, and the pronunciation of slang. What does a slang term mean? The answer is often obvious, but not invariably. The same word can stand in for multiple meanings, some barely differentiated from others. The task of discerning these differences, of dividing them into senses is not helped, of course, by the core nature of the language under analysis. Slang is innately imprecise. Its use suggests fluidity and malleability. Spelling and pronunciation, also, are not really considered by slang’s speakers, but how is the word heard, how is it to be set down?

3. Is slang a language?

‘Is slang a language?’ suggests that if a means of communication is a language, then slang is surely a part of the overarching English language as much as any other lexical subset such as jargon, technicalities, and regionalisms. But is it a language or no more than an aggregation of words—a lexis or vocabulary? The different definitions and concepts of slang are considered: as a ‘counter-language’ describing slang’s role not as a collection of obscenities, but as a subversive language in opposition to standard English; as a secret language, keeping things dark other than for a small band of privileged initiates; or simply as part of a local dialect.