lang, which is itself a slang term, is something that we encounter every day without usually giving it a second thought. While we’ve all likely been delighted in the past by videos of things such as grandmas attempting to defi ne slang terms or compilations of texts from parents with misused acronyms, slang is not often a topic that provokes serious discussion, though perhaps it’s time that it should.
I’ve found that in England even more than in the US, slang is given a bad rap. But if we really think about it, what is so wrong with colouring our speech a little? Why do we fear vulgarity of language when humans by their very nature are somewhat vulgar? What does it mean for one phrase to be more appropriate than another, and appropriate with regard to what? Like so many other things that are arbitrarily criminalised or socially condemned, perhaps slang deserves some reconsideration.
It might be simplest to start off with a broad ‘why’ question, so here it goes. Why, when there are so many other more widely accepted ways of saying things, might a person resort to the use of slang?
Very simply, slang is useful. In certain forms of communication slang facilitates brevity, and its meanings are often able to achieve intricacies that standard language might not. For example, adding ‘innit’ to the end of a sentence might demonstrate a sense of inclusivity or deference to another person without adding uncomfortable formalities into the mix.
Slang is by no means a phenomenon new to the digital age. It is language in fl ux, and something that has been in use since the beginning of language itself. Though there is always some level of scoffing to be heard when new words that are considered too green are added into the English dictionary (I’m looking at you, ‘awesomesauce’), at some point all words were new.
There are often instances when the creation of new slang either goes unnoticed or is at its most obvious because the particular context in which it is used. When we look at poetry for example, it is considered perfectly acceptable and usually even clever for a writer to use shortened or slightly altered forms of words. It is well known by now that Shakespeare himself invented over a thousand words, including such seemingly innocuous examples as ‘fashionable’. Yet, if someone in pop culture today, whether in a song or in a grammatically careless comment, coins a new term, it is instantly deemed a betrayal of English (See DJ Khaled’s ‘bless up’ and the subsequent stream of corresponding hashtags).
Slang is also an effi cient means of selfexpression, as much as anything that we say out loud or in writing is explicitly revelatory of ourselves and our opinions. It allows us not only to identify with certain countries and regions, but also with certain social classes, age groups, career paths, and even smaller circles of friends.
Though people often are ridiculed for their accents when they go to other regions or unfamiliar social spaces, these very same accents and turns of phrase might be fl aunted proudly by their speakers within a home setting. Diff erences in language are used to navigate social situations in which the constituents of a group come from diverse backgrounds, and also to discover how each new person that we speak to relates to us personally, even if this is done subconsciously.
So then why might so many people be against the use what so far seems to be a useful social tool at best and a harmless aspect of banter at worst? Slang in certain instances throughout history has been perceived as something either dangerous or subversive to mainstream society. ‘Cockney’ English may have originated as a means for people in London to discuss criminal activity, and even today certain slang words are prohibited in Russian prisons. As much as it might be enticing to see regulations of slang as some form of real-life Orwellian Newspeak, I also doubt that such a thing is occurring, and instead would argue that such regulations would be impossible to enforce if they did not hold public support.
One might read this article and wonder what really is the point in thinking so much about something as trivial as slang. On the surface, I suppose it really doesn’t make that much difference within any given immediate situation whether someone chooses one word or another, or even whether they are told to choose one word over another. Where it might make a diff erence, however, is in cases where regulations are made either for or against slang.
When we think about the consequences of children and young adults being allowed to use slang in school, what comes to mind most is how that will aff ect their performance in testing and in their future careers. The problem with such regulations is that they eff ectively reinforce any pre-existing notions of what the use of slang says about the people who use it.
Regulations like these could be setting certain students up for failure in the future, since even if they do assimilate their speech to the school’s standards, they will have had far less exposure to and practice with ‘proper’ language than their peers might. At the very least, the regulations teach such students that their way of speaking and their parents’ and communities’ ways of speaking are incorrect or somehow less than. Perhaps this is a case in which the standards by which students are judged ought to be changed, rather than the students themselves.
In instances where communication is not hindered between a user and non-user of slang, why should anyone waste time policing something that might promote creativity of expression? In societies where it is hard enough to counter such things as hate speech, it seems unrealistic and fruitless to attempt to control non-standard – though harmless – speech.
