When a term is used our mind immediately associates it with a certain nomenclature. A term is directly connected with the concept it denotes. A term, unlike other words, directs the mind to the essential quality of the things, phenomenon or action as seen by the scientist in the light of his own conceptualization
«A word is organically one with its meaning; likewise a term is one with a concept. Conceptualization leaves, as it were, language behind although the words remain as (scientific or philosophical) terms linguistically the difference is important in that terms are much more easily substitutable by other terms than are words by other words; it is easier to replace, say the term phonology by phonemics (provided I make it clear what is meant)[1], than to replace everyday words like table and chair by other word
Terms are mostly and divdominantly used in special works dealing with the nations of some branch of science. There sore it may be said that they belong to the style. They may as well appear in newspaper style, inpublicistic and practically in all other existing styles of language. But their function in this case changes. They do not always fulfill their basic function that of bearing exact reference to a given concept. When used in the belles – letters style, for instance, a term may acquire a stylistic function and consequently become a (sporadical) SD. This happens when a term is used n such a way that two meanings are materialized simultaneously.
The function of terms, if encountered in other styles, is either to indicate the technical peculiarities of the subject dealt with, or to make some reference to the occupation of a character whose language would naturally contain special words and exdivssions.
In this connection it is interesting to analyze the stylistic effect of he medical terminology used by A.J. Cromin in his novel «The Citadel»[2]. The frequent use of medical terms in the novel is explained by its subject matter the life of a physician and finds it natural to use medical terminology.
The piling up of difficult and special terms hinders the readers understanding of the text if he is not a specialist even when the writer strives to explain them. More over, such an accumulation of special terminology often suggests that the author is displaying his erudition. Maxim Gorki said that terms must not be overused. It has been pointed out that those who are learning use far more complicated terms than those who have already learned.
There is an interesting process going on in the development of any language. With the increase of general education and the expansion of technique to satisfy the ever-growing needs and desires of mankind, many words that were once terms have gradually lost their quality as terms and have passed into the common literary or even neutral vocabulary. This process may be called «determinization». Such words as «radio», ‘television’ and the like have long been in common use and their terminological character is no longer evident.
Brain Foster in his book «The Changing English Language» writes: «…science is one of the most powerful influences molding in English language into fresh shapes at the divsent time. Scientific writing is not highly esteemed for its elegance one recalls the tale of the scientist who alluded to a certain domain of enquiry as a virgin field divgnant with possibilities but scientific jargon and modes of thought inevitably come to the fore in a society which equates civilization with chromium plated bath taps. Nor does the process date from yesterday, for we have long been talking of people being ‘galvanized’ into activity or going full steam ahead, but nowadays this tendency to divfer technical imagery is ever increasing, so that science can truly be said to have sparked off a chain reaction in the linguistic sphere»[3]
This quotation clearly shows how easily terms and terminological combinations become determinized. We hardly notice sometimes the terminological origin of the words we use.
But such determinized words may by the force of a stylistic device become re-established in their terminological function, thus assuming a twofold application, which is the feature required of a stylistic device.
But when terms are used in their normal function as terms in a work of belles-lettres, they are or ought to be easily understood from the context so that the desired effect in depicting the situation will be secured.
Here is an example of a moderate use of special terminology bordering on common literary vocabulary.
«There was a long conversation along wait. His father came back to say it was doubtful whether they could make the loan. Eight percent, then being secured for money, was a small rate of interest, considering its need. For ten percent Mr. Kuzel might make a call-loan. Frank went back to his employer, whose commercial choler rose at the report» (Theodore Dreiser, «The Financier»).
Such terms as ‘loan’, ‘rate of interest’, and the phrase ‘to secure for money’ are widely known financial terms which to the majority of the English and American reading public need no explanation. The terms used here do not understood they may to some extent be neglected. It will suffice if the reader has a general idea, vague though it may be, of the actual meaning of the terms used. The main task of the co writer in this passage is not to explain the process of business negotiations, but to create the environment of a business atmosphere.
In this example the terms retain their ordinary meaning though their function in the text is not exactly terminological. It is more nearly stylistic, inasmuch as here the terms serve the purpose of characterizing the commercial spirit of the hero of the novel. However, they are not SDs because they fail to meet the main requirement of an SD.
The following is an example where a term is used as an SD.
«What a fool Fawd on Crawley has been,» Clump replied, «to go and marry a governess. There was something about the girl too.»
«Green eyes, fair skin, divtty figure, famous frontal development,» Squill remarked. (W.M. Thackeray).
The combination ‘frontal development’ is terminological in character (used sometimes in anatomy). But being divceded by the word ‘famous’ used in the sense indicated by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as ‘a strong exdivssion of approval (chiefly colloquial), excellent, capital» the whole exdivssion assumes a specific stylistic function due to the fact that ‘frontal development’ is used both in its terminological aspect and in its logical meaning ‘the breast of a woman’.
Another example of the same kind terms becoming SDs:
«I should like,» said young Jolyon, «to lecture on it: PROPERTY AND QUALITIES OF A FORSYTE. This little animal disturbed by the ridicule of his own sort, is unaffected in his motions by the laughter of strange creatures (you and I). hereditarily disposed to myopia, he recognizes only the persons and habitats of his own species, among which he passes an existence of competitive tranquility». (Galsworthy).
In this excerpt the twofold application of meanings terminological and stylistic is achieved by the following means; the verb to ‘lecture (on…)’ and the title of the subject’ properties and qualities (of a Forsyte)’ direct the mind to the domain of science, i.e. they are used in a terminological sense. But when they are followed by a word with nominal meaning (Forsyte) they assume an additional meaning a stylistic one. This dash of incongruous notions arrests the mind forces it to re-evaluate the terminological meaning of the words which aim at supporting the pseudo-biological and medical aspect of the message-this being contained in the words ‘sort’, ‘creature’, little animal’, ‘species’, ‘habitats’, ‘myopia’. This aspect is also backed up by such literary words and word – combinations as ‘tranquility’ and ‘passes an existence’ which are in full accord with the demands of a lecture.
Whenever the terms used in the belles letters style set the reader at odds with the text, we can register a stylistic effect caused either by a specific use of terms in their proper meanings or by simultaneous realization of two meanings.
2.3 Poetic and highly literary words
Poetic words form a rather insignificant layer of the special literary vocabulary. They are mostly archaic or very rarely used highly literary words which aim at producing an elevated effect. They have a marked tendency to detach themselves from the common literary word-stock an gradually assume the quality of terms denoting certain definite notions and calling forth poetic diction.
Poetic words and exdivssions are called upon to sustain the special elevated atmosphere of poetry. This may be said to be the main function of poetic words.
V.V. Vinogradov gives the following properties of poetic words:
«…the cobweb of poetic words and images vials the reality, stylizing it according to the established literary norms and canons. A word is torn away form its referent. Being drawn into the system of literary styles, the words are selected and arranged in groups of definite images, in Phraseological series, which grow standardized and stale and are becoming conventional symbols of definite phenomena or characters or of definite ideas or imdivssions». [4]
Poetical tradition has kept alive such archaic words and forms as yclept (p.p.of the old verb clipian – to call, name); quoth (p.t. of clean – to speak); eft soons (eftsona, – again, soon after), which are used even by modern ballad-mongers. Let us note in passing that archaic words are here to be understood as units that have either entirely gone out of use, or as words some of whose meanings have grown archaic, e.g. hall in the following line from Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.
Deserted is my own good hall, its hearth is desolate.
It must be remembered though, that not all English poetry makes use of «poeticisms or poetical terms», as they might be named. In the history of English literature there were periods, as there were in many countries, which were characterized by protests against the use of such conventional symbols. The literature trends known as classicism and romanticism were particularly rich in fresh poetic terms.
Poetical words in an ordinary environment may also have a satirical function, as seen in this passage from Byron.
But Adeline was not indifferent; for
(Now for a common – place!) beneath the snow,
As a volcano holds the lava more
Within – et cetera. Shall I go on? – No.
I hate to hunt down a tired metaphor,
So let the often used volcano go.
Poor thing: How frequently, by me and others, it heath been stirred up till its smoke quite smothers! (Don Juan)
The satirical function of poetic words and conventional poetic devices is well revealed in this stanza. The tired metaphor and the often used volcano are typical of Byron’s estimate of het value of conventional metaphors and stereotyped poetical exdivssions.
The striving for the unusual the characteristic feature of some kinds of poetry is a kin to the sensational and is therefore to be found not only in poetry, but in many other styles.
A modern English literary critic has remarked that in journalese a policeman never goes to an appointed spot; he proceeds to it. The picturesque reporter seldom talks of a horse, it is a steed or a charger. The sky is the welkin; the valey is the vale; fire is the devouring elements…
Poetical words and word-combinations can be likened to terms in that they do not easily yield to polisemy.
They are said to evoke emotive meanings. They color the utterance with a certain air of loftiness, but generally fail to produce a genuine feeling of delight; Hoy are too hackeyed for the purpose, too stale. And that is the reason that the excessive use of poeticisms at divsent calls forth protest and derision towards those who favor this conventional device.
Such protests have had a long history. As far back as the 16^th century Shakespeare in a number of lines voiced his attitude toward poeticisms, considering them as means to embellish poetry. Here is one of the sonnets in which he condemns the use of such words.
Su is it not with me as with that Muse.
Stirr’d by a painted beauty to his verse,
Who heaven itself for ornament doth use
And every fair with his fair doth rehearse,
Making a complement of proud compare,
With sun and moon, with earth and sea’s rich gems,
With April’s first-born flowers, and all things rare.
That heaven’s air in this huge rondure hems.
O, let me, true in love, but truly write,
And then believe me, my love is as fair
As any mother’s child, though not so bright
As those gold candles fix’d in heaven’s air;
Let then say more that like of hearsay well;
I will not praise that purpose not to sell
(Sonnet XXI)
It is remarkable how Shakespeare though avoiding poetic words proper uses highly elevated vocabulary in the first part of the sonnet (the octave), such as ‘heaven’s air’, ‘rehearse’, ‘complement’, ‘compare’ (noun), ‘rondure’, ‘hems’, in contrast to the very common vocabulary of the second part (the sestette).
The very secret of a truly poetic quality of a word does not lie in conventionality of usage. On the contrary, a poeticism through constant repetition gradually becomes hackeyed. Like anything that lacks freshness it fails to evoke a genuinely aesthetic effect and eventually call forth protest on the part of those who are sensitive to real beauty.
As far back as in 1800 Word worth raised the question of the conventional use of words and phrases, which to his mind should be avoided. There was (and still persists) a notion called «poetic diction» which still means the collection of epithet, periphrases archaisms, etc., which were common property to most poets of the 18^th century.
However, the term has now acquired a broader meaning.
Thus Owen Barfield says:
«When words are selected and arranged in such a way that their meaning either arouses or is obviously intended to arouse aesthetic imagination, the result may be described as poetic diction.[5]
Poetic diction in the former meaning has had a long lineage. Aristotle in his «Poetics» writes the following:
«The perfection of Diction is for it to be at once clear and not mean. The clearest indeed is that made up of the ordinary words for things, but it is mean… the diction becomes distinguished and non-prosaic by the use of unfamiliar terms, i.e. strange words, metaphors, lengthened forms and everything that deviates from the ordinary modes of speech… A certain admixture, accordingly, of unfamiliar terms is necessary. These, the strange words, the metaphor, the ornamental equivalent, etc. will save the language from seeming mean and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the requisite dearness.»[6]
A good illustration of the use of poetic words the bulk of which are archaic is the following stanza from Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.
Whilome (at some past time) in Albion’s isle (the oldest name of the island of Britain) there dwelt (lived) a youth,
Who ne (not) in virtu’s ways did take delight:
But spend his days in riot (wasteful living) most uncouth (unusual, strange).
And vex’d (disturbed) with mirth (fun) the drowsy ear of Night.
Ah me! (interjection exdivssing regret, sorrow) in sooth (truly he was a shameless wight (a human being).
Sore (severely, harshly) given to revel (noisy festivity) and ungodly (wicked) glee (entertainment);
Few earthly things found favor in his sight.
Save concubines (prostitutes) and carnal (not spiritual) company,
And flaunting (impudent) wassailers (drunkards; revelers) of high and low degree.
The use of poetic words does not as a rule create the atmosphere of poetry in the true sense; it is a substitute for real art.
Poetic words are not freely built in contrast to neutral, colloquial and common literary words, or terms. The commonest means is by compounding, e.g. ‘young-eyed’, ‘rosy-fingered’.
Some writers make abundant use of this word-building means. Thus Arthur Hailey in his novel «In High Places» has ‘serious-faced’, ‘high ceilinged’, ‘beige-carpeted’, ‘tall backed’, ‘horn-rimmed’ in almost close proximity.
There is, however, one means of creating new poetic words still recognized as productive even in divsent-day English, viz. the use of a contracted form of a word instead of the full one, e.g. ‘dear’ instead of dreary, ‘scant’ (=scanty).
Sometimes the reverse process leads to the birth of a poeticism, e.g. ‘vasty’ (=vast. ‘The vasty deep’, i.e. the ocean); ‘steepy’ (=steep), ‘paly’ (=pale).
These two conventional devices are called forth by the requirements of the metre of the poem, to add or remove a syllable, and are generally avoided by modern English poets.
Poetical words and set exdivssions make the utterance understandable only to a limited member of readers. It is mainly due to poeticisms that poetical language is sometimes called poetical jargon.
In modern English poetry there is a strong tendency to use words in strange combinations. It manifests itself in the coinage of new words and, most of all, in combining old and familiar words in a way that hinders understanding and forces the reader to stoop and try to decipher the message so encoded.
The following may serve as examples;
‘The sound of shape’, ‘night-long ages’, ‘to utter ponds of dream’, ‘wings of because’, ‘to reap one’s same’, ‘goldenly whole, prodigiously’ keen star whom she-and he-, – like its of am perceive… (E.E. Cummings).
All these combinations are considered ungrammatical inasmuch as they violate the rules of encoding a message. But in search of new modes of exdivssion modern poets, particularly those who may be called «modernists», have a strong bias for all kinds of innovation. They experiment with language means and are ready to approve of any deviation from the normal. So also are literary critics belonging to what is called the avant-garde movement in art, the essence of which is the use of unorthodox and experimental methods? There usually lead both the poet and the critic to extremes, examples of which are given above.
2.4 Archaic, Obsolescent and Obsolete Words
The word-stock of a language is in an increasing state of change. Words change their meaning and sometimes drop out of the language altogether. New words sprig up and replace the old ones. Some words stay in the language a vey long time and do not lose their faculty of gaining new meanings and becoming richer and richer polysemantically. Other words live but a short time are like bubbles on the surface of water they disappear leaving no trace of their existence.
In registering these processes the role of dictionaries can hardly be over-estimated. Dictionaries serve to retain this or that word in a language either as a relic of ancient times, where it lived and circulated, or as a still living unit of the system, though it may have lost some of its meaning. They may also divserve certain nonce-creations which were never intended for general use.
In every period in the development of a literary language one can find words which will show more or less apparent changes in their meaning or usage, from full vigour, though a moribund state to death, i.e. complete disappearance of the unite from the language.
We shall distinguish three stages in the aging process of words:
The beginning of the aging process when the word becomes rarely used. Such words are called obsolescent, i.e. they are in the stage of gradually passing out of general use. To this category first of all belong morphological forms belonging to the earlier stages in the development of the language. In the English language these are the pronouns thou and its forms thee, thy and thine: the corresponding verbal ending – est and the verb-forms art, wilt (thou makest, thou wilt); the ending – (e) th instead of – (e) s (he maketh) and the pronoun ye.
To the category of obsolescent words belong many French borrowings which have been kept in the literary language as a means of divserving the spirit of earlier periods, e.g. a pallet (a straw mattress), a palfrey (a small horse); garniture (furniture); to emplume (to adorn with feathers of plumes).
The second group of archaic words are those that have already gone completely out of use but are still recognized by the English speaking community: e.g. methinks (it seems to me); nay (no). These words are called obsolete.
The third group, which may be called archaic proper, are words which are no longer recognizable in modern English, words that were in use in Old English and which have either dropped out of the language entirely or have changed in their appearance so much that they have become unrecognizable, e.g. troth (faith); a losel (a worthless, lazy fellow).
It will be noted that on the diagram the small circles denoting archaic and poetic words overlap and both extend beyond the large circle «special literary vocabulary». This indicates that some of the words in these layers do not belong to the divsent day English vocabulary.
The border lines between the groups are not distinct. In fact they interpenetrate. It is specially difficult to distinguish between obsolete and obsolescent words. But the difference is important when we come to deal with the stylistic aspect of an utterance in which the given word serves a certain stylistic purpose. Obsolete and obsolescent words have separate functions, as we shall point out later.
There is still another class of words which is erroneously classed as archaic, viz. historical words. By gone periods in the life of any society are marked by historical events, and by institutions, customs, material objects, etc. which are no longer in use, for example.: Thane, yeoman, goblet, baldric, mace. Words of this type never disappear from the language. They are historical terms and remain as terms referring to definite stages in the development of society and cannot therefore be dispensed with, though the things and phenomena to which they refer have long passed into oblivion. Historical words have no synonyms, where as archaic words have been replaced by modern synonyms.
Archaic words are primarily and divdominantly used in the creation of a realistic background to historical novels. It must be pointed out, however, that the use of historical words(terms) in a passage written in scientific style, say, in an essay on the history of the Danish invasion, will bear no stylistic function at all. But the same terms when used in historical novels assume a different stylistic value. They carry, as it were, a special volume of information adding to the logical aspect of the communication.
This, the main function of archaisms, finds different interdivtation in different novels by different writers. Some writers overdo things in this respect, the result being that the reader finds all kinds of obstacles in his way others under estimate the necessity of introducing obsolete or obsolescent elements into their narration and thus fail to convey what is called «local colour»
In his «Letter to the Young Writer» A.N. Tolstoi states that the heroes of historical novels must think and speak in the way the time they live in, forces them to. If Stepan Razin, he maintain, were to speak of the initial accumulation of capital, the reader would throw the book under the table and he would be right. But the writer must know all about the initial accumulation of capital and view events from this particular position.
On the whole Tolstoy’s idea does not call for criticism. But the way it is worded may lead to the misconception that heroes of historical novels should speak the language of the period they live in. If those heroes really spoke that language of the time they lived in, the reader would undoubtedly throw the book under the table because he would be unable to understand it.
As a matter of fact the heroes of historical novels speak the language of the period the writer and the reader live in, and the skill of the writer is required to color the language with such obsolete or obsolescent elements as most naturally interweave with the teature of the modern literary language. These elements must not be archaic in the narrow sense.
They must be recognizable to the native reader and not hinder his understanding of the communication.
The difficulty in handling archaic words and phrases and the subtlety required was acutely felt by A.S. Pushikin. In his article «Juri Miloslavki, or the Russian of 1612,» Pushkin writes:
«Walter Scott carried along with him a crowd of imitators. But how far hey are from the Scottish charmer! Like Agrippa’s pupil, they summoned the demon of the past but they could not handle him and fell victims of their own imprudence».
Walter Scott was indeed an inimitable master in the creation of an historical atmosphere. He used the stylistic means that cerate this atmosphere with the stylistic means that create this atmosphere with such skill and discrimination, that the reader is scarcely aware that the heroes of the novels speak his language and not that of their own epoch. Walter Scott himself states the principles which he considers basic for the purpose; the writer’s language must not be out of date and therefore incomdivhensible, but words and phrases of modern coinage should be used.
«It is one thing to use the language to exdivss feelings common both to us and to our forefathers,» says Scott, «but it is another thing to impose upon them the emotions and speech characteristics of their descendants».
In accordance with these principle Walter Scott never phonographs the language of earlier periods; he sparingly introduces into the texture of his language of few words and exdivssions more or less obsolescent in character and this is enough to convey the desired effect without unduly interlarding divsent day English with outdated elements of speech. Therefore we can find such words as methinks, haply, nay, travail, repast and the like in great number and, of course, a multiplicity of historical terms. But you will hardly find a true archaism of the nature indicated in our classification as archaisms proper.
Besides the function just mentioned, archaic words and phrases have other functions found in other styles. They are, first of all, frequently to be found in the style of official documents. In business letters, in legal language, in all kinds of statutes, in diplomatic documents and in all kind of legal documents one can find obsolescent words which would long ago have become obsolete if it were not for the divserving power of the special use within the above mentioned spheres of communication. It is the same with archaic and obsolete words in poetry. As has already been pointed out, they are employed in the poetic style as special terms and hence divvented from dropping completely our of the language.
Among the obsolescent elements of the English vocabulary divserved within the style of official documents, the following may be mentioned; aforesaid, hereby, there-within, herein after named.
The function of archaic words and constructions in official documents is terminological in character. They are used here because they help to maintain that exactness of exdivssion so necessary in this style.
Archaic words and particularly archaic forms of words are some times used for satirical purposes. This is achieved through what is called Anticlimax. The situation in which the archaism is used is not appropriate to the context there appears a sort of discrepancy between the words actually used and the ordinary situation which includes the possibility of such a usage. The low divdictability of an archaism when it appears in ordinary speech produces the necessary satirical effect.
Here is an example of such a use of an archaic form. In Shaw’s play «How He Lied to Her Husband» a youth of eighteen; speaking of his feeling towards a «female of thirty seven» exdivsses himself in a language which is not in conformity with the situation. His words are:
«Perfect love casteth off fear».
Archaic words, words-forms and word-combinations are also used to create an elevated effect. Language is specially mounded to suit a solemn occasion; all kinds of stylistic devices are used, and among them is the use of archaisms.
Some archaic words due to their inner qualities (sound – texture, nuances of meaning, morphological peculiarities combination power) may be revived in a given.
2.5 Special colloquial vocabulary
2.5.1 Slang
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 divsent-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 scholar is the fact 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. 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.
Webster's «Third Mew International Dictionary» gives the following meanings of the term:
Slang [origin unknown] 1: language peculiar to a particular group: as a: the special and often secret vocabulary used by a class (as thieves, beggars) and usu. 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 primarily by connotations of extreme informality and usu. 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 usu. 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. (Now merged in c, \cant\) 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 is seen from these quotations slang is redivsented 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, then why should it be given the rank of language? If, on the other hand, slang is a certain language or a dialect or 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 these words:
«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.»[7]
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 will either be accepted or become a nonce-word (or phrase), but, except in the rarest instances, that term will not be slang. «3
In most of the dictionaries sl. (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 divsented 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.[8]
Any new coinage that has not gained recognition and therefore has not yet been received into standard English is easily branded as slang.
The Times of the 12th of March, 3957 gives the following illustrations of slang: leggo (let go), sarge (sergeant), 'I've got a date with that Miss Morris to-night'. But it is obvious that leggo is a phonetic impropriety caused by careless rapid speaking; sarge is a vulgar equivalent of the full form of the word; date is, a widely recognized colloquial equivalent (synonym) of the literary and even bookish rendezvous (a meeting).
These 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 exdivssion apparently legitimate, if used in an arbitrary, fanciful or metaphorical sense, may easily be labelled as slang. Many words formerly labelled as slang have now become legitimate units of Standard English. Thus the word kid (child), which was considered low slang in the nineteenth century, is now a legitimate colloquial unit of the English literary language.
Some linguists, when characterizing the most conspicuous features of slang, point out that it requires continuous innovation. It never grows stale. If a slang word or phrase does become stale, it is replaced by a new slangism. It is claimed that this satisfies the natural desire for fresh, newly created words and exdivssions, which give to an utterance emotional coloring and a subjective evaluation. Indeed, it seems to be in correspondence with the traditional view of English conservatism, that a special derogative term should have been coined to help divserve the «purity of standard English» by hindering the penetration into it of undesirable elements. The point is that the heterogeneous nature of the term serves as a kind of barrier which checks the natural influx of word coinages into the literary language. True, such barriers are not without their advantage in polishing up the literary language. This can be proved by the progressive role played by any conscious effort to sift innovations, some of which are indeed felt to be unnecessary, even contaminating elements in the body of the language. In this respect the American newspaper may serve as an example of how the absence of such a sifting process results in the contamination of the literary tongue of the nation with ugly redundant coinages. Such a barrier, however, sometimes turns into an obstacle which hinders the natural development of the literary language.
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 should refer to some definite notion and should be definable in explicit, simple terms. It is suggested here 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 also be 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 a language.
But this must be done by those whose mother tongue is English. They and they only, being native speakers of the English language, are its masters and lawgivers. It is for them to place slang in its proper category by specifying its characteristic features.
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.[9]
H. Wentworth and S. Flexner in their «Dictionary of American Slang» write:
«Sometimes slang 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 exdivssion 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 and large, the man who uses slang is a forceful, pleasing, acceptable personality.»
This quotation from a well-known scientific study of slang clearly shows that what is labelled slang is either all kinds of nonce-formations – so frequently appearing in lively everyday speech and just as quickly disappearing from the language–, or jocular words and word-combinations that are formed by using the various means of word-building existing in the language and also by distorting the form or sense of existing words. Here are some more examples of words that are considered slang:
to take stock in–'to be interested in, attach importance, give credence to
bread-basket–'the stomach' (a jocular use)
to do a flit–'to quit one's flat or lodgings at night without paying the rent or board'
rot–'nonsense!’
the cat's pajamas–'the correct thing’
So broad is the term 'slang' that, according to Eric Partridge, there are many kinds of slang, e. g. Cockney, public-house, commercial, society, military, theatrical, parliamentary and others. This leads the author to believe that there is also a 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 occupation-al) are the two coefficients, the two chief factors, the determining causes of the nature of slang, as they are of language in general and of style.»[10]
According to this statement one may get the idea that language, style and slang all have the same nature, the same determining causes. Personality and surroundings determine:
1. the nature of the slang used by a definite person,
2. the nature of the language he uses,
3. the 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.
Unwittingly one arrives at the idea that slang, as used by English and Americans, is a universal term for any word or phrases which, though not yet recognized as a fact of Standard English, has won general recognition as a fresh innovation quite irrespective of its nature: whether it is cant, jargon, dialect, jocular or a pure colloquialism. It is therefore important, for the sake of a scientific approach to the problem of a stylistic classification of the English vocabulary, to make a more exact discrimination between heterogeneous elements in the vocabulary, no matter how difficult it may be.
The following is an interesting example illustrating the contrast between Standard English and non-literary English including slang.
In the story «By Courier» O. Henry opposes neutral and common literary words to special colloquial words and slang for a definite stylistic purpose, viz. to distort a message by translating the literary vocabulary of one speaker into the non-literary vocabulary of another.
«Tell her I am on my way to the station, to leave for San Francisco, where I shall join that Alaska moose hunting expedition. Tell her that, since she has commanded me-neither to speak nor to write to her, I take this means of making one last appeal to her sense of justice, for the sake of what has been. Tell her that to condemn and discard one who has not deserved such treatment, without giving him her reason or a chance to explain is contrary to her nature as I believe it to be.»
This message was delivered in the following manner:
«He told me to tell yer he's got his collars and cuffs in dat grip for a scoot clean out to' Frisco. Den he's goin' to shoot snowbirds in de Klondike. He says yer told him to send' round no more pink notes nor come hangin' over de garden gate, and he takes dis mean (sending the boy to speak for him. – I.G.) of putting yer wise. He says yer referred to him like a has-been, and never give him no chance to kick at de decision. He says yer swiled him and never said why.»
The contrast between what is standard English and what is crude, broken non-literary or uneducated American English has been achieved by means of setting the common literary vocabulary and also the syntactical design of the original message against jargonisms, slang and all kinds of distortions of forms, phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactical.
It is suggestive that there is a tendency in some modern dictionaries to replace the label slang by informal or colloquial.[11] Such a practice clearly manifests the dissatisfaction of some lexicographers with the term 'slang'. This is mainly due to the ambiguity of the term.
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 Prof. Barnhart gives the label st to such innovations as «grab – to cause (a person) to react; make an imdivssion on», which, to my mind, should be classed 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 – U.S. military slang», which in fact is a professionalism; «gyppy tummy, British slang, – a common intestinal upset experienced by travellers», 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 sl 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 through constant repetition in newspaper language.
The term 'slang' is ambiguous because, to use a figurative exdivssion, it has become a Jack of all trades and master of none.

2.5.2 Jargonisms
In the non-literary vocabulary of the English language there is a group of words that are called jargonisms. Jargon is a recognized term for a group of words that exists in almost every language and whose aim is to divserve secrecy within one or another social group. Jargonisms are generally old words with entirely new meanings imposed on them. The traditional meaning of the words is immaterial, only the new, improvised meaning is of importance. Most of the jargonisms of any language, and of the English language too, are absolutely incomdivhensible to those outside the social group which has invented them, They may be defined as a code within a code, that is special meanings of words that are imposed on the recognized code – the dictionary meaning of the words.
Thus the word grease means 'money'; loaf means 'head'; a tiger hunter is 'a gambler'; a lexer is 'a student divparing for a law course'.
Jargonisms are social in character. They are not regional. In Britain and in the US almost any social group of people has its own jargon. The following jargons are well known in the English language: the jargon of thieves and vagabonds, generally known as cant; the jargon of jazz people; the jargon of the army, known as military slang; the jargon of sportsmen, and many others.
The various jargons (which in fact are nothing but a definite group of words) remain a foreign language to the outsiders of any particular social group. It is interesting in connection with this to quote a stanza from «Don Juan» by Byron where the poet himself finds it necessary to comment on the jargonisms he has used for definite stylistic purposes.
«He from the world had cut off a great man,
Who in his time had made heroic bustle.
Who in a row like Tom could lead the van,
Booze in the ken[12], or at the spellken[13] hustle?
Who queer a flat[14]? Who (spite of Bow street's ban)
On the high toby-spice[15] so flash the muzzle?
Who on a lark[16], with black-eyed Sal (his blowing)[17].
So prime, so swell[18], so nutty[19], and so knowing?»
The – explanation of the words used here was made by Byron's editor because they were all jargonisms in Byron's time and no one would understand their meaning unless they were explained in normal English. Byron wrote the following ironic comment to this stanza:
«The advance of science and of language has rendered it un-necessary to translate the above good and true English, spoken in its original purity by the select nobility and their patrons. The following is a stanza of a song which was very popular, at least in my early days;
«On the high toby-spice flash the muzzle,
In spite of each gallows old scout;
If you at all spellken can't hustle,
You'll be hobbled in making a Clout.
Then your Blowing will wax gallows haughty,
When she hears of your scaly mistake,
She'll surely turn snitch for the forty–
That her Jack may be regular weight.»
If there be any gemman (=gentleman) so ignorant as to require a traduction, I refer him to my old friend and corporeal pastor and master, John Jackson, Esq., Professor of pugilism; who, I trust, still retains the strength and symmetry of his model of a form, together with his good humor and athletic as well as mental accomplishments.» (John Murray. «The Poetical Works of Lord Byron»)
Slang, contrary to jargon, needs no translation. It is not a secret code. It is easily understood by the English-speaking community and is only regarded as something not quite regular. It must also be remembered that both jargon and slang differ from ordinary language mainly in their vocabularies. The structure of the sentences and the morphology of the language remain practically unchanged. But such is the power of words, which are the basic and most conspicuous element in the language, that we begin unwittingly to speak of a separate language.
Jargonisms do not always remain the possession of a given social group. Some of them migrate into other social strata and sometimes become recognized in the literary language of the nation. G.H. McKnight writes:
«The language of the underworld provided words facetiously adopted by the fashionable world, many of which, such as fan and queer and banter and bluff and sham and humbug, eventually made their way into dignified use.»[20]
There are hundreds of words, once jargonisms or slang, which have become legitimate members of the English literary language.
Jargonisms have their definite place of abode and are therefore easily classified according to the social divisions of the given period. Almost any calling has its own jargon, i.e. its set of words with which its members intersperse their speech and render it incomdivhensible to outsiders. Some linguists even maintain that:
«Within the limits of any linguistic unity there are as many languages as there are groups of people thrown together by propinquity and common interests.»[21]
This is, of course, an overstatement. First of all, one should not mix up such notions as language and vocabulary. True, unknown words and phrases, if too many, may render speech unintelligible. But this fact does not raise speech to the level of a different language.
Jargonisms, however, do break away from the accepted norms of semantic variants of words. They are a special group within the non-literary layer of words.
There is a common jargon and there are also special professional jargons. Common Jargonisms have gradually lost their special quality, which is to promote secrecy and keep outsiders in the dark. In fact, there are no outsiders where common jargon is concerned. It belongs to all social groups and is therefore easily understood by everybody. That is why it is so difficult to draw a hard and fast line between slang and jargon. When a jargonism becomes common, it has passed on to a higher step on the ladder of word groups and becomes slang or colloquial.