Identifying features
There’s
nowt – using example slang
wrong
with slang
Emma Thompson of
all people ought to
appreciate that
Shakespeare’s slang – comparing to what legends of language have done
became part of our
everyday language
!
!
Belinda Webb
Friday 8 October 2010 12.00 BST
!
That epitome of Hampstead luvviness, Emma
Thompson, has apparently started a campaign
against the use of “sloppy slang” and “street talk”.
It follows a visit to her old school, Camden High
for Girls. What’s to be expected from a
Cambridge graduate? It is still an institution of – rhetorical question
received pronunciation. She is not alone in this
call to arms against slang. Fellow north Londoner
Tom Conti agrees, as does Kathy Lette, that writer
of such timeless classics as Puberty Blues, which
is about “top chicks” and “surfie spunks“, and – alliteration
Alter Ego, about a “knight in shining Armani“. – pun
Lette attempts to show off her punnilingus by
calling slang a “vowel cancer” and urging teens to
study “tongue fu“. – pun
This kind of talk has got me well vexed. Listen up, – embedded example
yeah, there’s nowt wrong with slang, so you need
to stop mitherin’, d’ya get me? Those who are – omission
from the north will recognise nowt as nothing and
mitherin’ as bothering. And “d’ya get me?” is,
well, comprende? Slang has been around for a
long time. Far from showing the user as “stupid”,
as Thompson contends, it demonstrates
inventiveness and quickness of thought; a
language plasticity, if you like; a language on the
go, evolving not just from one generation to the
next, but one year to the next. Its use shows that
students are able to learn and speak a wide range
of vernacular. The British Library certainly seem to
think so, with its upcoming exhibition on evolving
English.
Types of slang can be seen as distinct dialects in
their own right. Yet there are those who would
complain that it excludes many more than it will
let in. The same argument has been made
regarding novels such as Irvine Welsh’s
Trainspotting – the use of the Leithian dialect a
clear statement that, to get “them”, requires work;
the same work it would take for them to learn RP.
British literature is served well by
slang – it can energise prose –
and there is also Will Self’s
“Mokni”, from The Book of Dave.
I remember reading Anthony
Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange,
with its “nasdat” and being so – neologism
blown away that I rewrote a
contemporary female-centric
version called A Clockwork Apple.
I used archaic and old Celtic
words in order to get away from
the language so favoured by the
Blytons (think Thompson). This
use was then mocked when a
middle-aged male reviewer
attempted to write a nonsensical
review on it.
What Thompson et al may be put
out at is feeling out of touch with
the reality of this younger
generation. Slang can be seen as
a sophisticated attempt to
communicate in a semi-private
language, only a step removed
from Wittgenstein’s “private
language”. Also a Cambridge
graduate, Wittgenstein came to
believe that the idea that
language can perfectly capture
reality is a kind of bewitchment.
Yet teenagers in each generation
seem intent on trying, which is to
their credit. They may not
consciously know this is what
they are doing, but they are
seeking a language that
represents their reality, and a way
of creating a private space for those with whom
they identify.
!
The issue is, perhaps, what makes people feel in
the right to say that anyone who does not speak
like them, or in the way they were taught, is wrong
and “stupid”? What is stupid is the ignorance of – rhetorical question
such highly educated public figures who seem not
to have realised that Britain’s greatest
writers used slang and those words became part – irony
of our language. Shakespeare helped popularise
words such as nervy, rancorous, puke,
assassination and sanctimonious. Allow me to
illustrate the use of these words:
Sanctimonious Oxbridge grads are rancorous at
the use of teenspeak and slang, which makes
them so nervy that they want to puke, which could
be avoided if they stopped the slang
assassination.
I am not saying that slang is a substitute for
“standard” English, but should be recognised and
capitalised upon for what it is – a love of
communication and an inventiveness of speech
that continues to make English one of the most
interesting languages.
Her points and examples are logical and I’m in complete agreement with her.
Quotations that are the most convincing:
have realised that Britain’s greatest
writers used slang and those words became part
of our language. Shakespeare helped popularise
words such as nervy, rancorous, puke,
assassination and sanctimonious.
I am not saying that slang is a substitute for
“standard” English, but should be recognised and
capitalised upon for what it is – a love of
communication and an inventiveness of speech
Slang can be seen as
a sophisticated attempt to
communicate in a semi-private
language
it demonstrates
inventiveness and quickness of thought; a
language plasticity, if you like; a language on the
go, evolving not just from one generation to the
next, but one year to the next.
Types of slang can be seen as distinct dialects in
their own right. Yet there are those who would
complain that it excludes many more than it will
let in.