Linguistic Features of Slang

At a time when unprecedented numbers of immigrants are entering the United States, the need for effective communication is difficult to overstate. That entails learning English, the operative language in the United States. And learning English entails learning not only formal language but also slang, which is bound up with both social and linguistic conventions that may be unfamiliar to the ELL but essential for comprehension. It is both necessary and challenging to make connections between words, symbols, and expressions and those who use them, and to reach linguistic clarity based on shared understandings between speakers and auditors about the social context in which certain words are used and certain meanings are structured. It is the thesis of this research that context--physical, social, psychological, emotional--is the decisive sociolinguistic factor of communication effectiveness, and that mastering context may prove more important for mastering the language than mere attention to linguistic phonemes.

All language, of course, is symbolic. Slang, however, is a special

. . .
es" that introduce linguistic outgroups to the special meanings of the speech. Speakers who explain or otherwise share information about the meaning of the slang expression are inviting members of the outgroups into the culture from which the slang previously had excluded them (Gibbs & Nagaoka, 1985). That is reflected in an informal yet real-world-relevant study of slang or "lingo," that is used by a variety of Internet message "in-groups," from law enforcement officers to science fiction fans (Dunn, 1997). However, Dunn's text suffers from the fact that it is not keyed to a systematic index. The fact that slang does enter the common language is one thing. How it enters is an equally relevant point. That is where context assumes increasing importance. Spears's (1992) compilation of slang and idiomatic expressions illustrates why, although not in the way the author intends. Just as Dunn's text suffers from a lack of an index, Spears's text suffers from a failure to contextualize the expressions it covers. Despite the title of the work, the compilation is alphabetical and not contextual. That is, slang/idiomatic expressions are not grouped according to the most likely social context in which they would be used. Take the example of
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Gibbs Nagaoka, , Dumas Lighter, Similarly Cockney, Umpire Cockney, World ELL, Night Live, Wide Web, Linguistic Circular, April-June Getting, social context, dumas lighter, lighter 1978, gibbs nagaoka, dumas lighter 1978, text suffers, dunn's text suffers, nagaoka 1985, dunn 1997, wayne's world, specific social, ell difficulty decoding, gibbs nagaoka 1985, pass common,
Approximate Word count = 1451
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Linguistic Features of Slang