Slang is extremely ephemeral and specific to a given environment or community. I generally recommend that ESL students avoid it. There is very little slang that is widespread enough and durable enough to make it safe to use. "Cool" in the sense of "fashionable" is a rare exception in that it is very widespread and has been stable for many decades. The same is true for "okay." But expressions like "solid, Jackson!" or "twenty-three skidoo" come and go with bewildering rapidity. The advantage of properly using slang is more than outweighed by the possible consequences of using it incorrectly.
Do u use slang???
Re: "I have large observed that americans use more slangs than the britans."
This is true Pravi and likewise French speaking Quebeckers and Spanish speaking Chicanos & Mexicans use more slang than their counterparts in France and Spain do . Maybe there's something about the North American environment that tends to foster it.
However, slang in the United States seems to have reached its greatest hights during 1960's. The pop music culture of the time introduced a whole slew of new slang words and expressions which often appeared on tv shows like Shindig and Hullabaloo and in teeny bopper magazines like "The groovin' sounds of the Lovin' Spoonful"; "The boss Byrds"; "The Byrds are my fab, fave, rave, gear group!" and "Rock on!" TV commercials and comedy shows of the late '60's promoted words and expressions like 'pizazz' and "Sock it to me!" From the hippies came 'bong', headpipe', 'getting high',"Far out!", "ego trip" and "You're a real trip, man!" Soul singer James Brown helped popularize the words 'funk' and 'funky' during this time.
Since the early 1970's, new slang has been slowly but steadily declining in the American lexicon. Some linguists believe that new and creative forms of slang depend heavily on a large youth population. I agree and we indeed had that in America during the 1960's. In societies where the youth population is small they argue , young people tend to speak more like their elders. We may have reached that point in the U.S. already since the so-called "Baby boom" peaked out in 1957 and since then, there have been only occasional spurts in an otherwise steadily declining birth rate.
This is true Pravi and likewise French speaking Quebeckers and Spanish speaking Chicanos & Mexicans use more slang than their counterparts in France and Spain do . Maybe there's something about the North American environment that tends to foster it.
However, slang in the United States seems to have reached its greatest hights during 1960's. The pop music culture of the time introduced a whole slew of new slang words and expressions which often appeared on tv shows like Shindig and Hullabaloo and in teeny bopper magazines like "The groovin' sounds of the Lovin' Spoonful"; "The boss Byrds"; "The Byrds are my fab, fave, rave, gear group!" and "Rock on!" TV commercials and comedy shows of the late '60's promoted words and expressions like 'pizazz' and "Sock it to me!" From the hippies came 'bong', headpipe', 'getting high',"Far out!", "ego trip" and "You're a real trip, man!" Soul singer James Brown helped popularize the words 'funk' and 'funky' during this time.
Since the early 1970's, new slang has been slowly but steadily declining in the American lexicon. Some linguists believe that new and creative forms of slang depend heavily on a large youth population. I agree and we indeed had that in America during the 1960's. In societies where the youth population is small they argue , young people tend to speak more like their elders. We may have reached that point in the U.S. already since the so-called "Baby boom" peaked out in 1957 and since then, there have been only occasional spurts in an otherwise steadily declining birth rate.
Brennus provided some interesting examples of 1960s slang but what he said about frequency of slang is largely untrue and unattested by serious linguistic research. Frequency of usage of slang is pretty constant over the generations and cross-linguistically. While actual slang varies amongst dialects of a language I'd say it could rarely if ever be objectively said one dialect used more slang than another.
>>Re: "I have large observed that americans use more slangs than the britans."
This is true Pravi and likewise French speaking Quebeckers and Spanish speaking Chicanos & Mexicans use more slang than their counterparts in France and Spain do .<<
Brennus,
Considering speech is ephemeral, how do you measure the volume and frequency of slang usage, to show this to be true? Your personal observations are affected by your proficiency in those languages and by the fact that slang varies among communities, let alone dialects.
This is true Pravi and likewise French speaking Quebeckers and Spanish speaking Chicanos & Mexicans use more slang than their counterparts in France and Spain do .<<
Brennus,
Considering speech is ephemeral, how do you measure the volume and frequency of slang usage, to show this to be true? Your personal observations are affected by your proficiency in those languages and by the fact that slang varies among communities, let alone dialects.
Bob, Kirk and all, it is astonishing but true that the frequency is more in the Americans. The best example for this is the TV shows. If you watch any and especially tele serials, they reveal the fact about the usage of slang. I have seen that the Aussies also use it for a certain extent but they seem that the words directly gush from the Americans. It can also be included that the usage is increasing in the recent years as compared the earlier days. Brennus, I should add that you have made a good research of the same.
<<it is astonishing but true that the frequency is more in the Americans>>
Thank you for your opinion Pravi, but that certainly doesn't make it fact. I stand by Kirk - slang usage is no higher in one place than another.
Thank you for your opinion Pravi, but that certainly doesn't make it fact. I stand by Kirk - slang usage is no higher in one place than another.
<<"Dead" = very or really. I have heard Americans say it sometimes- I remember Bill Clinton saying that something was "dead wrong".
"Ace" = good, excellent etc..... >>
Thanks, Rick, we do use "dead wrong" but I hadn't heard "dead ace." I'll add it to my collection.
"Ace" = good, excellent etc..... >>
Thanks, Rick, we do use "dead wrong" but I hadn't heard "dead ace." I'll add it to my collection.
<<Bob, Kirk and all, it is astonishing but true that the frequency is more in the Americans.>>
No, that is linguistically inaccurate. No language or dialect of a language can objectively be said to use more slang than another. This is not even mentioning the fact that what constitutes "slang" is sometimes up for debate. Many standard words today have their origins in slang, and at any given time any dialect may have some words that are considered "slang" by other dialects but eventually spread thruout the entire language.
<<The best example for this is the TV shows. If you watch any and especially tele serials, they reveal the fact about the usage of slang. I have seen that the Aussies also use it for a certain extent but they seem that the words directly gush from the Americans. It can also be included that the usage is increasing in the recent years as compared the earlier days. Brennus, I should add that you have made a good research of the same.>>
No, Brennus' comments were unfounded and largely linguistically inaccurate. I took a linguistic typology/language universals class last year and we talked about things like this and other language universals and as I said before, it cannot be objectively said that one language or dialect uses more slang than another. It's not a clear-cut issue.
No, that is linguistically inaccurate. No language or dialect of a language can objectively be said to use more slang than another. This is not even mentioning the fact that what constitutes "slang" is sometimes up for debate. Many standard words today have their origins in slang, and at any given time any dialect may have some words that are considered "slang" by other dialects but eventually spread thruout the entire language.
<<The best example for this is the TV shows. If you watch any and especially tele serials, they reveal the fact about the usage of slang. I have seen that the Aussies also use it for a certain extent but they seem that the words directly gush from the Americans. It can also be included that the usage is increasing in the recent years as compared the earlier days. Brennus, I should add that you have made a good research of the same.>>
No, Brennus' comments were unfounded and largely linguistically inaccurate. I took a linguistic typology/language universals class last year and we talked about things like this and other language universals and as I said before, it cannot be objectively said that one language or dialect uses more slang than another. It's not a clear-cut issue.
Brennus and Kirk,
Could you point me to some linguistic research to support your arguments? I'm really curious.
Could you point me to some linguistic research to support your arguments? I'm really curious.
Kirk - Remember that when someone disagrees with a statement, the burden of proof is always on the person who disagreeing.
Proof, of course is going to involve providing facts and evidence of some kind that supports your counterclaims, or at least, quotations from scholars and authorities that support your viewpoint.
It's not enough to just say "He's wrong", "He's all wet" "What he says is crazy... unfounded... ridiculous" etc. (Any krank can say stuff like that). That's one of the advantages of taking debate in high school is that you learn these kinds of things probably better than any English or Social Studies class can teach you.
Proof, of course is going to involve providing facts and evidence of some kind that supports your counterclaims, or at least, quotations from scholars and authorities that support your viewpoint.
It's not enough to just say "He's wrong", "He's all wet" "What he says is crazy... unfounded... ridiculous" etc. (Any krank can say stuff like that). That's one of the advantages of taking debate in high school is that you learn these kinds of things probably better than any English or Social Studies class can teach you.
<<Could you point me to some linguistic research to support your arguments? I'm really curious.>>
I don't have anything on hand with me at the moment but that's probably beause such research doesn't really exist. As far as I'm aware it's a non-issue to linguists because it's not quantifiable and the conditions necessary to make truly scientifically accurate comparisons cross-dialectally do not exist. Let me explain.
As I said before, it must be stated that to begin with what does and doesn't constitute "slang" is often entirely debatable. For speakers of one dialect one word may be considered completely "standard" while it might be considered "slang" in another. That defeats the posibility of a universal/language-wide clear-cut notion of what is and isn't "slang" right off the bat. It's the whole apples-to-oranges thing.
Also, this is just looking at things in one frozen snapshot of time, while language is constantly changing. What might be considered "slang" for one generation may pass into standard usage by the next couple of generations. And, this may only happen in one dialect while another may still consider a word "slang." Sometimes a word, in intermediate stages, has a sort of "semi-slang" status. These issues and others assure that from the get-go, cross-dialectal comparisons of slang aren't going to be equal.
Even if there *were* always a clear definition of what was and wasn't slang for any given language or dialect, Bob makes a good point in showing that it'd be quite difficult to measure it objectively. You would have to have a huge sample size and capture spontaneous speech (which is hard to do with research) when people were speaking in various contexts (yet equal for all test subjects, which would be another huge barrier) and situations.
Also, some seem to forget that "American English" and "British English" are not two monolithic blobs that are homogenous within themselves. Far far far from it! They're really supergroup-terms, umbrella clusterings of many closely related, but noticeably different dialects. If we're measuring slang in London, would we expect to find the same usage of slang in other British cities? How about slang in Detroit vs. Houston? San Francisco vs. Boston? There are certainly even dialectal differences within those areas that would need to be addressed.
The truth is, this is an incredibly complex issue and as I said before is not one that can easily be quantified or one that can be quantified at all. I mentioned before that we talked about some of these kinds of issues in my linguistic universals/linguistic typology class we took last year and as far as I'm aware, there isn't even any linguistic research out there in terms of cross-dialectal "frequency of slang"--it's a non-issue since it's inherently not quantifiable.
I don't have anything on hand with me at the moment but that's probably beause such research doesn't really exist. As far as I'm aware it's a non-issue to linguists because it's not quantifiable and the conditions necessary to make truly scientifically accurate comparisons cross-dialectally do not exist. Let me explain.
As I said before, it must be stated that to begin with what does and doesn't constitute "slang" is often entirely debatable. For speakers of one dialect one word may be considered completely "standard" while it might be considered "slang" in another. That defeats the posibility of a universal/language-wide clear-cut notion of what is and isn't "slang" right off the bat. It's the whole apples-to-oranges thing.
Also, this is just looking at things in one frozen snapshot of time, while language is constantly changing. What might be considered "slang" for one generation may pass into standard usage by the next couple of generations. And, this may only happen in one dialect while another may still consider a word "slang." Sometimes a word, in intermediate stages, has a sort of "semi-slang" status. These issues and others assure that from the get-go, cross-dialectal comparisons of slang aren't going to be equal.
Even if there *were* always a clear definition of what was and wasn't slang for any given language or dialect, Bob makes a good point in showing that it'd be quite difficult to measure it objectively. You would have to have a huge sample size and capture spontaneous speech (which is hard to do with research) when people were speaking in various contexts (yet equal for all test subjects, which would be another huge barrier) and situations.
Also, some seem to forget that "American English" and "British English" are not two monolithic blobs that are homogenous within themselves. Far far far from it! They're really supergroup-terms, umbrella clusterings of many closely related, but noticeably different dialects. If we're measuring slang in London, would we expect to find the same usage of slang in other British cities? How about slang in Detroit vs. Houston? San Francisco vs. Boston? There are certainly even dialectal differences within those areas that would need to be addressed.
The truth is, this is an incredibly complex issue and as I said before is not one that can easily be quantified or one that can be quantified at all. I mentioned before that we talked about some of these kinds of issues in my linguistic universals/linguistic typology class we took last year and as far as I'm aware, there isn't even any linguistic research out there in terms of cross-dialectal "frequency of slang"--it's a non-issue since it's inherently not quantifiable.
Andre in the U.S.A.
"Could you point me to some linguistic research to support your arguments? I'm really curious."
This is stuff that I have picked up in my general reading; reading done at least 10 years ago now. I can't point to any specific university studies done on the relationship between language innovations and population growth at the present time even though I wish I could. However, it is logical to believe that it takes a large youth population to affect changes in older generations. The baby boomer generation was large enough to influence American society's thinking on lot of subjects: sex, cohabitation, the draft, abortion and the death penalty. By contrast, generations X and Y have been more like the kids of the 1940's and 50's... wearing their hair short and pretty much agreeing with the system in exchange for more job and economic security instead.
"Could you point me to some linguistic research to support your arguments? I'm really curious."
This is stuff that I have picked up in my general reading; reading done at least 10 years ago now. I can't point to any specific university studies done on the relationship between language innovations and population growth at the present time even though I wish I could. However, it is logical to believe that it takes a large youth population to affect changes in older generations. The baby boomer generation was large enough to influence American society's thinking on lot of subjects: sex, cohabitation, the draft, abortion and the death penalty. By contrast, generations X and Y have been more like the kids of the 1940's and 50's... wearing their hair short and pretty much agreeing with the system in exchange for more job and economic security instead.
<However, it is logical to believe that it takes a large youth population to affect changes in older generations. The baby boomer generation was large enough to influence American society's thinking on lot of subjects: sex, cohabitation, the draft, abortion and the death penalty. By contrast, generations X and Y have been more like the kids of the 1940's and 50's... wearing their hair short and pretty much agreeing with the system in exchange for more job and economic security instead.>>
This is irrelevant because you're talking about population size. Presumably any reasonable test on slang frequency (if that were possible) would measure slang percentage-wise to standard words, no matter what the number of the actual population in question was. Also, something which *is* sure is that slang usage does not stop with young age, so if you were only measuring slang usage amongst young people you'd be missing a lot of the picture.
This is irrelevant because you're talking about population size. Presumably any reasonable test on slang frequency (if that were possible) would measure slang percentage-wise to standard words, no matter what the number of the actual population in question was. Also, something which *is* sure is that slang usage does not stop with young age, so if you were only measuring slang usage amongst young people you'd be missing a lot of the picture.