Talk:Slang

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vincjp20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Someone crammed in the unsupported etymology 'shortened language' -> 'slang' as a prank during a reddit.com discussion. Backing out the change unless there's someone who actually thinks it's appropriate. Reference: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/eozhj/til_slang_is_short_for_shortened_language/c19sfbp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.239.5 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

   Craig Ferguson has for some time been using "slang term" (or, maybe sometimes -- or all the time, for all i'm sure about -- "slang expression") in situations where the only context is his (presumably) just having just used some form of profanity, which someone bleep-censors out (using a pre-recorded fake-foreign-language expression instead of a bleep). He uses it in a brief communication to his producer, such as "Oh, isn't that a slang term?", "[Whassa-comin-a-goin?] is a slang term, isn't it?", or "Oh, c'mon, that's a slang term!" It seemed merely cryptic to me until tonite when he started a robot-dialogue about vampire apes, and speculating that they would eat "blood bananas" (which eventually he paid off by reminding me and perhaps others that blood oranges are real), but, immediately, pointed out that " 'blood banana' is a slang [whatever]". Oh, OK, an erect penis is full of blood and banana-shaped, and suitable to a vampire ape; i get it now. And this enhances the convention that Craig is a perverse, or free, spirit engaged in a constant struggle with Standards and Practices in order to show the audience a good time -- which requires him to constantly push the limits to learn what counts as overly explicit and what as socially acceptable use of slang.
   So, i'm out of it, never mind that. Is "slang term" or "slang expression" currently often used to label a superficially neutral phrase as a vivid double entendre that you'll get with a moment's thot? I haven't thot thru whether anything about that would be encyclopedia-worthy, and my perusal of the previews of the first 100 Google hits on

"Craig Ferguson" "slang term" OR "slang EXPRESSION" producer OR censor OR showrunner

merely gave me a concrete definition of "badonkadonk". Anyone have any thots?
--Jerzy•t 06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

at which time it usually comes to be regarded as mainstream, acceptable language (e.g. the Spanish word caballo),

I don't understand this. Is caballo used in English? Meaning what? Or are you meaning the Spanish slang (cheli?) caballo (i.e. "wiktionary:horse", heroin? --Error (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. The point is that the Spanish word caballo (meaning "horse"), along with its cognates like French cheval, began as a colloquialism. But now it's the standard Spanish word for "horse". garik (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is of course no such point. One may say that when it appears in mainstream dictionaries without mention of it as slang it has definitely become a non-slang word - but obviously the actual change is gradual as connotations shift and usage becomes more frequent.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That said, it's not clear that caballus was ever slang as such, and we already have a clearer example of the same phenomenon with "mob" in the same section. I've therefore removed the paragraph, although the whole section is a jumble that needs a serious rewrite. (The same could be said for the article as a whole.) garik (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page is being improved by a group of UC Berkeley undergraduate students. Overall, the page lacks a definite analysis of slang's social function. Our focus will be to bring sociolinguistic notions into our analysis of slang. Since the current page lacks an updated understanding of the sociolinguistic factors that influence slang, we feel that this effort is necessary and "chill". --Warrenmcbieber (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

When you explain the formation of slang, to me the paragraph is a little bit too short. It is said: "it seems that slang generally forms via deviation from a standard form". Does that mean that slang terms are generally undergoing a change in meaning once they appeared or are they formed including the very different meaning? E.g., you mentioned the word foxy, that it is a synonym for sexy. But is the slang word formed to express the "concept of sexy" just by a different word? Or was the term "foxy" initially used to express something else and changed its meaning over a certain period of time? If it was chosen to have that meaning from the very beginning, why did someone choose it? Isn´t there any semantical or social reason behind to form the slang word like that? And when does a slag word become a colloquial term? In both cases a certain group of speakers uses this term, but when does it stop being slang and when did it become colloquial? Sahara2005 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As the first group to improve upon an already existing page, I was impressed with the changes you made. The sociolinguistic additions in particular, like the section on Indexicality, are well done. However, I would have liked to see more in the section on the Formation of Slang. I think it's an interesting concept with many possible ties to sociolinguistics and language change, but one that is a bit underdeveloped on your page. Frannieu12 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you may not know, but you should add new topics to the end of the page, and nest your comments using colons (which I've taken the liberty of adding). In any case, I agree that your work has been good and that more on the formation of slang would be nice. garik (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page is very clear and concise. That being said, I think the Indexicality section could benefit from quick definitions of first, second, and third order indexicality, as most people probably aren't familiar with it. Other than that, the page is very interesting and accessible. EmmaKylie (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I feel the organization of this page is a little confusing. Some suggestions as to how to improve the structure might be: 1) Merge Distinction from Colloquialisms and Jargon (Section 1.1) into Defining Slang (Section 1), 2) Rename History (1.2) to Etymology, 3) Rename Formation of Slang (Section 2) to Slang in Sociolinguistics. In regards to Defining Slang (Section 1), even when citing multiple pieces from the same source, the bullet items should all be uniformly cited rather than just citing the last item. Under Formation of Slang (Section 2), instead of referring to just "Coleman", it'd be more informative to start off with something along the lines of Julie Coleman, Professor of English Language (which if you look at the cited sources, you can find, but is not clear otherwise). Agau4779 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

While I do appreciate how organized the page is and that you had a section dedicated to Indexicality, I think that linking to the Indexicality page is not clear enough. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what Indexicality is and what it means for sociolinguistics, similarly to what we did in class with t versus aspirated t. I also enjoyed the mention of 1337 speak, though I had never heard of AOL Speak referred to as Chat Room speak. /me shrugs. 600|) j0|3 0|\| (Good job)! GvargasLing150 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nicely done! Only one point that I thought could use some clarification- in the criteria for "defining slang," the last bullet point seems ambiguous. It says that slang forms are used to avoid discomfort or "by further elaboration" I'm not sure what this refers to, so perhaps you could add an explanation or link another article if it's a technical term that's just not immediately familiar. Tinydancer.egreen (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Did you mean this to be in the #Caballo section? I assume not, so added a new section heading. I agree that that's not very clear. I'll see if I can improve it. If not, we can probably do without it. garik (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Solid page. I would change this sentence: “Additionally, a speaker's agency in selecting slang variants can convey covert prestige, indicating group membership or delineation from "outsiders". It feels like a value judgment and out of place for the intro paragraph. I’m not sure History belongs as a subsection under Defining Slang. I think it needs to be expanded and then maybe made into its own section or combined with Formation of Slang. I feel like there should be more sources under Defining Slang. It seems a bit strange that such a broad topic would only have one definition from one source. More examples of specific instances of slang would be nice too. Yaylinguistics (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding what the user above said about the Defining Slang section, I think that Formation of Slang could be a subsection for it. Further explanation for both the mentioned sections would help a lot though. I think both of them are kind of ambiguous, especially the Formation section. Other than that, I think the rest of the organization of the page is good.Jtnh (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good start, but some improvements could be made. There were a lot of direct quotes and quoted terms which detracted from the quality and flow of the page. For many of the quoted terms like "outsiders," "sub-standard," "standard," "playfulness," and "male adolescents"; I think you could either define the terms, get rid of the quotes, or rewrite the sentences for clarity. In the Defining Slang section, since you explain what constitutes true slang, a few examples of what does/doesn't count would be helpful. Also, this sentence was a bit unclear: It lowers, if temporarily, "the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing"; in other words, it is likely to be considered in those contexts a "glaring misuse of register." Elizalinguistics (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you add new comments that don't relate to any particular section on the talk page, please create a new section. And please don't forget to nest comments using colons. Thanks! garik (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think "solid page" is a bit premature, by the way. There's a *lot* more that needs to be done here to make it a good article. It's good that a group of people with some knowledge and time are getting involved. garik (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess I will start off by saying that I have no idea where this comment is supposed to go, because I've never encountered sections in a talk page such as these. So, I decided just to add my response to the end of the thread. I hope that is okay with all parties involved. Regarding the page, it is okay. There are some places that could use improvement. Calling something "sub-standard" (in the very first paragraph of the page) lends itself to negative connotations (which is humorous, at least to me, because you reference pragmatics in the same sentence). Was there a reason why you didn't/couldn't use the term "non-standard" instead? Also, the wording overall is a bit awkward. Everything seems choppy and full of quotations. I was under the impression that wikipedia was a paraphrastic reservoir, but I may be wrong. Also, I trust that everyone involved did a fair amount of research, but it isn't being fully translated here. If I were an "outsider" reading the page, I don't know if I'd believe the information provided. Because I am not an outsider, I know that there is a wealth of information on slang, not only related to the field of sociolinguistics but to linguistic anthropology as well. I guess my suggestion would be to just study how they write about slang, and maybe mimic that a little bit. M.karie (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

[LING 150] I liked that you added a discussion on indexicality and how it relates to slang. You could give a brief explanation of what indexicality is for less informed readers. Also, the section on the formation of slang could be expanded upon. What are some specific ways in which slang can develop, and what social factors motivate these changes? Giving specific cases of slang words might help make these explanations clearer. As for writing style, there's a lot of quotations that could be replaced more easily understandable paraphrasing. I think one little way to improve the page is to add images (like notable media containing slang, or a cartoon that shows how slang may index certain attributes) to the article. Drbazzi (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since these comments are about improvements to be made, it's fine to add them here. You can create a new section on a talk page using double equals signs (and subsections with triple equals signs), just as in the article. But please use colons at the start of new comments to indent them relative to the previous ones. That makes the page much more readable. I agree that the article is a bit choppy and has too many quotations. Paraphrasing would be better. I also think, as someone else said on this page, that the article could be structured rather better. The sections don't really flow one from another. This isn't a criticism of the work done by the Ling 150 class, which on the whole has improved the article. It's just that it was never very well organised.

An image would certainly be a bonus, but I don't think it's a priority, especially on an article with a topic like this one. If anyone does decide to add one, please remember that it has to be clearly relevant and not have any copright problems (see here). There are other more important things. It would be great to turn this article into a Good article as defined by Wikipedia. There are examples at Category:Good articles. garik (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that a good place to start would be with improving the Defining slang and Formation of slang sections (the second could possibly be renamed). Both sections could be considerably expanded. In particular it would be great to draw on more sources. The History section could really be turned into a separate etymology or History of the word "slang" section. In fact, what happened to the original Etymology section? I can't see any reason why that should have been removed. garik (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure whether my attempt at creating a separate section for our class would turn out as expected. The comments are apparently from a lot more other people. Hope a separate section would make things clearer.
• I really like the modified page the group have presented, though I don't know what their work was based on. Unlike someone else suggested, I think the structure of this page is one of most clear so far. Also, each section provides straightforward explanations of its title with the least amount of words. The group did an excellent job distinguishing 'slang' from 'colloquial forms' and 'jargon'. As a project for our sociolinguistics class, this page has linked the phenomenon of slangs with its social background reasonably well. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this page. Well done! --Danleiseveny (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought you all did a nice job with the skeleton, and keeping things concise, but I agree that you all could add a little more to each quote, and explain them. Good job distinguishing slang from Jargon, and indexicality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.85.132 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I really enjoyed the page! I thought it was clear and very concise. I really appreciate the fact that this page was not too wordy or lengthy. It had the appropriate amount of information to get the point across, most of the time. My only suggestion is that you elaborate more on what indexicality is. I realize that you've highlighted it so that readers can go and check that page out, but I think it could be helpful to just elaborate a little more on the slang page so as to avoid confusion. But great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarisaRussell (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the page! I am currently taking a class where we spoke extensively about “Slang” and language change. There are several slang dictionaries we explored such as Ayers’ “Berkeley High School Slang Dictionary” and “The Meet Market”, we looked at Paul Dickson’s piece “It Ain’t No Big Thing”, and definitions of slang from Munro (1989) and Fromkin and Rodman (1993). I think these additional sources alone could help further expand the Slang page, particularly how slang is dispersed and changes and the sources will provide examples. (I have these sources available upon request if your group is interested.) User:Cueva:anana

Really interesting page! Great job on including all those links in your “See also” section. I was a little bit confused by the “Speaker-oriented implications” section. I think this section would benefit from a little more explanation. Also, I think you should make more of a point to distinguish speaker-oriented implications from hearer-oriented implications. AnnaCG93 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very informative page! I like how the sections were presented--very well-structured. Although, I have a question about two details. In Defining Slang part, in one of the quotes it says slang is something that lowers the formality and seriousness in "speech or writing". However, in the Formation of Slang section, the given explanation for the lack of etymology is that slang only comes up in "speech but not writing". I can see why that makes sense, but I think it would be better to have consistency about the claims within one page. In my opinion, due to the evolution of certain media of discourse such as online conversations, I think in a broad sense, slang might now involve written language. (As the later examples in the page indicates, such as "leetspeak"--it was mentioned as a type of slang in a subcultural internet environment.) I think it would be good to include a section that talks about the oral vs. written trend of slang.

Another thought (actually a question) I had was that if it's necessary to create an Example Section where we draw in slangs from other languages as well because it seems like an American thing to have "slangy" language, almost. (When I learned English in China, my teacher said, "one of the characteristics about American English is that it's more casual (compared to British English) and slangy." It's definitely not all that there is to slang, but there seems to be a stereotype about American English--and African American English, for that matter-- to be more "slangy".) Although there is indeed an external link to African American Vernacular English in the See Also section. I just thought it would be nice to include that as a cultural or example section somewhere in the page. Overall it is a well established page that touches on many areas of the related matters :) Good job!Crfrances (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very nice page! I don't know what the page looked like before, but the current page is very informative. However, for the formation of slang, perhaps it would be better to further describe the process by which slang is formed, if you can find the sources for it. Maybe linking to other wiki-pages about language change? Also rewording this section may help; some of the sentences could have a better flow. I like that you briefly explain indexicality in the Social Implication section, as a good reference for the following sections. Also, it might be good if you could connect the Subculture associations part with social networks? Catclawnym (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to add that I think this class has done some good work on this article. Of course there's a lot more to do (it would be great to turn it into a good article). I hope many of you will continue to work on it even after your class project is over. I've also added a couple of other comments in the section above. garik (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very cool page! It is well-structured, and it clearly and concisely delineates what slang is. I like that you included a link to the Cooperative Principle/Grice's Maxims page! I also think that the distinction drawn between slang, colloquialisms, and jargon is crucial and very effective, so great job including that (I personally found it very helpful). The history section is cool. There also seems to be a good number of links to other pages here, which is great. I would maybe change the order of the "History" and "Distinction from colloquialisms and jargon" sections, just because I think that the history section provides more background. I also think that more detail/explanation in the "Formation of slang" section would be good. Overall, great page! I enjoyed reading it and learned from it. Jacksoncato (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page was enjoyable to read because it had a distinct encyclopedic quality: the definitions were clear and concise, and the amount of speculative prose was minimal. (While you effectively explain the difference between slang and both jargon and colloquial terms, you do explicitly define jargon but not colloquial terms.) I was a bit confused by the section on subcultures, though, as I felt you touched upon the general theme earlier in the article. Perhaps you wanted to have a separate section for examples? If that is the case, including "Specific" in the section title might help. Also, I might get rid of the distinct "Speaker/Hearer-Oriented Implications" sections and place that information directly after the sentence, "The social implications of these variations can be classified as speaker- or hearer-oriented." That way, the explanations are closer to the words in question. Danielle.a.bells (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good job. Concise and to the point. It's great to see all the comments from non-150ers! My suggestions: for the comment "Few linguists have endeavoured to clearly define what constitutes slang," maybe back that up with another source, if you can find it. Usually on Wikipedia, when there are more general/subjective comments made by sources such as this one, it looks better when there are multiple citations (i.e. multiple academic minds that agree). Also, it might not hurt to go through the list of links you've provided and make sure they're linking back to the main Slang page (some of them are, and some of them aren't). Jeffbutters (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have taken on the somewhat more difficult task of working on a page that already exists, so kudos for that. I think that the page still needs quite a bit of work, and in addition to the comments above (most of them spot on, in my opinion), I'd like to add some points:

• The intro paragraph is quite nice.
• I think that one thing that would considerably improve the page is exemplification. The phenomena in question are discussed at such a level of dry abstraction from the empirical details that some clarity is lost, and the page is less engaging than it could be. English slang from the sources on the page is of course on obvious set of examples you could draw on, but cross-linguistic examples.
• Commenter Cueva:anana and M.Karie allude to other works on slang, and this raises an issue that struck me on looking at the page: it seems rather thin on the sociolinguistics/linguistics/linguistic anthropology content. This may be because there is not much out there, but given that there is, just to name one source that is cited on the page Coleman's volume, its surprising to me that there is so little to say.
• I have two questions/comments regarding the treatment of indexicality on the page:
  • Do the sources mentioned in this section explicitly discuss the phenomena in question in terms of indexicality and higher order indexicality. If so, it would be good to make that clearer through citations. I'm concerned about the appearance of OR here.
  • Some people have suggested discussing/defining indexicality on this page, but I think that links to the appropriate pages, is the right way to go.
• I'm curious about the 'Defining Slang' section. It begins by saying that few linguists have defined slang, and then cites a 25 year old paper. Has there really been no effort to define slang since? Even in the other books that are cited in the references?
• Commenter Agau4779 has some good suggestions for organizing the page, and I second Elizalinguistics' and M.karie's points about the choppiness of the prose. I think that streamlining the organization and exposition of the page should be a major goal for you in the revisions.
• There are no citations in the 'Distinctions' section -- it would be good to fix that.
• I'd be inclined to move 'Etymology of slang' to the very end, since it sort of breaks up the exposition.
• Would it be possible to beef up the 'Formation of Slang' section? It's sort of anemic right now. Also, it's odd to lead with methodological difficulties, rather than a discussion of what is actually known.

All in all, a good start, with more to do. Ldmanthroling (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Chinese people use the term "slang", sometimes in a countable form, e.g. "slangs" to describe the differences between Chinese "dialects" such as Cantonese and Minnan / Hokkien and Written Chinese. These are words like copula words, pronouns, negations, and even grammatical constructions that extend from the basilect all the way up to the acrolect in the spoken language, but are not used in Standard Written Chinese. I would add a section about this, but as I am not a scholar, I do not have good reputable sources to back up my statement. Any linguists want to fill this in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:3F80:DCF0:642D:85AD:6314:3AB7 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

In school, one of our English teachers told us that the word “slang” was short for “sloppy language.” (See “shortened language” in article.) Felicity4711 (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Another explanation has been argued by linguist and etymologist Anatoly Liberman, who strongly disagrees with the common hypothesis connecting it to words like sling ("throw"). See https://blog.oup.com/2016/09/slang-word-origin/ There is also a counterargument in the comments at that page. Maybe someone better than I would be at editing, and summarizing, could review those arguments and see if they are worth adding to the article? I am just an interested reader. KenGCL (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

They were non sequiturs and poor examples of jargon and slang, not least because "down size" should be the closed compound "downsize," and the etymology for "gnarly" was incorrectly given as off-roading; all evidence points to it arising in surfing.

🤷🏻‍♀️ idk 2601:600:C87F:DBD0:0:0:0:6B45 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Anong balbal ng ama 222.127.223.135 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply