The Use of and the Attitudes toward Slang Expressing Surprise and Disbelief among Young Americans

The Use of and the Attitudes toward Slang
Expressing Surprise and Disbelief among
Young Americans


Phạm Hoài Anh

Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ
Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Prof.Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân
Năm bảo vệ: 2009


Abstract: This paper examines critically the use of slang to express surprise and disbelief
by American young people in the aspects of frequency of use, reasons and contexts for use, as
well as the usage of these slangisms by identifying old-fashioned and up-to-date expressions
and classifying them based on social context and degree of user’s emotion charge. The later
part of the research investigates young Americans’ attitudes toward slang and the rapport
between the attitudes and social aspects like age, gender and education.
The data gathered point out that first, slang is employed at high frequency by the young,
and there exists a correlation between frequency of use and social aspects. Second, slang is
used for many purposes, but American youth mainly use slang for fun, to be humorous and
innovative. Third, regarding contexts for slang use, slang can cause shock or rudeness when
used improperly; however, there are many situations in everyday life where slang is allowed,
even preferred. Fourth, according to the trend in use, outdated and current slang terms have
been recognized. In the perspective of pragmatics, they have been grouped into three main
situations based on contexts; they have also been divided into three main groups of different
levels of emotion. This categorization is hoped to help ESL speakers use them appropriately
in each real-life setting.
Finally, the research indicates that American young people are strongly tolerant of slang
use. There is also evidence that there exists a relationship between attitudes toward slang use

and such aspects. Likewise, males reveal that they are more tolerant of slang use than
females; the older people are and the higher level of education they have, the less tolerance
they have for slang.
The study is aimed at providing useful information for teachers, students, and translators,
for a better understanding of slang, which is conventionally considered as a vulgar, offensive,
and profane form of language, yet of vitality in a society. It is expected that the increased
awareness of the issues would result in more suitable strategies for Vietnamese-American
cross-cultural communication, Communicative English teaching, and translation.

Keywords:Tiếng Anh; Tiếng lóng; Giao tiếp.
Content:


6
CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements
Abstract
Contents
List of Tables and Charts
Abbreviations

i
ii
iii
vi
vii

PART A - INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
1.1. Problem statement
1.2. Significance of the study
2. Aims of the study
3. Scope of the study
4. Methodology
4.1. Research questions
4.2. Methods
5. Design of the study


1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4

PART B - DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEOREICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Slang
1.1.1. What is slang?
1.1.2. What slang is NOT?
1.1.3. Slang as an integral part of youth culture
1.1.4. Slang as a language variety
1.1.4.1. Slang as a register

1.1.4.2. Slang and social aspects of language variation
1.1.5. Social functions of slang
1.1.6. Lexicological and semantic classifications of slang



6
6
7
8
8
8
9
10
11

7
1.2. Expressing surprise and disbelief via slang - a speech act
1.2.1. Speech act and speech act classification
1.2.2. Speech Act Theory
1.2.3. “Expressing surprise and disbelief via slang” as a speech act
1.3. American slang and its role in today’s American society
1.3.1. American slang and its characteristics
1.3.2. Importance and prevalence of slang in today’s American society
1.3.3. History of American Youth Slang (AYS)
1.4. Summary
13
13
13
14

15
15
15
16
18

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1. Aim of the Empirical Study
2.2. Methodology
2.3. Data collection methods
2.3.1. Questionnaire survey
2.3.2. Follow-up interviews
2.3.3. Participant observations
2.4. Conclusion


19
19
19
19
19
21
21

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
3.1. Data presentation
3.1.1. Description of the population sample
3.1.2. Backgrounds of the respondents
3.2. Findings and discussions
3.2.1. The use of slang expressing surprise and disbelief

3.2.1.1. Frequency of slang use
3.2.1.1.1. Age and frequency of use
3.2.1.1.2. Gender and frequency of use
3.2.1.1.3. Education and frequency of use
3.2.1.2. Reasons for using slang
3.2.1.3. Contexts for slang use
3.2.1.3.1. Non-acceptability contexts


22
22
22
23
23
23
24
25
25
26
28
28

8
3.2.1.3.2. Mid-acceptability contexts
3.2.1.3.3. High-acceptability contexts
3.2.1.4. Classifying slangisms according to the trend in use
3.2.1.4.1. Out-of-date slangisms
3.2.1.4.2. Contemporary slangisms
3.2.1.5. Pragmatic classification of contemporary slangisms
3.2.1.5.1. Based on the social contexts

3.2.1.5.2. Based on the degree of emotion
3.2.2. Attitudes toward slang use
3.2.2.1. Age and attitudes toward slang use
3.2.2.2. Gender and attitudes toward slang use
3.2.2.3. Education and attitudes toward slang use
3.3. Summary
29
30
31
31
32
33
33
35
37
38
39
39
40

PART C –CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Conclusions
2. Recommendations
2.1. For ESL teachers
2.2. For ESL learners
2.3. For ESL translators


41
42

42
42
43
REFERENCES

APPENDICES
Appendix A. 20 Slangisms of surprise and disbelief
Appendix B. Invitation Letter
Appendix C. Questionnaire on American Slang
Appendix D. List of additional slangisms of surprise and disbelief provided by
respondents
Appendix E. Commonly used slangisms of surprise and disbelief in America today

44

I
I
III
IV

IX
X



11
PART A – INTRODUCTION

6. Rationale

1.1. Problem statement
David Burke, the author of Biz Talk series – the bestsellers of American business slang
and jargon, begins his book by quoting a common complaint by visitors to America, “What
are the natives saying?! This isn‟t the English I learned in school!” (1993, p.vii). This can
be traced to what he calls “confusing yet popular „inside‟ language used by the inhabitants:
slang” (1993, p.vii). Slang is a special type of vocabulary, existing in every language and
reflecting the country‟s social and cultural aspects. Different countries even speaking the
same language possess a different slang vocabulary. Slang is often an easy, informal way
to communicate. However, it is often perplexing for international students, because the
meanings of slang terms are not necessarily in the dictionary and cannot be taken literally.
In the United States, the prevalence of slang now is much beyond the expectation of
linguists. Slang frequently appears in daily conversations, movies, literature, newspapers
and magazines. Understanding and ability to use slang in communication, hence, is of great
necessity for ESL users. About the importance of American slang, Parshall (1994, p.23)
puts, “slang supplies more than 10 percent of the words the average American knows”, of
which slang expressions of surprise and disbelief account for quite a large number, as the
Americans have a high frequency of showing surprise and disbelief through verbal
communication in their daily life.
Now there is a realization that slang - youth language - may be more important than
previously thought. This area, therefore, is not quite mistreated as it was. However, in
Vietnam, where much more attention is habitually paid to Standard English, slang is still
ignored by both linguists, ESL teachers and even ESL learners. The main reason for the
neglect, perhaps, arises from people‟s perception that slang, which is a sublanguage of a
subculture, is not widely acceptable. Another reason why both ESL teachers and learners
take no notice of slang because they do not for sure how frequent slang is used and how to
employ it properly in daily communication.
Some writers (Nguyen Van Khang being an influential example) have touched this
field, but mostly limited to introducing definitions of slang and contemporary slang terms
in dictionaries. The problem lies in these dictionaries themselves, wherein the

12
lexicographers usually bring in a slang term along with its meaning and an example of use
only. This really challenges ESL speakers because they do not know in what context and
with whom the slang item should be used to avoid failure in communication. Also, they do
not know various nuances denoted in a slangism, especially those expressing emotion and
feeling, to use it at best.
Another question lies in previous studies which point out that slang is youth language,
and that it is frequently employed and accepted by the youth. But whether there exist
dissimilarities in the use of slang and attitudes toward slang among the young people
remains unanswered.
For all the justifications above, the author aspires to conduct the study entitled
“Slangisms expressing surprise and disbelief with young Americans: The use and
attitudes”. It is hoped that the study will be a contribution to the understanding of the
nature of slang, American youth‟s use of and attitudes toward slang, as well as providing
useful recommendations of how to use this special kind of vocabulary to ESL teachers,
students and translators.

1.2. Significance of the study
Slang is generally labeled as a linguistic taboo that should not be appearing in most
formal social occasions. However, to my mind, slang is worthy of the attention of
researchers in its own right; further, as an exciting and controversial form of language
which belongs to young people and to youth culture in colloquial contexts, it is a valuable
topic for discussions of sociolinguistic and pragmatic issues.
Commenting on the approaches toward the study of slang, Nekvapil puts that, “The
lexicographic approach dominates, often complemented by grammatical or word-formation
analyses” (1987, p.195). While etymological and semantic studies of slang have been
recently common, other approaches to research on slang are rarely seen. Therefore, this
paper, which is a sociolinguistic investigation of American people‟s attitudes toward slang
and their use of slang, holds great academic merits. Equally important, whereas slang is
conventionally classified in the light of lexicology and semantics, this pragmatic

classification of slang, therefore, is obviously a milestone.
Further, by identifying current and common slang terms and how to use them in certain
contexts, the studies directly benefit Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communication,

13
Communicative English teaching, and translation. Such information can be of particular
help to ESL teachers, who are often puzzled about what register of English to stress in
instruction. The study can also be useful to ESL students, who must understand not only
the meaning of a slang term in everyday conversation but also the appropriate social
context for using it in order not to offend people. Finally, Vietnamese translators can take
the most of recommendations from the research when facing with a number of slang
expressions in movies, papers, magazines, etc., because the subtleties of using slang in a
foreign language are always filled with difficulties.

7. Aims of the study
The aims of the study are as follows:
a. To explore the use of slang of surprise and disbelief by American youth, specifically
- to find out frequency of use, reasons and contexts for slang use,
- to identify current and commonly-used American slangisms of surprise and disbelief;
- to classify those slang expressions in the light of pragmatics.
b. To investigate attitudes toward slang use of American young people and the correlation
between these attitudes and social aspects such as age, gender, and education.

8. Scope of the study
First, the study deals with verbal aspects of the communication act of expressing
surprise and disbelief through slang. The role of non-verbal factors in communication such
as paralanguage, proxemics, chronemics and icons is beyond the scope of this study.
Second, the study especially focuses on American slangisms expressing surprise and
disbelief. Slang of other variations, such as British slang, Australian slang or slang
denoting other themes, then, is mentioned but not elaborated. Also, other meanings rather

than surprise and disbelief implied in a slang item are not considered in the current study.
Third, the data obtained is confined to the informants‟ responses to the questionnaire
and follow-up interviews which are not spontaneous discourse. They are, of course,
somewhat different from real-life communication. So, the study, rather than reaches fixed
conclusions, would give remarks, comments and assumption on the way American young
people use slang of surprise and disbelief.
Fourth, the investigation concentrates on the use of slang by the youth, which is defined
as “young people in general” by Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Quirk,

14
2003, p.1920). For the feasibility of the investigation, the researcher focuses on the age
group of 15-30.
Finally yet importantly, the study is limited to the two aspects of language and
communication: context and level of emotion, to categorize these slang terms. These
aspects are believed to be most important for ESL speakers to be aware of, while
communicating with American natives.

9. Methodology
4.1. Research questions
In order to meet the aims of the study, the following research questions are generated:
 How frequent, for what reasons and in what contexts is slang employed by American
youth?
 What are current and common American slangisms of surprise and disbelief?
 How are these slangisms categorized in the light of pragmatics?
 What are the attitudes of American young people toward slang and what is the
relationship between these attitudes and aspects like age, gender and education?
4.2. Methods
As for the methodology of this slanguage study, it covers both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Data collection methods include studying materials, written
questionnaire survey, follow-up interviews, personal observation, consulting the

supervisor, and discussing with American and Vietnamese colleagues. Written
questionnaire survey with the participation of American people, aged from 15 to 30, is the
mainstream strategy. Data analysis engages statistics, description and synthesis methods. A
balanced and strategic employment of these research methods is expected to generate
findings with high reliability and validity.

10. D
esign of the study
The research paper consists of the following parts:
Part A - Introduction introduces the problem leading to the research, as well as the
purpose, scope and organization of the study.
Part B - Development
Chapter I: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

15
Theoretical background relative to the topic and surveys of articles, books and other
resources that are relevant to the study topic are put. This part also provides
description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work quoted.
Chapter II: Methodology
This part presents the detailed procedure of the study: the methodology, population
selection, data collection and analysis.
Chapter III: Data Analysis and Results
The part deals with the findings drawn out from the analysis of data. The findings and
discussion are based on describing the use of slang by American native speakers and
their attitudes toward slang.
Part C: Conclusions and Recommendations
Main points and contents of the study are summarized based on the results of the study.
The implications of the study and the recommendations for ESL learners, teachers and
translators are then presented.

54
REFERENCES
ENGLISH
Allee, Ph.D. & Gage, J. (1978). Webster's Encyclopedia of Dictionaries. New York:
Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc.
Alphadictionary.com (2009). Historical Dictionary of American Slang. Retrieved January
the 10
th
, 2009 from the world wide web
Andersson, L.G. & Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Asher, R.E. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol 7. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, R.W. (1985). South African English Slang: Form, Function and Origins. South
African Journal of Linguistics. 3, 1:42.
Burke, D. (1993). Biz Talk 1: American Business Slang & Jargon. Los Angeles: Optima
Books.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (1996). Speech Acts. In McKay S.L., & Hornberger N.H. eds. Sociolinguistics
and Language Teaching. 383:420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, T. C. (2001). ‘Does it suck?’ or ‘Is it for the birds?’: Native Speaker Judgment of
Slang Expressions. American Speech. 76, 62:78.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (4
th
edition). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Dalzell, T. (1996). Flappers 2 Rappers: American Youth Slang. Springfield, MD:
Merriam-Webster Inc.
Dalzell, T. (2005). The Power of Slang. Do You Speak American? Retrieved July the 2
nd

from the world wide web
De Klerk, V. (1990). Slang: A Male Domain? Sex Roles. 22, 586:606.

55
De Klerk, V. (1991). What’s the Current Slang? English Usage in Southern Africa. 22, 68:
82.
De Klerk, V. (1995). Slang in South African English. In R. Mesthrie, Language and Social
History: Studies in South African Sociolinguistics. 265:76. Cape Town: David

Philip Publishers.
Dumas, B. K. & Lighter, J. (1978). Is slang a word for linguists? American Speech. 53,
14:16.
Ebencamp, B. (1998). Lexicon and Concord. Brandweek. 39, 24.
Eble, C. (1996). Slang and Sociability: In-group Language Among College Students.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in High School.
New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Finegan, E. (1994). Language: Its Structure and Use. Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt Brace.
Flexner, S. B., & Wentworth, H. (1975). Dictionary of American Slang. New York:
Crowell.
Gilsdorf, J.W. (1993). Executive and Managerial Attitudes Toward Business Slang: A
Fortune-List Survey. The Journal of Business Communication. 20, 4, 29:42.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and
Semantics. 3, 41:58. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A., & Stevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and
Language Teaching. London: Longman, Green and Company.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2
nd
edition). Edinburgh: Pearson
Education.
Labov, T. (1982). Social Structure and Peer Terminology in a Black Adolescent Gang.
Language and Society. 2, 391:411.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

56
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lighter, J. E. (2001). Slang. In ‘Cambridge History of the English Language’,
vol. 6, English in North America, ed. John Algeo, 219:52. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———, ed. (1994). Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. 2 vols. New
York: Random House.
Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (2006). The Routledge Companion to
Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.
Milroy, L. & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. USA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Nekvapil, J. (1987). On the Communicative Approach to the Study of Slang. Linguistic
and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe. 23, 195:196.
Parshall, G. (1994). Words to Watch. U.S. News & World Report. 116, 22:25.
Partridge, E. (1935). Slang Today and Yesterday. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Preston, D.R. & Shuy, R.W. (1988). Varieties of American English: Teacher’s Handbook.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency.
Quirk, R., (Ed). (2003). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. London: Longman
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole P., & Morgan J.L. eds. Syntax and
Semantics. 3, 59:82. New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J.R. (1979). An Interview. In Boyd J. & S. Ferrara. (eds.). Speech Acts Ten Years
After. 17:27. Milan: Versus.
Seliger, H.W. & E. Shohamy (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Shirley, J. & Fox, K. (n.d.). What Slang is Not! Modern America, 1914-present. Retrieved
March the 2
nd
, 2009 from the world wide web
work/ allam/1914-/language/slang.htm
Slang for ESL Students. (n.d). American Slang. Retrieved July the 2
nd

, 2009 from the
world wide web

57
Sociolinguistics. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 21, 2009 from

Thomas, L., Wareing, S., Singh, I., Peccei, J.S., Thornborrow, J., & Jones, J (2004).
Language, Society and Power: An Introduction (2
nd
edition). London: Routledge.
Thorne, T. (2004). Slang, Style-Shifting and Sociability. Multicultural Perspectives on
English Language and Literature. Retrieved June the 2
nd,
2009 from the world
wide web
%20and%20Sociability.doc
Thorne, T. (2005). Classifying Campus Slang. King’s English, 5, 1, 2:6.
Thorne, T. (2009). Slang and the Dictionary. King's College London. Retrieved July the 2
nd

from the world wide web
resources/slangresearch.html
Tsui, A.B.M. (1995). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wachal, R.S. (2002). Taboo or Not Taboo: That is the Question. American Speech. 77, 2,
195:206.
Wallace, M J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wentworth, H. & Flexner, S.B. (eds.). (1967). Dictionary of American Slang. xi–xii. New
York: T. Y. Crowell.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

VIETNAMESE
Nguyễn Văn Khang (2001). Tiếng lóng Việt Nam. Nxb Khoa học Xã hội.