Modern youth jargon
In addition to the generally accepted concept of "jargon", there are such concepts as "slang", "slang" or "fenya". Essentially, they mean the same thing.
""Jargon" - from the French "jargon" - the speech of a social or professional group, which differs from the common language in a special composition of words and expressions "1. This is a conditional language, understandable only in a certain environment, it has a lot of artificial, sometimes conditional words and expressions.
The word "argo" "comes from the French "argot" - the speech of certain, closed groups, which is created for the purpose of linguistic isolation." 2 This is mainly a special or peculiarly mastered common vocabulary.
The so-called "slang" is opposed to the official, generally accepted language and, according to lexicographers, is fully understood only by representatives of a narrow circle of people belonging to one or another social or professional group that introduced this word or expression.
The gap between "classical" speech and slang is widening every day due to not just democratization, but also the "vulgarization" of public life. A significant role in the emergence of new words is played by the media, especially television, which everyone watches. Jargon crowds out respectable speech and thanks to popular culture leaves its mark on the language of the entire nation.
With the passage of time (especially in the 20th century), the pace of life accelerates. Accordingly, growing vocabulary, because each new concept must correspond to at least one word. Accordingly, the vocabulary of slang is expanding. With the explosion of mass communication, thousands of new words have been added to reflect political and social change. New words also arise in order to refresh old concepts.
Linguistic innovations are reflected in the media, naturally, they are reflected in the jargon. It is a challenge to the “correct” life.
Slang faster than other language layers reflects the tendency of "conciseness" in the word. This trend is observed quite strongly in colloquial speech. Even the terms "slang" and "jargon" themselves are becoming obsolete, giving way to a shorter, monosyllabic "slang".
The social dialects of the Russian language are divided into 3 large groups: slang, jargons and conditionally professional languages.
Jargons are class-stratified, industrial, youth, jargons of groups of people according to interests and hobbies. Industrial jargons include "slang" of any profession, it is very difficult for the "uninitiated" to understand them, for example, the slang of programmers and office equipment dealers: "mother" - a motherboard, "red assembly" - equipment made in Russia, "pent" - a computer with a pentium processor (by the way, there is also the tendency of "compression" mentioned above).
Youth jargons are divided into industrial and household. The production vocabulary of students is closely connected with the learning process, the soldier - with military service. The general household dictionary is much broader than the industrial one; it includes words that are not related to the process of study, work or service. For example, drug addiction introduced into the language such words as “machine” - a syringe, “wheels” - tablets (initially - with a drug content, but now any tablet can be called this word), expand - inject, and the like. The fact that everyone knows these words speaks of the increasing activity of drug addicts, the increase in their number. Jargons of soldiers and sailors of military service: “liteha” - lieutenant, “spirit” - a soldier who serves for the first six months; jargons of schoolchildren: "teacher" - a teacher, and the like; student jargon: "war" - classes in military training; common youth jargons: "bottleman" - a bottle; jargons of informal youth groups: “khair” - hair (the word is borrowed from the English “hair” - hair), the slang of musicians is very closely intertwined with the last jargon, since the entire “informal” culture is built on music.
Young people are attracted to jargon by unusual sounding, emotionally expressive coloring.
In order to penetrate the literary language, one or another jargon must be often used in speech, have a bright emotional and expressive coloring, give a good description of an object or phenomenon and not be rude and vulgar. For example, the word "lawlessness", originally a violation of the laws of thieves, but now it expresses a different concept and everything is going to become literary.
Currently, jargon is used in the press and even in literature to give liveliness to speech, because even the president uses colloquial words in conversation, therefore, one cannot treat jargon as something that pollutes the Russian language, it is the same integral part of the language on an equal footing with spaciousness.
Names of nationalities in English slang
COURSE WORK
in the direction 050100 Pedagogical education
English/German profiles
Completed by a 4th year student
1 faculty group foreign languages,
full-time education
Kustovinova Svetlana Sergeevna
Scientific adviser:
Candidate of Philology,
Associate Professor of the Department of English language
T.R. Anikeeva
«___________» __________________
(assessment) (signature, full name of scientific
manager)
"___" __________2015
Voronezh - 2015
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..3
Chapter 1
1.1.The concept of "slang", its history……………………………………………..….5
1.2. Varieties of slang…………………………………………………………………….9
Conclusions on the first chapter……………………………………………………….15
Chapter 2. Analysis of English slang units denoting
Nationality……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.1. The reasons for the emergence of ethnopholisms ……………………………….19
2.2. Semantic features of the units under study……………………….22
Structural and word-formation features
units studied………………….……………..……………………………….26
Conclusions on Chapter 2…………………………………………………………..….30
Conclusion……………………………………………………….……….…….31
Bibliography……………………………………………………….……….…35
Introduction
The language is constantly undergoing changes and, most often, these are changes in the functional and stylistic layer of the language, which is always relevant. The interest of researchers in vocabulary, which gives the text an expressive color, especially in such a specific tool as slang, has always existed. And this is quite understandable, since slang attracts with metaphor, expressiveness and "unconventionality".
Relevance This study is dictated by both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Linguistic factors include the traditional for modern linguistics relatively lesser research of slang as a constantly changing and replenishing language subsystem. It is the great linguistic mobility, the “fluidity” of slang that makes it a less perceptible object of linguistic research.
Extralinguistic factors that make the chosen topic of our study relevant, come down to reasons of a socio-political nature. We live in an era of interethnic and interethnic conflicts, which actualize the nominative component of these tense relations. It has long been noted that it is precisely in the conflict interaction of states and nationalities that derogative names of representatives of the parties opposing each other in this conflict often come to the fore.
aim of this work is to identify the linguistic features of the site of the modern English slang, representing the names of persons of various nationalities.
Tasks research:
1) describe the concept of "slang", its linguistic characteristics;
2) to establish the semantic features of the studied units;
3) to reveal the structural and word-formation features of the studied units.
The study is conducted at two language levels: morphematic and semantic.
Research methods - continuum sampling method, statistical method, analysis and synthesis.
Research material - Matyushenkov V.S. Dictionary of English slang. Features of the use of slang in North America, UK and Australia. . 52 units analyzed.
Chapter 1. Basic questions of the theory of slang
The concept of "slang", its history
As you know, there are still doubts in modern linguistics about the origin of the word "slang". According to one version, Slang comes from sling (“to throw”, “throw”). In such cases, they recall the archaic to sling one's jaw - "to speak violent and insulting speeches." According to another version, "slang" goes back to slanguage, with the initial letter s allegedly added to language as a result of the disappearance of the word thieves; that is, originally it was about the thieves' language of the thieves. It is not known when the word slang first appeared in English in oral speech. It was first recorded in writing in England in the 18th century. Then it meant "insult". Around 1850, the term began to be used more widely, as a designation for "illegal" colloquial vocabulary. At the same time, the synonyms of the word slang-lingo, used mainly in the lower strata of society, and argot, preferred by the colored population, appear.
The volume of the very concept of "slang" is indicated by its descriptive definitions that appeared later, such as "obscene colloquial speech" or poetic "dithyramb" descriptions of slang as a "mint of the language" (D. Galsworthy); or “slang is language that rolls up its sleeves, spits in the palm of your hand, and gets to work” Carl. Sandburg), this is "poetry common man" etc. It is clear that in the scientific sense the value of such definitions is not great, although they still show that slang is considered the language of the common people and the basis for the production of a national dictionary.
Consider some of the many scientific definitions of slang.
In Russian linguistics, the definition of V.A. Khomyakova: “Slang is relatively stable for certain period, a widely used, stylistically marked (reduced) lexical layer (nouns, adjectives and verbs denoting everyday phenomena, objects, processes and signs), is a component of expressive vernacular included in the literary language, very heterogeneous in its origins, the degree of approximation to the literary standard with pejorative expression.
In this definition, the following signs of slang attract attention: slang, according to V.A. Khomyakov, although it belongs to “expressive vernacular” and is included in the literary language, its degree of approximation to the literary standard is “very heterogeneous”, that is, you can find examples of “almost standard” and “not at all standard”. And, of course, slang is inherent in pejorativity as the most feature: it is difficult to imagine slangism with a bright ameliorative connotation, although, probably, a certain degree of "standard" is still conceivable.
A completely different interpretation is offered in the Dictionary linguistic terms» O.S. Akhmanova:
"Slang -
1. Conversational version of professional speech.
2. Elements of the colloquial version of a particular professional or social group, which, penetrating into the literary language or in general into the speech of people who are not directly related to this group of people, acquire a special emotionally expressive coloring in these languages.
A slightly different solution is offered in the 1980 Encyclopedic Dictionary. There are also two definitions here. The slang here is “1. the speech of a professionally isolated group, as opposed to the literary language. 2. This is a variant of colloquial speech that does not coincide with the norm literary language»
This definition seems to be very inadequate. As you can see, in (1) it is simply a synonym for professional language (speech), clearly contrasted with literary language. It is not clear how slang in this case differs from terminology and in what relationship it still has with the literary language. In (2) this is a non-literary variant of colloquial speech; very "vague definition". The problem of (in) propriety of slang is completely ignored.
The definition of the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1998 differs from these definitions:
“Slang - 1. The same as jargon (in Russian literature - mainly to English speaking countries). As you can see, here slang is simply declared a synonym for jargon, moreover, mainly jargon of English-speaking countries.
Thus, it can be stated that, for all its popularity (and perhaps precisely because of it), “slang” currently does not have terminological accuracy. Nevertheless, the above points of view allow us to somehow generalize its most essential properties.
1. Slang is not literary vocabulary, i.e. words and combinations that are outside of standard English (Standard English) - from the point of view of the requirements of the modern literary norm.
2. Slang is a vocabulary that arises and is used primarily in oral speech.
3. Slang is an emotionally colored vocabulary.
4. Slang is characterized by a more or less pronounced familiar coloring of the vast majority of words and phrases. This property of slang limits the stylistic boundaries of its use.
5. The familiar emotional coloring of many words and expressions of slang is distinguished by a wide variety of shades (joking, ironic, mocking, dismissive, contemptuous, rude and even vulgar).
6. Depending on the scope of use, slang can be divided into well-known and commonly used (General Slang) and little-known and narrowly used (Special Slang).
7. Many words and expressions of slang are incomprehensible or incomprehensible to the general population (especially during the period of their emergence and transition to a wider sphere of use), because they are primarily associated with a peculiar form of expression - for example, in numerous cases of meaning transfer ( figurative use), so characteristic of slang. The incomprehensibility may also result from the fact that these slangs are borrowings from the dialects and jargons of foreign languages.
8. Slang includes various words and phrases with which people can identify themselves with certain social and professional groups.
9. Slang is a bright, expressive layer of non-literary vocabulary, a style of language that occupies a place directly opposite to highly formalized speech. Slang is a living, mobile language that keeps up with the times and reacts to any changes in the life of the country and society.
Varieties of slang
The need to learn proper English, the so-called "proper English", is beyond doubt. Its application finds itself in educational and professional activity. However, human existence is not limited to these areas - taking off our ties, we still experience a communicative need, and the "correct language" is not always an effective tool to satisfy it.
This is where slang comes into play.
There is a significant percentage of people who mistakenly confuse the concepts of slang and vernacular, and, as a result, form a dismissive attitude towards the phenomenon itself. But, unlike colloquial expressions, slang is actively used in their speech by educated people, representatives of a certain age or professional group, which brings together the concept of slang and jargon. Many of the older generation, who are fluent in formal English, are not always able to overcome the language barrier of slang - "a completely different language," they say. Based on this, we can conclude that the study of the "street language" is no less important than the comprehension of the academic basics.
For the classification of slang, two fundamental features can be distinguished: 1) territorial - used in a certain territory (South American, Cockney dialect); 2) social - used by certain social groups (youth slang, ghetto language, professional jargon).
Although, it should be noted that linguists single out the so-called new vernacular (common slang), which is a vast group of non-standard lexical and phraseological units. These units, going beyond professional and corporate (group) slang, are beginning to be used by a wide range of speakers of the general literary language, not limited by certain social boundaries (age, profession, level of education, common interests, etc.).
Having considered the various concepts of slang, two main types of slang should be introduced: general slang and special slang.
VG Vilyuman, dealing with the problem of slang, formulated some of its important features. The author suggested to distinguish:
1) common slang, that is, the one that is outside the literary language. These are commonly understood and widespread figurative words and phrases of an emotive and evaluative nature in the colloquial language. These words claim to be new and original and act as synonyms for words and phrases that exist in the literary language;
2) special slang, that is, words and phrases of one or another professional or class jargon.
Common slang has a number distinguishing features, which can be found when comparing the statements about the slang of foreign and domestic anglists. In order to avoid subjective statements, these distinctive features should be listed:
2) He has a pronounced emotional and evaluative character; the expressive function dominates over the nominative function.
3) OS is relatively stable over a certain period of time, although sometimes slangisms turn into colloquialisms and even sometimes disappear.
4) Special slang (SS) is not the same according to its genetic composition, as it was created from a variety of sources (jargon, Kent, professionalism, barbarism, etc.);
5) SS is heterogeneous compared to the familiar spoken language, although in general it is perceived as a component of vernacular;
6) SS sometimes has phonetic, morphological and syntactic features;
7) CC differs genetically and functionally from Kent, jargon, and language formations close to Kent.
Common slang can include such former jargon as brass hat - officer, G. I. Jesus - fighter priest, Jerry, Krauthead - German soldier etc.
Passing into the sphere common slang, jargon, of course, lose their narrow socio-professional character and become generally understandable to all native speakers. Here there is a redistribution of vocabulary and phraseology.
We have once emphasized that the vocabulary of general slang can be replenished to some extent at the expense of jargon and professionalism. Many of them are just between general slang and special slang, others can be included in both social jargons and professional dialects. Of course, some of the non-literary vocabulary and phraseology is somewhere on the blurry border and it is impossible to put any label on it.
Taking into account these features and the above definitions, we can summarize everything that has been said and give a definition of General Slang.
General slang is a relatively stable for a certain period, widespread and generally understood social language microsystem in common speech. It is quite heterogeneous in its genetic composition and as it approaches familiar colloquial speech, with pronounced emotional and evaluative nuances, which are often used as a mockery of social, ethical, aesthetic, linguistic and other conventions and authorities.
Special slang is a specific vocabulary and phraseology of social jargons, professional dialects and slang (Kent) of the underworld.
In English, as far as is known, special slang is not well studied, although its study should be in the interests of sociolinguistics (a branch of linguistics formed by the synthesis of sociology and linguistics, which studies the issue of social existence and social development of language). The most complete interpretation of jargon, slang and professional vocabulary of a number of European languages in the book of Academician V.M. Zhirmunsky "National language and social dialects". Special slang includes slang, kent, rhyming slang, social jargons and professionalisms, as well as back slang.
In order to better understand all of the listed components of special slang, we will analyze some concepts.
Argo is the secret language of the underworld. V. M. Zhirmunsky, defines slang as “a kind of password, according to which they recognize each other, and as a way of professional organization in conditions of tough struggle.”. Therefore, slang is a conspiratorial, secret jargon.
Sometimes former argotism, having turned into slangism, acquires a new meaning. For example, the two primary meanings of the phrase booby booby hatch (prison) have long been out of use, but this slang is widespread in the United States with a new meaning - an institution for the mentally ill or a psychiatric hospital. ("The major, who happened to be the high priest of the booby hatch, looked suspiciously at the Arab and grewled: "Who sent you here? Are you pulling my leg?"). V. M. Zhirmunsky rightly notes that the transition of slang into slang means the death of the old slang as a secret professional language of criminal elements. Argotic vocabulary, having lost its special potential character, is used as a tool of emotional expression, and as a euphemism in everyday life.
Kent, the slang of England's underworld, boasts the first dictionaries, which were compiled as early as the early 16th century.
Rhyming slang is very close to slang in its composition and scope of use. "Rhyming slang" does not have a special professional isolation, it is dissolved in London vernacular (cockney) and acts as a playful, figurative statement in everyday language, occupying a place between common slang and slang (Kent).
To create a secret dictionary, sometimes they use the technique of hiding the form (sound) of a word or phrase. A prime example of such secret code is back slang. This particular jargon has received wide use in the middle of the century before last among London street vendors, who usually had a "delicate" relationship with the police (HD).
The essence of back slang lies in the fact that words, as a rule, turned over, usually these were phonetic "turns" with additional distortion of pronunciation, characteristic of cockney. For example, penny - yenep; two pennies - owt yenep; fourpence - rouf yenep; sevenpence - neves yenep; yes - say; look - cool; bones-enobs; police-slop; teddy-boys-yobs; policemen-namesclop; pot oreeb; pound - dunope; bad-dab; good - doog; man-nam; woman - namow.
In addition, expressions of the type were specially invented: tumble to your barrikin - understand you; cool to the dillo nemo - look at the little woman; flash it - show it; and regular bad one; and doogheno or dabheno? – is it a good or a bad market?
A more complex variety of secret slang is, according to the terminology of E. Partridge, center slang (medial slang). The owl is not just turned over, but “cut” in half and the setting changes - First comes the first part, and then the second, sometimes with some added twists. This variety, like back slang, is characteristic mainly of cockney.
Here are examples for centre/medial slang: person – nosper; sweet-eetswee; quiet-ietqui; right-eyetri; fool - oolfoo; cheek-eekcher; sentimental-mentisental.
Back slang / medial slang usually differ in their structure from general slang, although in some cases individual back slang formations may move into the realm of general slang. Which, for example, has already happened more than once. The word yob - moved to yobs (students of the University of Liverpool 1965 - 1966, defined yobs as modern teddy - boys but not so flashy).
By professional dialects we mean a special sphere of professional vocabulary, mainly accessible only to representatives of this profession.
In the process of developing the language of professional vocabulary, some professionalisms in an expanded or figurative sense consistently penetrate into the literary language.
Conclusions on Chapter 1:
So, slang is not literary vocabulary, i.e. words and combinations that are outside of literary English are emotionally colored vocabulary that arises and is used primarily in oral speech. Slang is characterized by a more or less pronounced familiar coloring of the vast majority of words and phrases. This property of slang limits the stylistic boundaries of its use. The familiar emotional coloring of many words and expressions of slang is distinguished by a wide variety of shades (joking, ironic, mocking, dismissive, contemptuous, rude and even vulgar).
Depending on the scope of use, slang can be divided into well-known and commonly used (General Slang) and little-known and narrowly used (Special Slang). Many words and slang expressions are incomprehensible or incomprehensible to the general population (especially during the period of their emergence and transition to a wider sphere of use), because they are primarily associated with a peculiar form of expression - for example, in various cases of meaning transfer (figurative use ), characteristic of slang.
It includes various words and phrases with which people can identify themselves with certain social and professional groups. Slang is a bright, expressive layer of non-literary vocabulary, a style of language that occupies a place directly opposite to extremely formalized speech, it is a living, mobile language that keeps up with the times and responds to any changes in the life of the country and society.
Slang vocabulary is enough large layer vocabulary and is highly used. Its study contributes to the improvement of the language competence of speakers, the development of a culture of speech and a sense of the communicative expediency of using language tools in various areas of communication.
N. V. Khorosheva
In 1999, the book “Words We Met” was published in Moscow (edited by E.A. Zemskaya, R.I. Rozina and O.P. Ermakova) with a remarkable subtitle “Dictionary of General Jargon”. Thus, Russian studies not only introduce a new term - "general jargon", but also discover a new scientific object that combines seemingly incompatible features, and therefore the definition of its nature deserves attention.
A deeply scientific understanding of language as a functioning system leads to the understanding that diffuseness is an immanent property of language, arising from its social nature. That is why the study of the system of forms of existence of a language (FSL) becomes productive when the abstract model has certain limits of idealization, and the theoretical opposition of the LSL does not exclude the existence of intermediate zones of interaction between them in reality.
General jargon is an intermediate language formation through which the vocabulary of social dialects penetrates not only into common speech, but also into colloquial generally. According to the definition of the dictionary's authors, this is “that layer of modern jargon, which, not belonging to individual social groups, is found with a fairly high frequency in the language of the media and is used (or at least understood) by all residents of a big city, in particular, educated native speakers of the Russian literary language". In other words, this is a rather extensive corpus of vocabulary and phraseology (the above dictionary contains at least 2.5 thousand units), which have lost such a sign as corporatism, i.e. attachment to the speech practice of limited social groups. At the same time, the cultural and historical “significance” of the most common words of common jargon (lawlessness, party, soviet, showdown, bum, cool, bucks, etc.) is characteristic.
The concept of common jargon is built on the intersection of the social and functional articulation of the language: by some links, common jargon is associated with socially limited lexical subsystems, and thanks to others, it enters the system of stylistic means of reduced expression. With the loss of social and group fixation for units of common jargon, characteristics of the second kind become decisive, including this vocabulary in the composition of the lexical fund of colloquial use. Such an understanding of the common jargon creates grounds for the fact that this object, being an intermediate formation between PSL, necessarily combines the properties of different entities.
However, if in the first approximation it seemed quite justified to define this object in two aspects - structural and functional, then later came the understanding of intermediate language education as a paradoxical-antinomic phenomenon. In the process of studying this phenomenon, in its comparison with the socio-linguistic "correlates" in other languages (in particular, with the French argot commun), the idea was formed that the common jargon is not just a multifaceted problem that allows many angles of consideration, but an object, which should be approached from the standpoint of complementarity logic. In this regard, the topic of the article could be concretized as follows: “Russian general jargon: oxymoron and ambivalence? discreteness and continuum? statics and dynamics?
Of course, this approach is not new - we only follow the scientific paradigm that has developed in linguistics at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, according to which language is an antinomic phenomenon in nature: it is both a system and an anti-system, and an activity and a product of this activity, and a spirit and matter, and a spontaneously developing object and an ordered self-regulating phenomenon, it is both arbitrary and derivative, etc. Apparently, this is the essence of both individual PSL and the language formations intermediate between them. Such is the Russian general jargon, represented by jargonisms that function in urban speech as colloquial colloquial means.
It is no secret that the very term "general jargon" is perceived by modern Russianists very ambiguously, and sometimes sharply negative. Objections are raised by the strange, oxymoronic nature of this nomination: in the traditional sense, the very concept of “jargon” contains a certain caste, limitedness, selectivity, which, in combination with the sign “general”, creates, at first glance, an internally contradictory, “illogical” term.
This is partly due to the fact that this intermediate education does not have an established terminological name in Russian linguistics (see "interjargon", "jargonized vocabulary", "slang", "argotized vernacular", "urban slang", "hyperjargon", " social-dialect koine”, etc.).
However, what can be perceived in the term "general jargon" as inconsistency, in fact, is a reflection of the ambivalence of the object itself: substantially these units belong to one PSL, and functionally to another. The linguistic substance of the common jargon is social dialects, the ontological feature of which is that they dialectically combine the tendencies towards isolation and openness: any jargon is both a means of unification (identification of "one's own") and a means of differentiation (opposition of "one's own" to "alien" ). Both tendencies are present at the same time, but change their "proportions" under the influence of the dynamics of social factors, when a kind of bursts of depressurization of social dialects can be observed and colloquial speech is sharply jargonized and reduced.
The grounds for introducing the term "Russian common jargon" into scientific use are also created by the analogy with the French common slang (argot commun) - a phenomenon that has already developed a tradition of study in Western European sociolinguistics.
By the way, such contradictory, internally “tense” terms are not uncommon in modern linguistics. Suffice it to recall, for example, "literary vernacular".
What is the general jargon - an invariant, a "product" of the continuous interaction of social dialects and colloquial speech, which can be studied as a lexical subsystem, or is it a non-discrete process of jargonization of colloquial speech, correlating with the dynamics of external factors? It is obvious that both, because, on the one hand, the social being of language is characterized by discreteness, quantization, heterogeneity, and on the other hand, it is continuous and integral. Therefore, intermediate language education is a discontinuous component within a single continuous space - the continuum of language communication.
Having singled out a discrete set of lexemes of common jargon, we can carry out its lexical-semantic and structural-morphological analysis, which will give proper linguistic grounds for distinguishing this vocabulary from social dialects.
Thus, the units of Russian general jargon are characterized by the following features that unite them with vernacular colloquial vocabulary.
1. Everyday concreteness of semantics, reducedness, "earthiness" of the image (hang noodles on the ears - "deceive", cut in - "understand", teapot - "a simple-minded, inexperienced person").
2. Expressed activity of emotional and evaluative meanings: the transfer is often based on something rude, reprehensible, low, repulsive, which causes pejorativity of expression: a tavern is a “restaurant”, rubbish is a “policeman”, throw back your hooves is “die”. However, being heterogeneous in composition, the common jargon includes units of different social dialects. Often, while spreading in urban colloquial speech, jargon does not get rid of the “train” of specific expression associated with the nature of a particular social dialect (cf. youth cool, cool, high; criminal convict, zone, roof, etc.). The stylistic coloring of such units is due to the fact that, despite a significant degree of their usage, they are perceived as elements of a certain jargon, and, therefore, do not dissolve among colloquial vocabulary.
3. Capacity, fullness of lexical meaning. At least 33% of the general jargon signified in the vocabulary is inherent exclusively in this language formation, being univerbs - words that do not have synonyms in the literary vocabulary and receive detailed, periphrastic interpretations (soviet - “rooted in the official ideology of the Soviet system”, hang out - “get together for communication, joint pastime).
Apparently, the "degree" and "quality" of the expression of a unit of common jargon are dynamic properties that depend on 1) the source from which the unit came; 2) the semiological type of the unit (the type of connection with literary vocabulary): univerbi units are generally less expressive than synonym units, since, along with the expressive function, they also perform a nominative function; 3) the "age" of the word in colloquial use, i.e. the time that has passed since its distribution beyond a limited circle of native speakers; 4) the socio-cultural context and the system of socio-ethical values on the basis of which this unit is perceived by speakers
In the general jargon, there is a despecialization of vocabulary (as a rule, along the path of the loss of differential semes - cf. bullshit - in the thieves' slang "a type of fraud consisting in the sale of low-quality things", in the general jargon "gross forgery, deceit"), which is based on the tendency , on the one hand, to fill in the nomination gaps, and on the other hand, to expand the reserve of expressive general language means. Together with the differential seme (expressed explicitly or implicitly), jargon loses paradigmatic connections that determined the place of a particular unit in the lexical system of jargon. In this regard, words in the social dialect have, as a rule, specific semantics, and in the general jargon - generic.
The reduction of synonymic rows, the removal of mass duplication speaks of the smoothing of specific features that characterize the social dialect as a special linguistic subsystem. Thus, units of common jargon are included in the internal paradigmatics of the vocabulary of colloquial use and are included in the general language usage. In general, the systemic organization of common jargon is more reduced in comparison with social dialects (jargon and slang).
The main features of the general jargon in the structural and morphological terms are rather not in the presence of any special features, but in the specific use of general language word-building possibilities - dynamic, reducing, travestying. For example, the idea of “scientificity”, “seriousness”, contained in a number of book and literary suffixes, is played up, reduced: indifference, boltology, nonsense. Apparently, any literary word-formation model can potentially be used in jargons. This integrates common slang vocabulary with other forms of urban vernacular and incorporates it into general language trends.
Modeling the probabilistic dependence of the possession of a common jargon on constant social factors, we turn to a different, continual hypostasis of this object. At the same time, it would be interesting not only to identify the degree of distribution of these units in urban speech, but also to determine the main social "vectors" of jargonization, i.e. hierarchy of social factors guiding this process. We believe that the system of attractions and repulsions that accompany the spread of jargon can be considered from the standpoint of a sociolect, which means the manifestation of certain means in speech, determined by the influence of a number of sociopsycholinguistic and biological factors.
To determine the essential functional characteristics of the common jargon, a sociolinguistic experiment was conducted among the inhabitants of the city of Perm, which made it possible to identify social prestige jargon in the linguistic reflection of the subjects. Apparently, the intensity of jargonization of modern colloquial speech does not yet indicate an equally intense change in socio-linguistic attitudes in the minds of speakers.
Dispersion analysis of the strength of the influence of four social factors (gender, age, education, specialty of the informant) made it possible not only to assess the significance of each factor for the resulting feature - possession of a common jargon, but also to establish their hierarchy. The main social "vectors" that guide the spread of common jargon are gender and age factors. At the same time, the gender of the speaker mainly determines the speech implementation of words of common jargon (men use socially unprestigious vocabulary more often), and age is associated with the possession of this vocabulary at the language level (there is a decrease in the degree of knowledge of this vocabulary in the group of informants older than 40).
The use of Russian general jargon does not directly correlate with the level of education and with the specialty (these factors have the lowest ranks in the hierarchy and are insignificant according to the Fisher criterion). From this it follows that the totality of "carriers" of the common jargon does not coincide with the boundaries of the groups of speakers of the literary language and vernacular, determined mainly on the basis of educational criteria. Apparently, sociolinguistic groups are not rigidly divided. Undoubtedly, there are zones of rigid use of features (a bundle of features) and blurry zones of use. Associating this with the blurring of the boundaries between social groups, among which only nuclear formations are socially stable, we believe that the sociolinguistic status of the studied language subsystem refers it to this blurred zone of use.
The modern linguistic paradigm presupposes the realization that a static approach to determining the “carrier” of a particular PSL according to the formula “one language subsystem - one social group” is a very rough simplification of the real dynamics of socio-linguistic interaction, an unacceptable isomorphism. More promising is the concept of the "carrier" of PSL as a probabilistic dynamic system formed by a hierarchy of some constant factors (in our case, sex and age), the real effect of which is subject to random fluctuations. At the same time, the possession of general jargon is largely subject to social correction, which is associated with the lack of prestige of jargon vocabulary in the Russian language.
So, consideration of the essence of Russian general jargon as an intermediate language formation leads to the idea that in this case we are talking not just about an internally contradictory concept or about a not very successful example of terminology, but about a deeply antinomic object, the ambivalence of which reflects the complex and dynamic nature the social life of the language.
Bibliography
1. Words we met: Dictionary of common jargon / ed. R.I. Rozina, O.P. Ermakova, E.A. Zemskoy. - M., 1999. S. 4.
2. Khorosheva N.V. Intermediate forms of urban colloquial speech (based on Russian common jargon and French common slang): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. philol. n. - Perm, 1998.
3. Elistratov V.S. Argo and culture. - M., 1995.
4. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect: a stratification study: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. philol. n. St. Petersburg, 1995.
5. Khorosheva N.V. On the social "vectors" of jargonization of urban colloquial speech (experimental-statistical model) // Linguistic retrospective, modernity and perspective of the city and village. - Perm, 1999. S.182-188
Definition of slang and jargon
The word, according to the well-known thesis of L.S. Vygotsky, embodies the unity of generalization and communication, communication and thinking. Based on this, the study of new vocabulary requires addressing two aspects: the aspect of creation and development, on the one hand, and its functioning, on the other. It is known that in the science of language in different times the main question was how language helps a person to divide the material world and the socio-historical experience of its speakers. The division of reality depending on national and cultural specifics, "correlated with the objective plane of meanings, forms a map of the world: like a map, it reflects reality in one or another of its scales." Arnold, I.V. Stylistics of modern English / I.V. Arnold. - M.: Enlightenment. 2000. - P. 15. Based on the fact that the word has a cumulative function (the word is the collective memory of native speakers), in this work a significant place is given to the description of the extralinguistic realities of English and American life on the example of the layer of computer vocabulary of modern English. The rapid development of science, mass media, high technologies influenced the expansion of old and the emergence of new areas of the nomination. However, development nominative function language is reflected not only in the expansion and renewal of the conceptual sphere of the reference of names, but also in the change in the methods of nomination. The bulk of new units is formed with the help of word-formation means. A new understanding of word formation as a source of not only ready-made knowledge, but also the rules for their formation according to certain rules and patterns, made it possible to discover the effect of various principles on which these rules are built (the effect of analogy, associative processes, etc.) between nominative and communicative activity there is a direct connection. "The naming of an object or situation is not only a process of designation, but at the same time a process of cognition and communication" Zabotkina, V.I. New vocabulary of modern English / V.I. Zabotkin. - M.: VSH, 1999. - S. 35 .. In connection with the formation in linguistics of a new communicative-pragmatic research paradigm based on the principle of activity, it makes sense to talk about the possibility of a pragmatic approach to units of all language levels, including units lexical level. In this work, a broad understanding of pragmatics is adopted as a science that "learns a language from the point of view of a person using it in the aspect of choosing language units, restrictions on their use in social communication and the effect of influencing participants in communication" Zabotkina, V.I. New vocabulary of modern English / V.I. Zabotkin. - M.: VSh, 1999. - S. 38. . The study of vocabulary in the pragmatic aspect, i.e. from the point of view of the appropriateness of the use of lexical and phraseological units, depending on the situation of communication and the goals that the speaker seeks to achieve, allows us to single out such a direction in the study of the lexical system of the language as functional lexicology. Zabotkina, V.I. New vocabulary of modern English / V.I. Zabotkin. - M.: VSh, 1999. - S. 40. Functional lexicology is faced with the task of identifying internal patterns that govern the choice and adequate use of a particular lexical unit in each specific communicative act. It is hardly realistic to talk about the description of all units of the dictionary, taking into account their use in all possible situations of communication, so it makes sense to describe the vocabulary along the lines of restrictions on its use in certain types of situations. In this paper, special attention is paid to situations associated with the rapid development of computer technology in recent years.
Functional lexicology relies on pragmatically relevant factors of three broader orders:
sociological,
psycholinguistic.
Of particular importance is the functional-pragmatic approach in the study of new words and meanings. The very appearance of the word is dictated by pragmatic needs. The sender of the message chooses from the available lexical repertoire what best expresses his thoughts and feelings. If there is no such word in the sender's vocabulary, he modifies the old or creates a new lexical unit Zabotkin, V.I. New vocabulary of modern English / V.I. Zabotkin. - M.: VSh, 1999. - S. 42. . As G. Brekle rightly notes, new lexical units are created in the process of speech as the implementation by the speaker of a certain communicative intention, and not as units planned in advance by the speaker to expand and replenish the vocabulary Budagov, R.A. New words and meanings / R.A. Budagov // Man and his language. - M.: MGU. - 1999. - S. 277. . One can speak about the existence of a certain dialectical connection between pragmatics and active nominative processes. So, for example, the emergence of a new lexical-semantic variant in a word in the light of the communicative-pragmatic paradigm can be considered as a result of the pragmatic variability of the word. Under the pragmatic variability of the word in this work is understood the variation in its use in various situations of communication, depending on the social, territorial, national, age and other statuses of the participants in communication Zabotkina, V.I. New vocabulary of modern English / V.I. Zabotkin. - M.: VSH, 1999. - S. 44. One and the same lexeme is differently implemented in the same situations by representatives of different layers of native speakers. As a result of the use of a word in a situation (context) atypical for it by a carrier of a different sociolect (the language of a certain socio-professional group), it acquires a new shade of meaning, which is then formed into a separate lexico-semantic version of the word. On the other hand, any semantic novelty generates pragmatic novelty. The emerging new lexico-semantic version of the word expands the pragmatics of the entire lexeme, as the range of situations and contexts of its use, and, consequently, the restrictions on its use, expands.
Table of contents
| Introduction | 3 |
| 7 | |
| § 1. The concept of "jargon". Jargon as a secondary communicative system of the national language. jargon functions | 7 |
| § 2. Characteristics of the main conceptual and terminological apparatus used in the analysis of the units under study | 1 4 |
| § 3.General characteristics of informal youth associations | 20 |
| § 4. Characteristics of individual informal youth associations considered in this thesis | 2 3 |
| Conclusions to chapter 1 | 30 |
| Chapter 2 | 3 2 |
| § 1. Analysis of the vocabulary of NMO jargons from the point of view of their semantic features | 3 2 |
| § 2. Analysis of the vocabulary of NMO jargons from the point of view of their word-formation features | 4 3 |
| Conclusions to chapter 2 | 5 3 |
| Conclusion | 5 5 |
| Bibliography | 5 7 |
| Annex 1. Glossary of CME Jargons | 6 2 |
- To study the scientific literature on the research topic; Collect and systematize examples of slang speech of informal youth associations (hereinafter referred to as NMO); Describe the NMOs under consideration from the standpoint of their ideology, philosophy and paraphernalia; Give concepts to the following terms: "jargon", " thematic group”, as well as definitions of word-formation processes used in the analysis of NMO jargon lexemes; Describe the main methods (techniques) for the formation of jargon units, identify among them the dominant lexemes in the formation of lexemes that make up the NMO jargons; Provide a description of the lexico-semantic (thematic) groups of NMO slang vocabulary; To reveal the word-building potential of modern youth slang, indicating the ways of jargon formation and sources of its replenishment.
- Borrowing
1) it is necessary to transfer the word by phonetic and grammatical means of the receiving language;
