Linguistic Society of America

Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Timothy C. Frazer
Source: Language, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 860-862
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/417338 .
Accessed: 14/05/2011 05:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org
860 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 73, NUMBER 4 (1997)

on the differencesbetween theories with and withoutreanalysisas the basic change. But usually
he only providesbroad-strokeguidancethroughthe chronologicallyordered-cross-cut by gener-
ativity vs. nongenerativity-theories that follow thereafterin his presentation.
The book is intended for use in classes on the history of the English language as well as a
referencetool for researchersin historical syntax. The main text is supplementedby a glossary
of technicalterms,a list of references(i.e. secondarysources),a list of texts fromwhich examples
have been taken (i.e. primarysources, with very detailed identificationand by itself worth the
price of admission),an index of verbs thatappearin the examples, and a genuinelyconscientious
index. Eachchapterends with questionsfor discussionor furtherresearch,andthese arefrequently
brilliant.
D's book will likely be used only as a (very) secondary source in Americanundergraduate
classes, even many graduatecourses, more's the pity, because it is a more relentless survey than
such classes require.Nonetheless, as a reference tool it is a work of such high quality that the
same groundneed never be covered again, and I expect that it will be used widely by scholars.
No one can in the futurewrite about English syntacticchange without extensive referenceto it.
Departmentof Linguistics
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095
[Stockwel@Humnet.Ucla.edu]

Slang and sociability: In-group language among college students. By CONNIE EBLE.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Pp. x, 228.
Reviewed by TIMOTHY
C. FRAZER,Western Illinois University
This book nicely crystallizes Eble's work on collegiate slang, a series of surveys begun in
1972 which was reportedand analyzed over the years in conference papers,in articles, and in
one monograph(Eble 1989). Here E discusses the processes which produce slang as well as
other words, reveals the close relationshipbetween slang and the subcultureswhich produceit,
and examines the changes in collegiate slang over the past century.Of greatest interest is her
ethnographicstudyisolatingpreciselythe types of interpersonalrelationshipswhich slang signals.
As Dumas and Lighter noted in 1978, a formal definition of slang seems forever evasive,
althoughlexicographers,poets, linguists, and others continueto try to define it. A few examples
range from 'a body of words acceptedas intelligible,. . . but not acceptedas good, formalusage'
(Wentworth& Flexner 1960: xvii), to 'thatportionof the vocabularywhich changes most freely'
(Gleason 1961:6), or even to 'the wholesome fermentationor eructation of those processes
eternallyactive in language' (Whitman1885: 573). These and similarefforts eitherfail to define
at all or else are easily contradictedby example; elsewhere, slang has been variously confused
withjargon,dialect,or nonstandardusage. Not surprisingly,dictionariesdisagreeon which words
are labelled 'slang' and which are not. Reflecting the impossibilityof finding a formaldefinition
for this term, William Labov (1972) condemnedresearchon slang to 'an outer, extra-linguistic
darkness' (97), while Lighter's own widely heraldedRandom House historical dictionary of
Americanslang (1994) explicitly avoids a formaldefinition.Labov's frustrationnotwithstanding,
the concept of slang does indeed have a psychological reality;like dialect, it seems to be a useful
term even if no one can agree precisely on what it means.
E's book addressesthe issue by seeking a functionalratherthana formal definition,a direction
earliersuggestedby Sledd (1965) as well as by Dumas andLighter.After calling in the introduc-
tion for a pragmaticapproachto context, E discusses the source of slang in wordbuilding(Ch.
2, 'Form');the social implicationsof slang's 'Meaning'(Ch. 3); andfurthersourcesin 'Borrowing
and allusion' (Ch. 4). The next three chapters ('Use', 'Effects', and 'Culture') examine the
function of slang in interaction-the role slang actually plays in discourse, the social conse-
 REVIEWS 861

quences of its use, and the relationshipbetween the semanticfields of slang and the subcultures
in which they flourish.
The various processes by which slang arises include compounding (dough + brain =
doughbrain), affixation (mega + bitch = megabitch), clipping (parents > rents), blending
(screw + bump = scrump).But these processes, E argues, do not in themselves define slang,
that is, the words they create are not remarkablein themselves. Processes like clipping and
compoundingwere in use in Anglo Saxon a thousandyears ago. We get lord from Anglo-Saxon
hlafweard 'keeper of the loaf; Old English modcraeft 'intelligence' was a compound of the
words meaning 'mind' and 'skill'. Thus, the processes that producewhat we call slang are not
different from the processes that produce words not considered slang.
Still other slang terms come into English by means of borrowing and allusion. While her
chapterby thattitle illustratesmany of these, E points out againthat this is a source for nonslang
terms as well. Studentslang borrowsfrom other languages and other dialects, hence chica and
chiquitaborrowedfrom Spanish,beaucoupfromFrench,andciao from Italian,as well as uptight,
chill, and tude from AfricanAmericanEnglish. But again, this process does not in itself identify
slang terms,for English has been borrowingfor hundredsof years and continuesto do so. Fruit,
join, male, and move came from French into Middle English, while chimpanzeefrom Kongo
and khakifrom Hindi are more recent.
We also get slang terms, however, from processes other than the formal, almost mechanical
proceduresjust described.A shift between semanticfields, wherein the noun granola comes to
refer to someone who follows a hippy-typelifestyle (thus, granola-groid), is yet anothersource
of new wordsbut againis not exclusively confinedto slang terms.The new associationssuggested
here are pursuedin E's chapteron meaningwhich reportsa limitednumberof semanticcategories
into which slang words fall. The most frequentslang terms used by E's college students, for
example, mean (in orderof frequency) 'excellent', 'socially inept person', 'drunk', 'attractive
person', 'to insult', 'to relax', 'hello', 'to do well', 'fraternityor sororitymember', 'to have a
good time', 'to leave', 'to kiss passionately', 'to disregard', 'to eat rapidly', 'exhausted', 'to
fail', 'goodbye', 'to get in touch with reality', 'to lose control', 'out of touch', 'to pursue for
sex', 'to studyhard', and 'worst situation'.These meaningcategoriesreflect the most immediate
areas of concern for college students.
This categorizationpoints to a functionalratherthana formaldefinitionfor slang andexplains
its association with group identification,bonding, resistance to authority,and substitutionfor
uncomfortableterms. As E's chapterson use, effects, and cultureshow, slang is best defined by
the social role it plays ratherthan by any formal characteristics.University students since the
middle ages have identifiedthemselvesas opposedto establishedauthorityso thatcollege student
slang often borrows from subculturelanguage such as African American dialect. Slang is also
largely restrictedto the meaningcategories which are of particularinterestto the subgroupusing
the language;because sex is importantto college students,for example, undergraduatestudents
at the college of William and Mary submitted 183 slang terms for 'penis' (Cameron1992).
In a startlingexample of semantic differentiation,E notes that her studentsreporta number
of disparagingwords for minorities which are used, almost secretively, only among closest
friends. E speculates that 'this abandonmentof political correctnessamong friends is perhapsa
sign of trustin others, like telling a secret. It may also be a sign of fear that in the increasing
fragmentationof Americansociety into groupsdemandinga fair share,they may wind up among
the "have nots"' (142).
For me, the most valuablepart of this book analyzes a series of taped conversationsbetween
studentsin informalsettings-in dormitoryrooms withoutadultspresent.Most interestingabout
these conversationsamong intimates(close friends or lovers) is that slang is used quite rarely.
E concludes that slang is used to connote group solidarity,not closeness between intimates,and
she supportsher conclusion with a transcriptof a studentconversationinterruptedby yet another
studentwho is known to the participants,but not on intimateterms.When this less-known person
enters, the frequencyof slang in the group increases.This is because studentswho are not close
use slang to promotetheiridentitiesas studentsand their solidaritywith each other;among close
friends or lovers, however, demonstrationsof solidarityare unnecessary.
862 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 73, NUMBER 4 (1997)

This summary so far suggests a division between form and function in this text which is
perhapsmisleading.In reviewing how slang is used, E does in fact note some formalcharacteris-
tics. Collegiate slang begins conversations,for example, with its own forms of address (e.g.,
roomer). Especially interestingare E's observationsabout 'the frequentuse of the demonstrative
that before slang nouns, [which] is consistentwith the social functionof slang, particularlywhen
that precedes a noun with unfavorableconnotations' (99).
The last hundredpages of the book include several appendices,two of them listing the most
frequent terms from E's own surveys and anotherlisting collegiate slang from the turn of the
century (which suggests, ominously, that studentsa hundredyears ago were more interestedin
academics than they are now). Also included are a glossary of slang terms used in this text, an
index of terms, a general index, and an ample bibliography.
E's book is importantreading for specialists since it presents some importantnew research
and offers an excellent review of the literature.But it is also accessible to the general reader.It
will make a fine auxiliarytext in a sociolinguistics course.

REFERENCES
CAMERON, DEBORAH. 1992. Naming of parts: Gender, culture, and terms for the penis among American
college students.American Speech 67.367-82.
DUMAS, BETHANY K., andJONATHON LIGHTER. 1978. Is slang a word for linguists?AmericanSpeech 53.5-18.
EBLE,CONNIE. 1989. College slang 101. Georgetown,CT.: Spectacle Press.
GLEASON, H. A., JR. 1961. An introductionto descriptivelinguistics, rev. edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
LABOV,WILLIAM. 1972. Some principlesof linguistic methodology. Languagein Society 1.97-120.
LIGHTER,JONATHON. 1994. RandomHouse historicaldictionaryof Americanslang. Vol. 1, A-G. New York:
Random House.
SLEDD,JAMES.1965. On not teaching English usage. English Journal54.698-703.
WENTWORTH, HAROLD B., and STUART BERGFLEXNER. 1960. Dictionary of American slang. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell.
WHITMAN, WALT.1885. Slang in America. The collected writingsof Walt Whitman:Prose works 1892, ed.
by Floyd Stovall (1964). New York: New York University Press.
Departmentof English
Western Illinois University
Macomb, Illinois 61455
[mftcf@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu]

An invitation to cognitive science. Volume 1: Language. 2nd edn. Ed. by LILAR.

and MARKLIBERMAN.
GLEITMAN Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. Pp. xxxviii,
455.
Reviewed by D. TERENCE LANGENDOEN, University of Arizona
This is the second edition of the first volume in a four-volumeset underthe generaleditorship
of Daniel N. Osherson;the others are titled Visual cognition, Thinking,and Conceptualfounda-
tions. It is a second edition in name only. Its fourteenchaptersareentirely new and were chosen
'to reveal why language holds a special place in cognitive science' (xix). The book is suitable
as a text in an undergraduateor graduatecourse or seminaron language and cognitive science
for studentswho have alreadybeen introducedto the basic concepts of phonology, syntax, and
semantics. Each chapterincludes suggestions for furtherreading,all but two of which are anno-
tated, and problems(but no answers).Several chaptersalso containquestionsfor furtherthought
designed for students with the requisite backgroundknowledge (e.g. Prolog programming)or
for individualand group projects.
Half of the chapters are devoted to topics in grammaticalanalysis, and the other half to
psycholinguistics.Each grammarchapterdescribesa problemandworks towarda solutionwhich