(Image Source: KING'S College LONDON)
SLANG: LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, AND SOCIAL POWER
This post offers a theoretically integrated account of slang as a semiotic, cognitive, and political technology. Drawing on sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, cognitive science, and critical discourse analysis, it argues that slang is a primary site through which identity, power, exclusion, and resistance are produced and contested in late modern societies. Against deficit and trivializing accounts, the post demonstrates that slang is not linguistic excess but language operating under conditions of heightened social risk, affect, and symbolic struggle.
Why Slang Demands Serious Study
Slang is among the most persistently misunderstood objects of linguistic inquiry. It is routinely dismissed as ephemeral, corruptive, or analytically unserious. Such dismissal is not merely misguided; it is theoretically untenable. Slang is not peripheral to language use. It is one of the central arenas in which language performs its most consequential social work.
Slang is where speakers negotiate identity, calibrate affiliation, enforce boundaries, distribute prestige, weaponize humour, and articulate resistance. It emerges under conditions of intimacy, exclusion, crisis, and creativity, precisely those conditions under which language is most socially charged. This post proceeds from the premise that slang is not an aberration of linguistic order but a privileged lens through which the relationship between language, power, and social life becomes visible.
Slang as a Serious Object of Inquiry
Within linguistic scholarship, slang occupies an anomalous position. Despite its ubiquity in everyday interaction, it has been marginalized as transient, morally suspect, or methodologically inconvenient. This marginalization reflects disciplinary bias rather than empirical reality. Slang is neither linguistically deficient nor cognitively impoverished. On the contrary, it represents language functioning under conditions of heightened affective intensity and social exposure.
It is in slang that speakers manage symbolic risk: to speak slang is to risk ridicule, exclusion, or misrecognition. Yet it is also to gain access to belonging, status, and emotional alignment. Slang therefore provides a unique window onto language as social action rather than abstract system.
PART I: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
1: Slang and the Limits of Definition
1.1 The Absence of a Universal Definition
Despite centuries of observation, no universally accepted definition of slang exists. This absence should not be interpreted as a failure of linguistic theory but as a reflection of slang’s constitutive properties. Slang is fluid, indexical, and context-bound. Any attempt to define it through surface features, informality, novelty, or non-standardness, inevitably fails.
Slang resists fixed definition because it is function-driven rather than form-driven. What unites slang phenomena is not structural similarity but social work.
1.2 Core Functional Properties
Across sociohistorical contexts, slang consistently exhibits a constellation of interrelated properties:
In-group indexicality: slang functions as a badge of belonging.
Exclusionary orientation: intelligibility is strategically restricted.
Status differentiation: fluency confers symbolic prestige within peer economies.
Dependence on novelty: expressive force relies on freshness and unpredictability.
Transgressive potential: taboo, irreverence, and shock are recurrent resources.
Slang is therefore not random play but strategic social signalling.
1.3 Slang as Social Technology
Slang functions as a technology of social regulation. It governs who belongs, who leads, and who imitates unsuccessfully. In this respect, slang resembles ritualized behaviour more closely than casual speech. Its apparent playfulness conceals a serious infrastructure of social control.
2: Slang as a Semiotic System
Slang cannot be reduced to vocabulary alone. It is best understood as a semiotic system in which lexical items, phonological patterns, prosody, and pragmatic cues interact to index social meaning.
2.1 Indexicality and Social Meaning
Following Silverstein, slang operates through indexical orders. A slang term does not merely denote; it indexes age, class, ethnicity, political stance, and moral alignment. Utterances such as finna or deadass activate what Eckert terms indexical fields, situating speakers within racialized and classed social trajectories.
Slang thus functions less as referential language than as identity signalling.
2.2 Slang as Anti-Language
Halliday’s concept of anti-language is indispensable for understanding slang in counter-societies. Anti-languages emerge within groups that define themselves in opposition to dominant institutions. They are characterized by relexicalization, moral inversion, and alternative value systems.
Prison slang, gang argots, and queer slangs such as Polari do not merely rename reality; they reconstruct it. Slang here is ontological rather than decorative—it enables survival, dignity, and resistance.
2.3 Phonological and Prosodic Slang
Not all slang is lexical. Prosodic features, intonation contours, exaggerated stress, creaky voice, function as non-lexical slang markers. These features frequently attract moral panic precisely because they index youth, gender nonconformity, or resistance to authority.
3: Symbolic Capital and Linguistic Markets
Drawing on Bourdieu, slang circulates within restricted linguistic markets where its value is locally recognized.
Standard language accrues cultural capital through institutional legitimacy and temporal stability. Slang accrues symbolic capital through peer recognition, rapid turnover, and affective resonance. Fluency in slang rarely converts into institutional power, but within peer economies it can be decisive.
3.1 Risk, Investment, and Profit
Using slang involves linguistic risk: mistiming, miscontextualization, or exposure as inauthentic. Successful use yields symbolic profit; failure produces ridicule. This risk–reward structure accounts for slang’s emotional intensity.
PART II: MEANING, BODY, AND MIND
4: Cognitive Sociolinguistics of Slang
Emerging research suggests that slang engages the brain differently from standard language.
4.1 Affective Processing
Slang activates emotional salience networks, including the amygdala. This accounts for its vividness, humour, and shock value. Where standard language prioritizes clarity, slang prioritizes affect.
4.2 Neuro-Social Reward
Successful in-group slang use triggers dopamine-mediated bonding and feelings of belonging. This neurological reinforcement explains both the rapid spread of slang and its resistance to external regulation.
5: Slang, Taboo, and the Grotesque Body
Drawing on Bakhtin, this chapter situates slang within traditions of bodily excess, taboo, and carnival. Slang frequently foregrounds sexuality, violence, and degradation—not as pathology, but as a means of destabilizing official discourse and reclaiming embodied experience.
PART III: POWER, POLITICS, AND ECONOMY
6: The Political Economy of Slang
Slang exists within regimes of capitalist extraction.
6.1 Commodification
Corporations routinely mine slang, especially from racialized and marginalized communities, to manufacture authenticity. This process detaches slang from its social origins, erases original speakers, and monetizes symbolic capital without redistribution.
6.2 Linguistic Minstrelsy
Practices such as Digital Blackface exemplify how slang becomes a costume rather than a lived practice. Such appropriation is not neutral borrowing but symbolic extraction.
6.3 The Diffusion Curve
Slang typically follows a cycle: subcultural creation, adjacent uptake, media amplification, corporate saturation, and semantic exhaustion. Platform capitalism accelerates this cycle.
7: Slang, Crime, and the Law
Criminal slang research demands ethical sensitivity. In legal contexts, misinterpretation of slang can distort justice. Linguists increasingly function as expert translators, mediating between institutional and subcultural meaning systems.
8: Slang in Times of Crisis
Periods of political upheaval and collective trauma generate intensified slang production. Irony, dark metaphor, and lexical creativity function as mechanisms of emotional processing and symbolic resistance.
PART IV: VARIATION, GLOBALITY, AND MEDIATION
9: Comparative Slang Systems
A theory of slang must be comparative. Verlan in France, Lunfardo in Argentina, and Polari in Britain demonstrate that slang often functions as a technology of survival rather than mere play.
10: Digital Mediation and Urban Dialects
Digital platforms reproduce classic slang functions at unprecedented scale while producing context collapse. Multi-Ethnic London English exemplifies a systematic urban variety whose slang reflects postcolonial multilingualism while remaining socially stigmatized.
PART V: METHODS AND FUTURES
11: Methods for Studying Slang
Slang cannot be adequately studied through textual artefacts alone. Authentic slang is situated speech. Effective research requires ethnographic immersion, trust, and insider mediation. Digital corpora expand access but do not replace fieldwork.
12: Is Slang Ending?
The rapid global circulation of slang raises a theoretical question: if exclusivity collapses, can slang survive?
The answer is not extinction but fragmentation. Slang retreats into hyper-local, encrypted, rapidly cycling micro-systems. It does not disappear; it mutates.
Conclusion: Slang as Social Intelligence
Slang is not noise, corruption, or triviality. It is language operating at maximum social intensity.
To study slang is to study identity formation, power relations, emotional economies, and resistance. Slang reveals what formal language systematically conceals.
The conceptual shift required is decisive:
For contemporary sociolinguistics, that shift is no longer optional.
Source:
https://language-and-innovation.com/about/
Tony Thorne on Slang - Oxford University Linguistics Society
