Belinda Webb’s article contained many astute points, which were logical and strongly supported her argument. The point which she made is that slang is creative and is a semi-private language, that others can use to communicate. Belinda Webb goes against modern views on slang; that it has negative connotations by embedding examples of slang such as Shakespeare’s neologisms in her writing. This creates an overall view that slang is a love of communication and it can be a unique way for people in local communities to speak their own modified version of “standard” English. One of the major points she expresses is that slang is a semi-private language, as people in communities have developed an informal way of communication, because it suits their lifestyle more therefore it becomes more personal. I agree with her point because teenagers in schools feel more secure speaking to their friends if they integrate slang into their speech as it gives them more freedom. However, to the older generation who are not used to these neologism as it is modernised English, can not simply understand their ideologies so refer to slang with negative connotations.
The article included good examples to support her view. “Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange with its Nadsat”. This is a good example, as it broadens the reader’s knowledge of colloquial language used in literary terms. Furthermore, using an author’s example of slang shows its efficiency and creativity. Authors are experts at language and if Anthony Burgess’s can get millions of readers to enjoy and understand his book, it shows that slang is interesting and can be integrated into “standard” English, making it even more unique. This suggests that slang is not overtaking the “standard” English language but it is being integrated in it as a form of modernisation.
Another example used in her writing was “…which makes them so nervy that they want to puke, which could be avoided if they stopped the slang assassination.” Belinda Webb uses Shakespeare’s neologisms to express that slang is not negative and should not be targeted upon, by using metaphorical language. Shakespeare was known as the innovator of slang and is one of the most studied authors of all time. Assassination and puke are considered to be “standard” English. They have now been integrated in modern language, so these words are not referred to as slang. By implying this she shows the audience that slang is used to build upon language. However, the word “assassination” connotes that todays English scholars disapprove of slang as they are trying to destroy it and remove it from our language completely. Some refer to slang having negative connotations, but in reality it does not destroy our language but enhances it. Language is always changing and is never constant, by using different dialects it means different groups of people can communicate with each other without a physical barrier of language.
One of the points she tries to get across to the reader is that dialects can be specific to local areas. She does this by using an example of localisation and how it links to slang. The example used is “…from the North will recognise nowt as not” It implies that specific dialects are developed in certain areas, and to them that is known as “standard” English. This builds upon the idea that slang or informal English can be very personal to certain districts, allowing people to communicate with each other freely and uniquely. Also, communities that have a strong cultural influence such as Turkish or Jamaican may include words from their own language to make it more personal for them, and again gives them that sense of freedom and personalisation. From my point of view integrating words from your own language is not a form of destruction as people in a friend group of similar culture will be able to communicate easier without a language barrier, but then change format and speak more “standard” English with others.
Reading this argument the point which stood out the most to me is that “Slang is a sophisticated attempt to communicate in a semi-private language”. The word sophisticated shows that slang is an intelligent way to communicate, and is contradicting the fact that the adult population believe slang to have negative connotations. Additionally, she uses the phrase “semi-private language”. She is implying that slang does not need to be universal, it is a language associated with a group or area of people. However, she does also state that “I am not saying slang is a substitute for “standard” English, but should be recognised and capitalised for what it is a love of communications…” I strongly agree with this as modern-day English is still the universal form of communication, but slang is personalisation and is a way for others to communicate with each other freely, sculpted from the building blocks of “standard” English.
Belinda Webb wrote a powerful article showing the benefits of slang. I strongly agree with her point, as slang is sophisticated and an attempt for the younger generation to represent their reality. Throughout her argument she uses many examples such as Shakespeare’s and Anthony Burgess’s neologisms, and uses those to create her own examples. She does not contradict her point in the argument, and provided logical explanations and reasoning which supported her point of view. The style of language she used was appropriate as “standard” English is the universal way of communicating formally. But, she changed dialect to prove her point; that slang is sophisticated and a love of communication.
React!