The Life of Slang

The Life
of Slang
This page intentionally left blank
The Life
of Slang
Julie Coleman
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
# Julie Coleman 2012
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
ISBN 978–0–19–957199–4
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
For Paul, John, and Patrick ;-)
Contents
................................................
Preface ix
1 What is Slang? 1
2 Spawning 26
3 Development 49
4 Survival and Metamorphosis 73
5 The Spread of Slang 94
6 Prigs, Culls, and Blosses: Cant and Flash Language 118
7 Jolly Good Show: British Slang to the

Twentieth Century 143
8 Whangdoodles and Fixings: Early American Slang 174
9 Bludgers, Sooks, and Moffies: English Slang

around the World 206
10 Top Bananas and Bunny-boilers:

The Media and Entertainment Age 236
11 Leet to Lols: The Digital Age 266
12 Endsville 297
viii Contents
Acknowledgements 308
Explanatory Notes 310
Abbreviations and typographical conventions 310
A note on spelling 311
A note on dates: ‘That’s still in use’ 311
A note on definitions: ‘That’s not what it means’ 312
A note on sources 313
Bibliography 314
Word Index 325
Index 350
Preface
................................................
Slang is a subject that provokes strong emotions. Some people

love slang and make sure they’re always using the latest terms. Others
hate it with a passion and look down their noses at people who use it.
More complicated but equally strong feelings are evoked by incorrect
and inappropriate slang use. If you use slang, you run the risk of being
judged crass, uneducated, stupid, or hopelessly out of date, but the
rewards are equally great: used correctly, slang will ease your entry
into the social circles you want to mix in, increase your attractiveness
to the opposite sex, and even save your life—or so the writers of slang
dictionaries would have you believe.
This book is an account of slang used throughout the English-
speaking world, from the earliest records to the latest tweet. You’ll see
throughout that slang has been stigmatized by association with the
people who use it and that the people who use it have been stigma-
tized in their turn. If you want to put a group of people down, dismiss
their language as slang. If you want to raise a group’s status, claim that
theirs is a rule-based language in its own right. During the Oakland
Ebonics controversy in the 1990s, a California school board proposed
to treat African American English as a separate language and to use
funding for bilingual education to help African American children
learn Standard English. Opponents rejected the notion that African
American English was a language:
These are kids that have had every opportunity to acclimate themselves to
American society, and they have gotten themselves into this trap of
x Preface
speaking this language – this slang really – that people can’t understand.
Now we’re going to legitimize it.
Standard language equals socialization and conformity; non-standard

language equals criminality and rebellion. No wonder slang-users are
scary.
The other side of the story is that if you don’t understand my slang,
you’re not in my gang. From this perspective, it’s slang-users who
hold the power, and anyone who wants to communicate with them
effectively has to use slang. An article in the Times Educational
Supplement recently reported that British teachers were becoming
well versed in teenage slang:
more than three-quarters of them say they know vanilla checks is slang for
boring clothes, more than half know that klingon means a younger brother
or sister and nearly half say they know that phat means great. . . . “expres-
sive” answers given by pupils when writing about Shakespeare included
“Macbeth, he is well wicked”, “Macbeth was pure mental” and “Romeo was
a numty, wasn’t he?”
There are only two possible outcomes to the war between the Stan-
dard English Empire and the rebel alliance: either all slang is obliter-
ated and everyone speaks the same version of Standard English all
around the world (experts currently estimate that this will occur
approximately when hell freezes over), or we all adopt slang (which
would then become Standard English, creating an urgent need for
new slang terms). Although no resolution is possible, the conflict
between slang-lovers and -haters provides a fascinating perspective
on social and political change through the centuries, and that’s what
this book is all about.
Endnotes
Ward Connerly (an African American Republican) is quoted dismissing African
American English as slang from Charles J. Fillmore, ‘A Linguist Looks at the
Ebonics Debate’, 161–9, in J. David Ramirez et al. (eds.), Ebonics: The Urban
Education Debate, 2nd edn (Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters,
Preface xi
2005), 167. David Rogers, ‘We Know What U Mean, M8. Innit?’, TES, 12 Dec.
2008, n.p. <http://www.tes.co.uk>, discussed British teachers’ attitudes towards
slang. My main dictionary sources are J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner (eds.),
OED Online, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000–) <http://www.oed
.com>; Jonathon Green, Green’s Dictionary of Slang (London: Chambers, 2010);
Jonathan Lighter, Historical Dictionary of American Slang (New York: Random
House, 1994–); and W. S. Ramson, The Australian National Dictionary
(Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1988) <http://203.166.81.53/and>. Inter-
net searches were largely through Nexis <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis>,
Google Blog Search <http://blogsearch.google.com>, and (with caution) Google
Books <http://books.google.com>. Entertaining and readable insights into the
OED’s inclusion policies are available in Alex Games, Balderdash and Piffle
(London: BBC Books, 2006), and Alex Horne, Wordwatching (London: Virgin
Books, 2010).
1 What is Slang?
Slang in the ring

People have written many odd things about slang. They range
from the carefully balanced to the rampantly polarized. The balanced
ones we’ll put aside for the moment, and only comment that there’s
been a great deal of detailed and careful research into how and why
slang is used and how it’s formed. But now for the polarization, which
is much more interesting. Introducing, on one side of the ring: the
champions of slang! They argue that slang is creative (biff ), vibrant
(pow), poetic (kersplat), and revolutionary (ding ding). It represents
whatever is most real in the present moment; it’s a badge of our
loyalties and aspirations. But before we allow the umpire to raise the
fist of slang triumphantly in the air, let’s look in the opposite corner.
There sit the champions of Standard English, legs crossed, arms
folded. They’re sniffily unimpressed with this whole silly undertaking.
They’re not even sure they’re going to lower themselves by joining in
with this ridiculous fight. But if they really must, they’ll argue that
slang is sloppy, vulgar, ugly, and trivial. Its users are either unedu-
cated individuals who don’t know any better, or educated ones
who really should. The repetition of a narrow range of increasingly
2 The Life of Slang
tiresome terms reveals limitations of vocabulary, imagination, and

intelligence. By using Standard English, we can rise above our own
petty and local concerns and communicate at once with an interna-
tional English-speaking audience as well as with future generations.
Choose your side.
The first part of this book provides a natural history of slang. Let’s say
slang is a frog (just humour me here): the first chapter describes what a
frog is, the second looks at the spawning stage, the third considers
factors conducive to further development (including, crucially, at least
one other frog), the fourth looks at metamorphosis (the tadpole stage),
and the fifth at the means by which frogs spread from pond to pond. I’m
going to come back to this metaphor several times to try to make these
distinctions clear. The second part provides an account of the history of
English slang. Chapters in this section focus on slang in specific parts of
the English-speaking world. The last two chapters, about mass media
and IT slang, look at the history of slang since WWII. What there isn’t
so much of in this book is discussion of the way English is developing in
parts of the world where it’s either a minority language or a foreign
language. Without a really thorough knowledge of the social and
linguistic contexts, it’s impossible to determine what is and isn’t slang
in these contexts, but it’s to be hoped that people better qualified than
me will write the books those subjects deserve.
Slang in the news

I’d like to start by looking at some newspaper stories about slang to
identify why people get so worked up about it. The first extract is from a
conversation, allegedly overheard by the writer, among a group of well-
dressed teenage boys on a street corner in an Adelaide suburb in 1906:
Things will be bally slow till next pay-day. I’ve done in nearly all my spond.
Here, now; cheese it, or I’ll lob one in your lug. Lend us a cigarette. Lend it;
oh, no, I don’t part. Look out, here’s a bobby going to tell us to shove along.
He’s all right, I know him. You know the joker with the red nut. That’s him.
What is Slang? 3
The following words and phrases probably sounded slangy in this

context, though they weren’t always slang and some aren’t any longer:
bally “very” (1899—) lend “to give” (OE—)

do in “to spend completely” (1889- part “to pay” (1864—)
1977, chiefly Australia and NZ) bobby “a policeman” (1844—)
spond(s) “money” (a.1882—) shove (along/up/out/off) “to depart”
cheese it “to stop; to avoid” (1811—, (1844—, originally US)
originally thieves) all right [to express approval] (1872—,
lob “to throw; to strike” (1847—, now colloquial)
originally dialect) joker “a fellow; a character” (1810—,
lug “an ear” (1507—, originally especially Australia and NZ)
Scottish) nut “the head; hair” (1795—)
In this context, slang plays several functions for these youths: the first
is to impress one another and any girls who might happen to be
passing. Slang helps them to fit in with the group. The second is to
exclude passers-by from their conversation, including the policeman
and the eavesdropping journalist. Slang creates in-groups and out-
groups and acts as an emblem of belonging. But the slang in this extract
plays another function too: it provides the journalist and his readers
with a focus for their anxieties about young people. Older people who
complain about failures to obey linguistic rules often worry that deviant
language is associated with deviant behaviour: that if impressionable
young people become accustomed to words that challenge traditional
values and perceptions, their world view will be distorted. Complaints
about slang sometimes express concerns about declining civility and
consideration: what could be more uncivil, after all, than excluding
someone by using words you know they won’t understand?
The next extract, originally from the Detroit Free Post, was re-
printed in an Australian newspaper in 1892:
The young man laid his cigarette down on the hall table while he went in to
interview his father on the financial situation. After a few preliminaries he
said:
4 The Life of Slang
“By the way, pop, can I have a few ‘stamps’ to-day?”

“Postage stamps?” inquired the father innocently.
“No, sir,” was the impatient reply; “I mean ‘scads.’”
“Scads, my son?” inquired the old gentleman in mild astonishment.
Requests for stamps “(paper) money” (1865-1905, US) and scads “money;
(singular) a dollar” (1809-1959, originally US) having failed to produce
the desired results, the son goes on to ask for chink (1573—), dust
(1603—), the ready (1684—, from the adjectival use in ready money),
the stuff (1766-1967), tin (1836-1961), rocks (1837-1977, US), spondulicks
(1856—), sugar (1858—), and soap (1859-1894, US), all to no avail:
“Won’t you never catch on?” exclaimed the young man. “I want the ‘duff ’,
the ‘wherewithal’ don’t you know; the ‘rhino’, the ‘boodle’, plain, ordinary
every-day cash, pop, that’s what I want.”
“Oh,” exclaimed the father in a greatly relieved tone; “here’s a quarter,” and
that’s all the young man got.
The writer appears to run out of good slang synonyms at this stage,
introducing duff “counterfeit money” (1781-1935), the wherewithal
(1809—), boodle “(counterfeit) money; money used for bribery”
(1822—, originally US), and cash (1596—), which may have sounded
slangy in this period, but had once been in general use and is now
colloquial. It isn’t clear whether or how rhino “money” (1688-1935) is
related to the animal (rhinoceros a.1398—, rhino 1870—). Catch on
“to understand; to become aware of” (1882—, originally US) was also
slang in this period.
As in the first extract, this example documents a problem in
communicating between generations, but this young man is using
slang to his father rather than his peers. In this imagined conversa-
tion, ‘Pop’ clearly understands more than he’s letting on. Slang
enables the young men of the first extract to rebel against their elders,
but it also allows their elders to pretend not to understand, which
enables them to complain about the youth of today without acknowl-
edging that they were young once too.
What is Slang? 5
The third extract, written by a British film-reviewer in 1919, looks

at another area of linguistic uneasiness for many speakers of the
English language:
Alias Mike Moran, was particularly interesting for the way in which the
English language was murdered in the sub-titles, which are so essential a
part of the film. English audiences are beginning to get very tired of the
continued use of American slang, much of which is unintelligible to them. It
would be a great boon and a blessing if the phrasing could be drastically
overhauled before the films from the United States are shown here. We
could guess what the ex-convict hero meant when he complained that the
Army had rejected him because he had been “in stir.” But this was easy
compared with such phrases as “Pipe the young sport and his skirt; a dead
easy pick up,” and “Nix, nix, Buddy, this guy’s a friend of mine.” One has a
good deal to put up with nowadays, but surely this kind of thing is a
needless infliction.
stir “prison” (1851—, originally UK) dead “very” (1589—, originally UK)
pipe “to watch; to notice” (1838—, pick-up “a robbery; a theft”
originally UK) (1846-1962, UK) or “a (potential)
sport “a man; mate” (1885—, casual sexual partner” (1871—)
originally Australian) nix “no” (1862—, originally US)
skirt “a woman” (1562+1899—, buddy “a friend” (1788—, originally
originally UK) African American)
Slang creates frictions, misunderstandings, and pretended misunder-

standings between nations as well as between generations. American/
Australian/British people (delete as applicable) use incomprehensible
slang on purpose just to be awkward. Why can’t they talk properly?
What we hate most of all, is when these alien forms are imported into
our own national English. Actually, we all use some American (etc.)
slang words ourselves, but those are fine. It’s the new ones that are
particularly irritating. Talk to even the most fluent slang-using teen-
ager and you’ll find that they look down on the slang used by their
6 The Life of Slang
little brothers and sisters. If it’s new and unfamiliar, most people
won’t like it.
In conflict with this resistance to difference is the ongoing fascina-
tion with the varieties of English spoken around the world. In 2005,
cashing in on the success of a number of British films in the American
market, British Airways created an online British–American dic-
tionary that explained the meaning of words like cheers “goodbye”
(1959—) or “thank you” (1976—), laughing-gear “mouth” (1964—),
peckish “hungry” (1714—, now colloquial), half-four “four thirty”,1
gen “information; facts” (1940—, originally Services’ slang), and loo
defined as “restroom” (1932—, originally upper class). Let’s make a
conversation out of that lot, using some other terms we’ve already
seen. Charles and David are in one of London’s finest taverns:
Charles: There you go. Get your laughing-gear round that, guv.
David: Cheers mate. Down the hatch.
Charles: Stone the crows, it’s half-seven. I’m bally peckish.
David: Where can we get a Ruby Murray round here, mate?
Charles: I’ve got the gen if you’ve got the readies.
David: I need the loo first. Won’t be a mo.
Perhaps this sounds convincing if you’re not a speaker of British

English, but anybody who habitually spoke like this would be drink-
ing alone because of their complete failure to understand the social
rules governing the use of these terms. Another common function of
slang, particularly in the media, is to caricature groups of speakers
without regard to current (or any) reality.
In stark contrast, slang can also be used to symbolize truth and
reality. This Canadian newspaper report recounts an address given, in
1918, by the poet and writer John Masefield, on the subject of ‘The
War and the Future’:
1
Half before a number added half to it in nautical soundings (1809-c.1860), so that
half five meant “five and a half fathoms”, but the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
doesn’t acknowledge its very general use in time keeping since the nineteenth century,
whereby half ten means “ten thirty”.
What is Slang? 7
“It was the day after the landing, April 26,” he said, “and an Australian
captain was up the hill at Anzac. And an Australian major came to him, and
said, ‘Don’t let your men fire to their front for the next half hour, because an
Indian working party has just gone up and might be hit.’ And the captain
thought this odd, as he had seen no Indian working party. The major had
the number 31 on his shoulder strap, and the captain thought this odd, as
only eighteen battalions, from 1 to 18, had landed. And he said to the
major, ‘I say, are you fair dinkum?’ (which means . . . straight goods, on the
level). And the major said ‘Yes, I’m Major Fairdinkum.’ So they shot him for
a spy . . . ”
fair dinkum “honest; on the level” (1894—, usually Australian)
In this extract, to know and use slang is to be genuine, trustworthy,

and reliable. Failure to use and understand slang appropriately can be
fatal, literally in this context. This story wouldn’t work if the inter-
loper had tried to pass himself off as a British major: the guard
couldn’t have expected him to understand the slang used by his
troops, and wouldn’t have dared to address him using it. In an
Australian context, slang is a potent symbol of equality and fraternity.
In Britain, slang has always been more closely tied up with ideas of
social class than it is in other parts of the English-speaking world.
Here a father recounts a dispute with a London cab-driver in 1868:
My son, who had just borrowed what he called “half a skid” of [sic] me,
promptly took up the cudgels, or, in other words, the coarse language of
the streets, and metaphorically smote that cabman hip and thigh. “Were we
such a brace of fools,” he asked with indignant fervour, “as to pay showful
prices for riding in a blessed growler? Did the driver think to ‘flummox’ us
by his lip, because he thought we weren’t fly to him? He, the driver, must
get up earlier and go to bed without getting buffy, which he hadn’t done for
a week of Sundays, before he found that little game would draw in the dibs.
No more tight than we were, wasn’t he?—(with great depth of meaning
this)—then what made him so precious fishy about the gills, if he hadn’t
been out on the batter the night before?”
8 The Life of Slang
skid ?prefiguring squid “a pound” (1902—) buffy “drunk” (1853-1924)

shoful “fake; dishonest” (1846-c.1868) game “a plan” (a.1698—)
blessed “damned” (1806—) dibs “money” (1812-1984)
growler “a four-wheeled cab” (1865-1912) tight “drunk” (1830—)
flummox “to confuse; to trick” (1834—) fishy “seedy; hung-over” (1840-1882)
lip “impertinence” (1803—) the gills “the neck; the cheeks” (1566—)
fly “knowing” (1724—) the batter “a spree” (1837—)
get up early “to be alert” (1870—)
Slang is appropriate for this conversation not just because it allows

the son to demonstrate that he’s no wide-eyed innocent to be easily
cheated. It’s also fighting talk: the son uses slang to express his
indignation verbally instead of physically. But, and it’s the question
his father asks the newspaper’s readers, how did a well-brought-up
and carefully educated young man come to know this slang?
Similarly nicely brought up is Sacha Baron Cohen, whose white
would-be gangsta, Ali G, generated accusations of racism in Britain
and the United States. The Sun dismissed these claims under the
headline ‘If you tinkin’ Ali G is racis you can kiss me, batty boy’:
Dressed from head to toe in Tommy Hilfiger, he’s the white boy from “da
Staines Massive” who affects a black gangsta rapper accent to ask minor
celebrities dumb questions . . . It would take a feeble-minded idiot or a
pretty twisted political agenda to miss the gag.
Slang has long inhabited the area of friction between generations,

nations, and social classes, but now it’s particularly associated with
ethnicity. Through fear of appearing racist or out of touch with the
younger generation, Ali G’s interviewees usually allowed his sexism,
homophobia, and general ignorance to go unchallenged, expecting
nothing better from him. His clothes and speech combined to create
an impression of blackness at odds with the colour of his skin. The
close association now felt between slang and ethnicity is a relatively
recent phenomenon, dating from between the wars in the United
States and exported around the world in more complex forms.
What is Slang? 9
Slang in metaphors
Perhaps the best way to understand how people feel and have felt
about slang is to look at some of the metaphors commonly used to
describe it. The polarization of opinion is also apparent here, with
most types of metaphor being used both for and against slang. When
Edmund Spenser composed his allegorical epic, The Faerie Queene, in
the 1590s, one of his aims was to demonstrate that beautiful poetry
could be written without having to use fancy words from Greek and
Latin. He looked back to earlier English poets for inspiration, describ-
ing Chaucer as a ‘well of English undefiled’ (spelling modernized).
Now the Anglo-Saxons might have taken issue with that, but the idea
that there is a liquid store of pure unspoilt English that can be drawn
upon by speakers and writers is a common one, sometimes in allusion
to this quotation. Sometimes slang is depicted as a torrent or a tide
that carries speakers away. Sometimes it is less powerful, but just as
dangerous: a counter-current to trap the unwary or a pollutant that
seeps into English and dirties it. Liquid metaphors also describe slang
in more positive terms, as a reservoir: a supply of fresh words to
which Standard English can look in times of need.
The English language is also frequently referred to as a plant or a
garden: it’s a living thing that must be tended and nurtured to stop it
reverting to its natural state. Slang terms are weeds that invade what
should be the well-tended pastures of English. They are a burr
sticking to the flower of English, or a fungus growing on the stem.
Slang is a wild fruit grafted onto a tame stock: a source of new vitality,
but only if properly controlled. More positively, slang terms are
flowers from among which the English language plucks only the
best for decoration.
Other writers prefer to depict the English language as a treasure
(usually mentioning Shakespeare at some point): passed on to us by
our ancestors as a common inheritance to be proud of, we have a duty
to preserve it and pass it on in turn. Slang terms are coined as
10 The Life of Slang
counterfeit currency. Those who use slang are characterized by the

poverty of their language. Slang words are exotic treasures brought
from abroad that may turn out to be worthless. Financial metaphors
are also used more positively, with slang seen as a fresh contribution
to the wealth of English.
The relationship between Standard English and slang is also pre-
sented in human terms. If a language is sufficiently virile, it can father
its own slang terms. New words, like children, are evidence of virility,
but illegitimate words are a stain on the family crest. Slang terms are
low-born: illegitimate or orphan children without parentage. Born in
the linguistic slums, these freakish and shifty individuals live outside
the brotherhood of words, always trying to creep into use. Some, but
only the most deserving, will succeed and be adopted, but only when
they have proved themselves useful.
Slang is often depicted in masculine terms. It represents the re-
cruiting grounds of the language, where those born without rank can
impress their superiors and move up in the world. Slang is the
adventurous element of speech: it seeks out treasures and excitement
in strange places. Although English is sometimes depicted as the
father of slang, it has also been described as a chaste female in need
of protection from the virile manhood of its fickle suitor, slang. Slang
is a slime-covered pebble littering the beach of purity: its use by young
women casts doubt on their chastity.
The idea that English should be protected from slang is also
presented in non-gendered metaphors. Slang and its users attack
the English language: they are murderers of the language, delivering
its death blow. They grip the heart of humanity or take the tongue in
their clutches to enslave it. Slang is a fever of adolescence: a sign of
immaturity that will pass without danger. On the other hand, slang
is depicted as the lifeblood of language, a source of new vitality.
The acceptance of a slang term is an instance of the survival of the
fittest: it may have driven Standard English words from existence, but
deservedly so. It was stronger, fitter, and better adapted to the chang-
ing environment.
What is Slang? 11
Language is also commonly described in terms of clothing. To use

Standard English in the appropriate setting is to be decently dressed
for the occasion. Slang terms are bright colours and unusual fashions,
novel and striking at first, but soon becoming threadbare and losing
their charm. Some of these clothing images also play on associations
between slang and licentiousness, in that bright colours and inappro-
priate dress have long been the stock in trade of the prostitute. They
also imply that slang users are foolish, by depicting slang as the garish
and foolish clothes of the jester.
Animal metaphors are less common, but slang users are compared
to parrots, and their slang to the cries of animals: it’s meaningless,
conveying only a limited range of ideas to the listener, and represents
mimicry rather than creativity. The language of an individual who
overuses slang is as lifeless as a string of wet fish. More positively,
English is like a snake that sheds its skin, finding new slang terms to
match its new growth.
Least common of all, though still interesting, are the metaphors
describing slang in terms of taste or in reference to machinery. These
depict slang as a spice or a strong distillation, like whisky: good in
small quantities, but requiring careful use. Slang is the escape valve in
a train that releases pressure to prevent an explosion, but it’s also the
feeder that provides it with fuel. Slang is clearly a subject associated
with heightened anxiety and strong feelings, but we still haven’t
pinned down exactly what it is.
Defining slang
Now you and I know what slang means. Of course we do. Why would
I have written a book about it otherwise? Why would you have started
reading it? But let’s just check that we’re using it in the same way.
The OED lists six different words spelt slang: four are nouns, one a
verb, and one an adjective which is also used as an adverb. Although
it’s interesting that a type of cannon, a long narrow strip of land, and
a watch chain have all also been called a slang, we can put those uses
aside. Slang n3 is the one we’re mainly interested in, along with the
adjective and verb related to it. The OED provides five definitions for
slang n3 that refer to language use, and another six that don’t. Here
are the five, which were first published in 1919, and may have been
rewritten by the time this book comes out:
1. a. The special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or
disreputable character; language of a low and vulgar type. (1756—)
b. The special vocabulary or phraseology of a particular calling or
profession; the cant or jargon of a certain class or period. (1801—)
c. Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of
standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of
current words employed in some special sense. (1818—)
d. Abuse, impertinence. (1805—)
2. Humbug, nonsense. (1762)
This is part of the reason why it is necessary to define what slang is

before we get really stuck into the subject. Slang has been and is still
used to refer to a wide variety of different types of language, not all of
which are covered in these definitions. A book about all of them
would have to cover a lot of ground and would end up not doing
justice to any of it.
But for now let’s stick with the OED definitions. The one my
understanding of slang is closest to is 1c, but to make sense of it we
need to look at what ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’ mean. Standard
English is the variety we learn to write in school because it’s the
most prestigious form (from the perspective of our teachers). It used
to be the variety used in books and newspapers, but lots of writers
now adopt a more informal tone and use a written form more similar
to spoken language. There isn’t an impermeable barrier around
Standard English, though some commentators would like there to
be: when informal words and phrases are used often enough, they can
become an unremarkable and accepted part of the standard.
Most speakers of English don’t use Standard English in everyday
conversation. Someone who spoke like a book at all times would find
What is Slang? 13
it difficult to have a normal social or family life. How would they talk
to their partner at intimate moments? Would they address their
children only in the standard? Would they speak to their dog only
in grammatically complete sentences? If they did, it’s probable that
the partner, the children, and quite possibly also the dog would drift
away towards people that were . . . well . . . more fun. It’s natural that
we should alter our language according to where we are, what we’re
doing, and who we’re talking to. Most people speak carefully when
they’re in formal situations, but in many informal situations a more
relaxed style of speech makes a better impression. Normal speech is
colloquial (from Latin col- “together” and loqui “to speak”). By speaking
in colloquial English, we indicate that we are warm, friendly, approach-
able individuals who want to connect with other human beings on a
personal level. We can understand slang to be ‘highly colloquial’ in the
sense that it’s further away from Standard English than colloquial
language. It’s acceptable in fewer places and used by fewer people.
Some types of English have enough peculiarities in grammar and
word order to qualify as registers of English. If I were writing in an
elevated poetic register, I mote elect t’employ strange words ne’er
seen, and e’en their proper shape and order disarray. To write in a
more colloquial register, I’ll, like, use more contractions, and that.
Slang isn’t a register: slang is a label for individual uses of individual
terms which are inserted into the appropriate slots in standard or
colloquial English sentences. This means that it’s often possible to
guess at the meaning of an unfamiliar slang word from its context.
Some writers describe pronunciation, grammatical constructions,
word order, and even spellings as slang, or use slanguage (1879—,
originally jocular) to encompass all of these features. I’m sticking with
the OED in using slang only with reference to words, though I’m
willing to concede that pronunciation (and so on) can be slangy. Slang
terms are usually used according to the grammatical rules of the
standard language: almost all English slang plurals are formed by
adding an -s, for example, and most slang past tenses by adding an
-ed. When we use slang words, we don’t put them in a different place
in the sentence than we would their Standard English equivalents. It’s

unusual to find slang alternatives for words like the, two, in, or
because, though they do occur. Far from considering slang as a
language in its own right, some writers insist that a Standard English
equivalent must exist before a term can be labelled as slang: that slang
lies in the rejection of a more formal alternative. This position is
supported by the fact that writers and dictionary-makers didn’t pay
much attention to the subject of slang until the eighteenth century,
which is when written English became established in more or less the
form that we now use it, but clearly slang-speakers talk about specific
subjects in such detail that Standard English can’t possibly supply all
of the necessary synonyms.
My second problem with the OED definition is the emphasis on the
novelty of slang. It’s true that some slang enjoys only a brief period of
use before it becomes entirely obsolete, but so do some Standard
English and colloquial terms. For example, obcaecate “blind” (1568
+1579), seplasiary “a perfumer” (1650-1658), and macaberesque
“macabre” (1876+1909) were all short-lived terms, but they weren’t
slang. By contrast, some slang terms have enjoyed a very long life,
including duds “clothes” (c.1440—), neck “to swallow” (1518—), stiff
“a corpse” (c.1790—), and jerkwater “insignificant” (1890—, US).
Slang is short-lived in the same way that the sea turtle is short-
lived: of the hundreds hatching on a beach¸ many won’t even make
it to the sea, but some will enjoy a longer life than many humans.
There’ll be more on turtles later.
Probably the most common fate for slang words that continue in
use is that they become colloquial or even standard.2 Balmy was slang
2
If you’re tempted to fling this book aside in disgust at my inclusion of terms that
aren’t slang in your usage, please think back to this. Lots of what was once slang isn’t
slang any more. Occasionally I’ve tried to indicate when a term moved from being
slang to colloquial, but this is a perilous pastime. These dates are approximate and
based on the evidence available to me. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I would
revise these dates at once; in the face of unsupported assertion, I would shrug and say
whatever (1973—, originally US).
What is Slang? 15
when it was first documented in the sense “foolish; weak-minded”

(1851—), but it’s now colloquial in British English with the meaning
“slightly crazy; eccentric” or “unlikely to succeed”. It was originally
derived from balm “an aromatic ointment”, but is now more usually
spelt barmy (1892—), under the influence of barm “the froth that
forms on top of malt liquors”. Snide “insinuating; sneering” (1859—)
began as slang but is now found in wider conversational or even
standard use. Mortar-board “a hat worn at graduation” (1854—) and
tip “to give money in return for a service rendered” (1702—) were
both slang when they were first used. Snob “an individual who
despises others for their real or imagined inferiority” (1911—) devel-
oped from the sense “a social climber” (1848-1882), which in turn
developed from the meaning “a vulgar or ostentatious person” (1838-
1859) or “a lower-class person” (1831-1852). Its earliest uses were in
the sense “a townsman” (c.1796-1865, Cambridge University), and “a
shoemaker; a shoemaker’s apprentice” (1781-1896). All of these
senses were felt to be slang, but the current sense of snob is colloquial.
Bob “five pence” (used with the sense “a shilling” 1772—) was
recently used in an advert for McDonalds with the sense “a pound”,
probably from its use in contexts like that’ll save you a few bob, in
which it is used to refer to money in general. When speakers of British
English complained, a spokesperson fell back on the excuse that non-
standard words tend to change in meaning. Tsk! There’ll be more on
McDonalds later.
Some terms retain their slang status across long periods. Pig has
been used with reference to police officers since the beginning of the
nineteenth century (c.1800—), but it remains slang: it hasn’t become
standard or even colloquial in that sense. Buck “a dollar” (1856—) has
enjoyed slang status in the United States for a century and a half,
despite a fall-off in use at the beginning of the twentieth century. On
the other hand, usages that were once perfectly unremarkable in
Standard English can become restricted to informal language or
slang. Examples include tool “the penis” (1553—), lamps “the eyes”
(1590—, now dated), and doll “a woman, particularly an unintelligent
one; an attractive woman” (1778—), all of which were once Standard

English or even poetic.
Perhaps the OED definition of slang refers to language rather than
words because it’s quite unusual for a word to be found only in slang.
Many slang terms develop from the standard language, in English at
least, and Standard English words that include one or more slang
senses are not at all uncommon. For example, wicked isn’t slang when
it’s used with the sense “extremely bad; evil” (c.1275—), but the sense
“extremely good; excellent” (1842—) is slang. Stoned has, over the
centuries, been used to refer to individuals killed by stoning (1483), to
male animals fortunate enough to have retained their testicles (1513-
1694), and to fruit both with (1513—) and without (1728—) their
stones, as well as with several other senses. None of these is slang. It
wouldn’t be correct to say that stoned is a slang word. However, when
it’s used to describe individuals incapacitated by alcohol or drugs
(1951—), stoned is slang.
Sometimes there are only fine shades of meaning between stan-
dard, colloquial, and slang meanings. In British English, dodgy is
standard with reference to a cunning individual who evades detection
or capture (e.g. ‘You’ll never catch him. He’s too dodgy for you’),
colloquial with reference to something difficult, dangerous, or unreli-
able (e.g. ‘This is dodgy weather for driving’), but slang with reference
to something stolen or criminal (‘The getaway car’s dodgy, but it
won’t let you down’). Perhaps, then, we should talk about slang
senses, rather than slang words.
In fact, even talking about slang senses isn’t quite precise enough.
The same sense of the same word may be slang for one speaker and
not another. For example, hang a right or left “turn right/left” is
colloquial in the United States (1966—), but slang in Britain. Brilliant
“excellent” (1947—) may be colloquial in Britain, but it appears to be
slang in the United States. But even statements like these are unreli-
able. Just because hang a right is slang in Britain at the moment,
doesn’t mean that it always will be. In 20 or 30 years time, it might
have become part of normal colloquial English in Britain.
What is Slang? 17
Rather than entering wider colloquial or even standard use, some

slang terms become dated in the use of people belonging to a partic-
ular age group, sometimes to the great embarrassment of their chil-
dren. These same terms might later change in status again. I can say
with reasonable confidence that when I was a teenager during the
early 1980s, I didn’t use cool to express approbation (“fashionable;
attractive” (1876—), “excellent” (1898—), “safe; unproblematic”
(1951—)). It sounded to me, at that time, dated and absurdly Ameri-
can. The Fonz was cool, Snoopy was cool, and once I grew out of
them, coolness wasn’t something I aspired to. I cringed when I heard
adults using it. Didn’t they know how stupid they sounded? But it
doesn’t feel dated or American anymore: my students and my children
use it, and so do I, though I try not to overdo it. Groovy, used as an
adjective (1937—) or exclamation (1967—), seems to be somewhere
along a similar path. They sounded dated when I was a teenager, and
still sound dated to me, but they’re being revived in British slang. It
would be impossible to date these changes in status definitively: my
own feeling that cool was uncool in the 1980s probably wasn’t univer-
sal, even among British people my age. Perhaps I felt that cool was
dated between 1980 and 1985 (I apologise for not making a note of the
precise dates at the time), while other British people avoided it as early
as 1975 or not until as late as 1985. Perhaps cooler people than me
continued using cool the whole time, entirely unperturbed by anyone
else’s opinions. That is, after all, what being cool is all about.
Slang-users
This is, perhaps, an appropriate moment to say something about the
people who use slang. Slang-users are sometimes dismissed as uned-
ucated or unintelligent: they use slang because they have a limited
vocabulary: they don’t know any better words. This is, of course, all
my eye and Betty Martin (1781—), bosh (1834—), rot (1846—), tosh
(1892—), crap (1898—), bullshit (1915—), bollocks (1919—), and
pants (1994—, UK). An individual whose slang vocabulary includes
banging, mega, sound as a pound, super cool, wicked, and wicked bad
undoubtedly also knows plenty of colloquial and standard words with
the same meaning, like good, great, fantastic, wonderful, excellent, and
amazing, several of which were slang themselves when they were first
used. Someone who knew all of these terms would probably be able to
select one appropriate to a given context without having to think
about it. Slang doesn’t drive other words from your head: it merely
offers a range of alternatives that are more appropriate to less formal
contexts. The slang-user may well have a wider vocabulary than their
Standard-English-speaking critic. While it may be true that some
unintelligent people use slang, there’s no shortage of stupid people
using Standard English.
According to the OED definition, slang often involves the use of
established words in different ways, which implies that the first users
of slang terms either didn’t know the correct use of a word, or that
they deliberately and creatively subverted its normal meaning and
use. If the first explanation were correct, prostrate would be slang
when it’s used for prostate (1686—), bona fides (1845+1885, from
Latin “good faith”) would be slang when it’s used as a plural (1942—),
and hopefully would be slang when it is used in the sense “it is hoped”
(1932—) instead of with the meaning “in a hopeful manner” (c.1639—).
These aren’t slang because we can’t identify the social group they belong
to, and since language just does change, there comes a point when even
the most repressive judges have to stop calling changes in use wrong.
So is it the case that slang-users are particularly creative and inno-
vative individuals, who mould language to their own ends and refuse to
be restricted by convention? Well, no. Slang-users are no more inno-
vative and creative than anyone else: they didn’t come up with these
usages, after all. The creators of slang terms are, by definition, creative,
but the same could be said for creators of Standard English terms. Far
more difficult than creating terms is getting other people to use them.
This is another subject we’re going to come back to.
The OED doesn’t mention one important feature of the way slang
is used today: its strong association with teenagers and young adults.
What is Slang? 19
We go to school and then perhaps on to university with people of our

own age. During this time we do most of our socializing with people
our own age. For this reason, we tend to learn our slang from people
our own age. This has probably contributed to the sense that slang has
a limited shelf life, because teenagers will always seek to distinguish
themselves not only from their parents, but also from their older (and
younger) siblings and cousins. For example, attractive males are a
common topic of conversation among teenage girls. A woman who
was a teenager in the 1950s might have called an attractive man a
dreamboat (1944—), but by the 1970s, when her own daughter was
dating, the mother’s peers would probably be the only ones still using
that word, which would therefore have come to mean, for their
daughters, “the type of man who would appeal to your mother”.
The daughter, in contrast, might be looking out for a hunk (1942—).
It wouldn’t matter that hunk is actually older than dreamboat. The
important thing, in this context, is that it’s not a term her mother uses.
It’s only relatively recently, after WWII, that young people have
been considered the main users and creators of slang. Before that
point, only well-defined subgroups of young people were considered
likely to be slang users. Public schoolboys and wealthy young men
were written up as the most fluent slang users in nineteenth-century
Britain (people at the top of the social scale rather than the bottom, it
should be noted); the infantry were depicted as fluent slang users
during WWI (at the bottom); with RAF officers apparently using the
most during WWII (back up to the top again). These were all young
men, but they weren’t considered representative of young people or
young men as a whole.
Slang, abuse, and swearing

We’ve distinguished slang from Standard English and colloquial lan-
guage, but it’s also necessary to define its lowest reaches. In 1888, an
Australian newspaper reported a London courtroom judgement:
A plasterer who had saved £500 and therewith purchased two houses
prosecuted a member of the Salvation Army for slander. At an army
meeting at Uxbridge it was alleged that the defendant had suddenly startled
the congregation by standing up and pointing at the plaintiff, saying:—“That
man there has got two houses, and he has got them by roguery or thievery,
or he has got them out of some broken down lawyer; and the moment
he dies he will go straight to hell; he is regularly cast out from heaven” . . .
Mr. Justice Manisty ruled that . . . “The words complained of were low,
vulgar abuse—slang, and nothing else; but they did not impute any indict-
able offence, and therefore were not actionable. If everything of this kind
were brought into court, there would be no end of actions for slander.” This
decision immensely widens the liberty of invective. It is no doubt a
necessary liberty of speech to be able to predict the damnation of all
and sundry, but it is odd that it is lawful publicly to accuse a man of
acquiring property by thievery.
OED definition 1d reveals that slang has been used to refer to “abuse;
impertinence”. As in this example, however, a slanging match can
take place entirely in Standard English. Many slang words are abu-
sive, but many abusive words are not slang. For example, although
I can insult you in slang by calling you a twat (1922—) or an arsehole
(1949—), I can also insult you colloquially as a cretin (1933—) or
moron (1917—), both of which once had precise medical meanings.
Or I could use Standard English and call you a fool (c.1275—) or an
idiot (c.1375—). Although a lot of insulting slang does exist, it isn’t
the meaning of a word that makes it slang.
Another group of words that are sometimes considered to be slang
are swear words. Swear word is, in itself, harder to define than you
might imagine, and a range of related terms are used with varying
degrees of precision: swearing, profanity, blasphemy, oaths, vulgarity,
cussing. There are at least two high-profile four-letter words that we
might all agree are swear words, but the water becomes much murkier
as soon as we move away from them. If I realized that I had acciden-
tally left my children stranded in a car park, I would probably say
‘Fuck!’, and most people would agree that this is swearing. If, because
What is Slang? 21
1 Defining swearing: Mark Parisi, ‘Dam! Dam! Dam!’
I was with a delicate elderly relative, I said ‘Bugger!’ or ‘Damn!’ instead,

these phrases would be playing exactly the same communicative and
emotional function, but you might consider that one (or both) of them
isn’t swearing because it doesn’t offend you. A definition of swearing
based on explicitness or offensiveness is entirely subjective, so it’s better
to define swearing by its grammatical and communicative functions:
damn, bugger, and fuck are all swearing when they’re used in this way.
Fortunately, we don’t need to spend too much time agonizing over
what is or isn’t swearing, as long as it’s understood that swearing isn’t
necessarily slang.
Bloody was once a shocking word. It was used largely by the
working classes and caused their betters to shudder with horror. It
was so shocking that after George Bernard Shaw had an actress utter
it during one of his plays, the title of the play came to be used as a
substitute for bloody: not Pygmalion likely (1914—). Really, it did! But
although bloody is still used as a swear word, it would be hard to argue
that it’s now slang. Here’s an account of a conversation with Robin
Hobbs, a cricketer:
While I was having a chat with Hobbsy a spectator came up and said:
“Hello, Robin, do you think Essex will win today?”
A droll Hobbs replied: “It will be a bloody good game if they do.” Hobbs,
68, who played seven times for England, appeared for Essex between
1961–79.
Bloody isn’t slang anymore in Britain, but it’s still a swear word.
Everyone knows it, and most people use it, particularly when they’re
trying not to be offensive. This would once have been unthinkable
and, however unthinkable it may seem, fuck will eventually go the
same way. Swearing and slang often occur together (like marijuana
and tobacco), but it is still useful to distinguish between the two.
Identifying slang
It only remains to test your ability to identify what is and isn’t slang.
Here are some example sentences. Have a go at deciding whether or
not they are slang before you read on:
1. They were tremendous.
2. Why don’t you ring off?
3. He’s awesome.
You didn’t fall for that did you? They’re not slang sentences because
slang isn’t a language. Would it be easier to answer, ‘Which of these
sentences includes slang?’ Go on, have another look at them . . .
Actually, you’d be unwise to answer this question too. I haven’t
given you enough information. Whether these words are slang de-
pends on the date and the context. In example 1, tremendous is
What is Slang? 23
colloquial now in the sense “extraordinarily good”, but it was slang

when it was first used in this way (1812—). Its rather less common
original sense, “such as to excite trembling” (1632—), has never been
slang.
In example 2, ring off could be intended with the sense “to signal by
the use of a bell that a telephone conversation has ended”, which
appears to have been slang during the 1880s, but had become an
established technical sense by the end of the 1890s. In comparison,
the meaning “to end a telephone call by replacing the receiver or
pressing a button” would have been slang at around that time, though
it’s now an everyday colloquialism in Britain (with hang up more
common in the United States). Ring off is also used with the sense “to
stop talking” (1896-1953, Australian and New Zealand slang), usually
as an imperative.
Awesome, in example 3, is Standard English if it means “full of
awe” (1598—) or “inspiring awe” (1671—). The OED labels it as
colloquial, originally and chiefly American, in the sense “remarkable;
prodigious” (1920—). Only the sense “marvellous; great” (1975—) is
labelled as slang. However, the OED labels the related interjection,
used to express enthusiastic approval (1979—), as colloquial and
originally American. I’d say it was still slang in British English.
The point is that it isn’t possible to point at a word out of context
and say ‘that’s slang’. Words don’t have slanghood: there’s no state of
slangness inherent in a word or even in a sense of a word. It’s only
possible to identify an individual use of a word in a given context as
slang. To work out whether these examples were slang or not, you’d
have needed to know who was speaking, who they were speaking to,
where they were, what they were doing, when they were speaking, and
what they meant.
So can we turn to a slang dictionary and say ‘whatever’s in there is
slang’? Unfortunately not, not really—the relationship between words
in a dictionary and living slang is equivalent to the relationship
between butterflies in a display case and butterflies in a garden. The
words and senses listed in a dictionary have been pinned down at a
particular moment in time. Even if they were correctly labelled, which

is by no means always the case, there’s no guarantee that the compiler
understood the word slang as we are using it, and there’s no guarantee
that the label is still accurate.
You might wonder how it’s possible to write a history of slang
under these circumstances. How can we study slang we can’t observe
first-hand? On the whole, we have to rely on dictionaries and the
slang used in plays and books, but it’s important to remember that
writers often use words with deliberate effect in creating characters
and relationships. This isn’t slang: it’s a representation of slang, but it
can seem so convincing that later writers are influenced by it. Like
early European writers whose descriptions of the rhino and the oryx
merged into the mythical unicorn, derivative slang writers sometimes
produce something that is both far more pleasing than the original
and also entirely false.
Conclusions
What should have become clear by now is not only that slang is a
slippery word, but also that slang itself is slippery. Slang words change
in meaning and status, but they may also have varied meanings and
statuses at any one time. My speech is normal, and I’m sure yours is
too: it’s everyone else who speaks differently. This provides some
explanation for the varied uses to which the word slang has been (and
still is) put. It’s often used either very loosely to mean “not Standard
English” or more narrowly, but less helpfully, to mean “any feature of
language I don’t like”. Many of the writers I’ll quote throughout the
course of this book use ‘slang’ in this way, to stigmatize the people
who use it, and to some extent slang is in the eye of the beholder. For
me, slang is a neutral term. It’s identified by its social contexts and
communicative functions. The next few chapters are going to explore
why people use slang, where it comes from, and why.
What is Slang? 25
Endnotes
Michael Adams, Slang: The People’s Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009) offers a much more detailed answer to the question ‘What is Slang?’
American slang is well served by this and several other accessible and excellent
books, including Tom Dalzell’s Flappers 2 Rappers: American Youth Slang
(Darby, PA: Diane Publishing, 1996). The conversation of the Adelaide hooligans
was reported in ‘Conversations in Slang’, The Advertiser (Adelaide), 27 Jun. 1906,
8, and the conversation between a father and son is from ‘Modern American
Slang’, The Queenslander (Brisbane), 11 Jun. 1892, 1134. Alias Mike Moran is
reviewed in ‘Need of a Slang Dictionary’, The Times (London), 23 Jun. 1919, 18.
The British Airways glossary was described in ‘Multimedia News Release – Don’t
be ‘Naff’ – Learn to Use ‘Chuffed’, ‘Laughing Gear’, ‘Half Four’ and Dozens of
other British Slang Words before your London Holiday’, PR Newswire US, 4 May
2005. A spy masquerading as a major and a cheating cab-driver are described in
‘Betrayed by Slang’, Alderson News, 11 Apr. 1918, 3, and ‘Slang’, Daily News, 25
Sept. 1868, n.p. Also quoted are Ally Ross, ‘If You Tinkin’ Ali G is Racis You Can
Kiss Me, Batty Boy’, The Sun, 12 Jan. 2000, n.p.; Edmund Spenser, The Faerie
Queene (London: William Ponsonbie, 1590), Book IV, Canto II; and Paul
Weaver, and others, ‘County Cricket Blog – as it Happened’, Guardian, 20 Jul.
2010 <http://guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2020/jul/20/country-cricket-live-blog>.
Metaphors were collected from articles about slang accessed through Nexis,
British Newspapers 1600-1900 <http://www.bl.uk/eresources/newspapers/
colindale2.html>; Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers <http://
chroniclingamerica.loc.gov>: National Library of Australia, Australia Trove
<http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper>; The Australian <http://www.theaustralian
.com.au>; and The Times Digital Archive <http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
archive>. The list of slang expressions of approval is from a Leicester Online Slang
Glossary compiled in 2009 by Julia Penfold <http://www.le.ac.uk/ee/glossaries>.
A much longer and broader history of cool is provided in Dick Pountain and
David Robbins, Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude (London: Reaktion, 2000).
The article ‘Slang Not Slander’, The Queenslander (Brisbane) 21 Apr. 1888, 628,
which describes the acquittal of an over enthusiastic Salvation Armyist, cites the
Pall Mall Gazette as its ultimate source.
2 Spawning
The usual place to begin the task of tracing the origins of a word
(its etymology) is with the earliest available examples of its use. The
word tooth, for instance, is used in lots of texts in Old English (OE),
the language of the Anglo-Saxons and the direct ancestor of Modern
English. Old Frisian and Old Saxon, languages spoken on the Euro-
pean mainland, were closely related to OE. The Old Frisian word for
tooth was toth or tond; the Old Saxon was tand. Because there are
similar forms in languages closely related to OE, we can deduce that
the Anglo-Saxons probably brought the word tooth with them from
the continent when they settled in Britain in the fifth century. Tooth is
also related, more distantly, to Latin dentem and French dent. The
differences between tooth and dent conform to patterns of change
seen in many other words with similar histories, and this confirms
our deductions about how the word tooth came to be in English.
English acquired the word dental from Latin (or possibly French) in
around 1599. Its earliest occurrences in English are in medical texts,
and this suggests that it was originally a word used among learned
men (learned women being rather scarce at the time). English
acquired dentist from French in around 1759. In the earliest quota-
tion for dentist in the OED, the word is described as a fancy French
Spawning 27
substitute for the perfectly good English tooth drawer. Dandelion is

derived from the French dent de lion “lion’s tooth”, describing the
jagged edges of its petals.
Now, knowing this much about the relationships between tooth,
dental, dentist, and dandelion, you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that
the word dent “a hollow impression” belongs to the same word
family. To understand how this meaning developed, you need only
picture the dent left in a car as a bite mark, with the jagged edges of
the metal representing teeth marks. Convinced? I hope not: the ear-
liest recorded use of dent with the sense “an indentation” is from 1565
(before dental or dentist), and it can be traced back through closely
related senses and through various spellings to the OE dynt “a stroke
or blow with a weapon”. Dent can’t be related to dentist and dental.
It was all very well as a theory, but the evidence didn’t back it up.
So, if you want to trace the origins of a word, you look first at the
earliest examples available and compare them with forms found in
English and in likely source languages. Sometimes the context or
the type of text gives you clues about where to look: for words in a
scientific text from the seventeenth century, we might start with
possible Latin roots, but for words in an Indian travelogue, we
would probably start with Sanskrit or Hindi. The date of the earliest
example would also influence which possible source languages we
would look at, and common sense is very useful here. For instance,
it would be hard to produce a convincing argument for the Native
American origins of an English word that was used in the medieval
period. Once you’ve located a likely source, you check that the form of
the word fits in with what you know about changes in pronunciation
and spelling from the history of other words borrowed from the same
source language at the same time. Finally, you’d want there to be
some similarity of meaning between the English word and the word
you’re suggesting as a source. Words aren’t usually borrowed with a
completely different sense. You can only be sure of an etymology if
these types of evidence all coincide. Alternatively, you could rely on
the conclusions of scholars who’ve already done all the work, and
consult the OED, which is what I’ve done for the etymologies
provided in this book wherever possible.1
Slang etymology
A text-based approach to etymology is all very well if you have lots of
written examples of words in use, but it becomes rather more difficult
when you’re dealing with slang. Traditionally, slang tended to belong
in speech. The earliest written examples of a word might date from
ten, twenty, thirty (who knows how many?) years after its first use in
conversation. In his Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English
(1937), Eric Partridge based his dates on the assumption that slang
was always in circulation for a decade or more before it was written
down: where he has a citation from 1880, he’ll say the term has been
in use since around 1870 or 1860 or even the middle of the nineteenth
century. Beware of Partridge!
Another problem is that when you learn a word by hearing it
rather than by seeing it written, you have to guess at the spelling,
which is a shame, because spelling can provide useful confirmation of
relationships between words. For example, even if we pronounce
forehead to rhyme with horrid, as in the nursery rhyme, the spelling
reminds us that it is the fore (front) part of the head.
When we learn a word by reading, we learn how to spell it. When
we learn a Standard English word by hearing it, we can usually find
out how to spell it by looking it up in a dictionary or asking a teacher,
but with slang terms that might not be possible. This is fine, because
you probably won’t need to write them down in a forum where people
will care about the spelling (though toilet-door readers can be very
judgemental). There’s often some variation in the written form of
1
OED editors usually offer the results of their etymological research but not the
workings out. Readers sometimes assume that the proposed etymology they believe in
hasn’t been considered, though it probably will have been. Discussion pages on
wikipedia sometimes preserve arguments about etymology, and the ones for big
apple and fuck offer an insight into the persistence of unproven etymological theories.
Spawning 29
slang words before the spelling becomes stabilized. For example, in

British English the word prat “an idiot” (1955—) is sometimes spelt
<pratt> under the influence of the unrelated but unfortunate sur-
name. Prat “a buttock; the buttocks” (1567—) was used in Britain
until the nineteenth century, and survives in pratfall “a comedy fall”
(1939—, originally theatrical). Bloke “a man” (1838—) was some-
times written <bloak> when it was first recorded, presumably by
analogy with words like oak and cloak. While we are casting around
for comparisons on which to base our spelling, it’s easy to assume that
a slang term is related to a similar sounding word. For example, when
you hear the word pot “marijuana” (1938—), you might assume it’s
related to the Standard English term for containers in which plants are
grown. This is going to influence the way you spell the sounds you’ve
heard, but someone else, hearing those same sounds, particularly in an
American accent, might assume that it should be spelt <pod> (re-
corded with the sense “marijuana” from 1952—) because it’s derived
from the pods of a plant. There’s no evidence that pot “marijuana” is
related to either of these words, and actually it’s the buds that are
harvested, not the pods, but assumptions underlying these spelling
choices complicate the earliest evidence of the word’s use in English.
The fact that it can be hard to determine the origins of slang words
shouldn’t stop us from trying. A great many slang words are derived
from Standard English, and it’s often possible to trace their develop-
ment through closely related senses. For example, the adjective gay
was adopted into English from French in the fourteenth century, and
the OED records its use with a variety of senses in standard English
and slang, including:
1. Noble, beautiful, excellent (c.1325-1802)
2. a. Bright or lively-looking, colourful (a.1375—)
b. Showily dressed (a.1387—)
3. a. Carefree, light-hearted, merry (c.1400—)
4. a. Wanton; lascivious (c.1405-a.1450)
b. Dedicated to pleasure, uninhibited, promiscuous (1597—)
c. euphemistic (Of a woman) living by prostitution (?1795-1967)
d. originally US slang (Of men, at first, then also women) homosex-

ual (1941—)
e. slang Foolish, stupid; socially inappropriate (1978—)
It’s clear, particularly in a number of ambiguous examples since 1922,

that the “homosexual” sense (4d) developed from the “dedicated to
pleasure” sense (4b). Individuals dedicated to pleasure are likely to
associate with those occupied in providing it, which explains the
development of sense 4c. Gay people were those whose desire for
sexual pleasure flew in the face of social acceptability and whose social
gatherings were also characterized by their disregard for probity and
convention. At the same time, many of the ambiguous examples refer
to gay clothes and extravagant behaviour, and could therefore have
2 Not so glad to be gay: John Leech, ‘The Great Social Evil’, Punch,
10 Jan. 1857, 114.
Spawning 31
been influenced by the “showily dressed” sense (2b). In the early

twentieth century, male prostitutes could be described as gay with
reference to their sexuality (4d) and their profession (4c), as well as,
perhaps, their behaviour (4b) and clothes (2b). The precise connota-
tions intended by individual users in specific contexts can’t be recap-
tured, let alone the interpretations made by individual hearers and
readers, but the fact that it is so difficult to draw clear lines between
these senses confirms beyond doubt that all these senses of gay are
related to one another.
Slang created by changes in meaning

One of the commonest sources of slang is the figurative, extended, or
narrowed use of Standard English terms. Often the difference
between slang and standard senses will be fairly small. For example,
bowsprit “nose” (1690-1935) makes perfect sense if you know that a
ship’s bowsprit is the bit that sticks out in front. The head is thicker
than the neck, so it has been described as a knob (1725-1974); it’s at
the top of the body, like a garret (1788-1939); it’s round and hard to
break, like a nut (a.1790—). For the same reason, knob has also been
used with the sense “the head of the penis” (1888/94—) and “the
penis” (c.1910—), and these meanings appear to have ousted the
“head” sense in British English. Nut has also been used to mean
“(the head of) the penis” (1538—) as well as “a testicle” (1837/8—),
this last usually in the plural, for obvious reasons. Similar comparisons
underlie slang references to the anus as a back door (1592—), the penis
as a maypole (1607-1788), and the hand as a flipper (1812—).
Although figurative applications of Standard English words create
numerous slang uses, this isn’t the only possible semantic develop-
ment, by any means. Standard meanings are sometimes entirely
reversed in slang usage. Nasty (1834—), bad (1880—), mean
(1890—), and ill (1986—) are examples of negative terms that have
been used to express enthusiastic approval. If speakers of Standard
English disapprove, the slang-user will approve. Changes also occur
in the opposite direction. Unreliable or unintelligent statements

might still be met with an ironic that’s a good one (1813—). If the
slang-user approves, speakers of Standard English will disapprove.
Having been used as a coded reference to homosexuality and become
a symbol of the unapologetic assertion and acceptance of homosex-
uality, to the point that gay is probably now colloquial or even
Standard English in its “homosexual” sense (4d), gay has since
acquired newly negative connotations (4e).
Sometimes a change in the meaning of one word will produce
changes in the meaning of associated terms. For example, instead of
treating the reversal in meaning of wicked, bad, and the others as
unrelated, we could consider them all as part of the same process:
{Standard English term of disapproval} ! {slang term of approval}
Another example of linked changes in meaning arises in the overlap

between words referring to royalty and homosexuality. Neither queen
“a gay man” (1919—) nor throne “a lavatory” (1922—) was restricted
to gay slang, but they opened the door to a range of related terms.
Bruce Rodgers documented gay slang used across the United States,
and particularly in San Francisco, in The Queens’ Vernacular (1972).
He listed abdicate “to leave a public toilet following the arrival of the
police”, ball-gown “a man’s suit”, crown “a tiara worn by a drag
queen”, crown jewels “the male genitals” (1971—), enthroned “sitting
on a public toilet and cruising for sexual partners”, prince “an attrac-
tive male homosexual”, princepessa “a delicate, attention-seeking
male homosexual”, queen of diamonds “a male homosexual wearing
jewellery”, queen of hearts “a male homosexual heart-breaker”, regal
or royal “haughty”, and tiara “any hat worn by a homosexual male.”
These terms might not have been frequent or widespread, but they
demonstrate that any word undergoing semantic change has the
potential to pull related terms in its wake, and that anyone who
knows the more common terms will be in a position to interpret
the rest.
Spawning 33
Slang created by changes in function

Slang words sometimes arise from Standard English words used not
in a new sense, but with a different grammatical function. For exam-
ple, although the verb ask is Standard English in the sense “to make a
request”, ask is also used as a noun meaning “a request” (1987—,
originally Australian sporting). The noun beef has given rise to several
slang verbal senses, largely originating in American usage, including
“to put more muscle into” (1860), “to add vigour or importance to”
(1941—, usually with up), “to slaughter an animal for beef” (1869-
1934), and “to complain” (1865—). Examples of grammatical crea-
tivity from my students’ observations of contemporary slang include
the use of the adjective immense as an interjection expressing
approval (1771) and of the adjective bad used as a noun meaning
“mistake; fault” (1986—, in phrases like my bad). Grammatical flexi-
bility is common in Standard English as well as slang.
Usually words originate in their uninflected form, without endings,
so that if we encountered the unfamiliar nouns teacher or teaching, or
the adjective teaching, we would be on safe ground if we assumed that
a verb, teach, also existed. When this assumption is mistaken, new
words can be created by a process called back-formation. For exam-
ple, the verb burgle (1872—) originated long after burglary (1532/3—)
and burglar (1541—). Pea (1666—) arose from the assumption that
the earlier form, pease (OE—, still found in titles of dishes, like pease
pudding), was always plural. Slang and colloquial examples of back-
formation include flake “an eccentric or crazy person” (1959—,
chiefly US), apparently from flaky “eccentric; crazy” (1959—, chiefly
US), cross-dress “to wear the clothes of the opposite sex” (1966—)
from cross-dressing “transvestism” (1911—), and emote “to display
the emotions” (1917—, originally US) from emotion “a feeling (of
pleasure, fear, etc.)” (1808—).
Words can also be generated from proper nouns: from the names
of people and places. Standard English examples include sandwich
“a snack consisting of two slices of bread and a filling” (1762—),

apparently named after the snacking fourth Earl of Sandwich. Ched-
dar cheese was first recorded in a.1661 with specific reference to a
cheese produced in the town of Cheddar, but it’s now more widely
used for this type of cheese, no matter where it’s made. Slang terms
derived from specific personal and place names include joseph “a
cloak” (1648-1861), named after the biblical owner of the technicol-
our dreamcoat, Mae West “an inflatable life jacket” (1940—), named
after the large-breasted actress, and both brummagem (1637—, now
infrequently used) and brum (1881-1966), meaning “counterfeit;
fake” and derived from the name of the West Midlands city,
Birmingham.
Proper nouns can also be used generically: we don’t have to look
for a specific male called Jack after whom the picture card was named
in around 1675, nor for an individual female called Dolly who gave
her name to the children’s toy in around 1790. Slang terms derived
from names include betty “a crowbar” (1648-1777), oliver “the moon”
(1747-1928), and jemmy “a crowbar” (1808—, from a pet form for
James).
Brand names are also sometimes used as words in their own right.
Hoover, established as a proprietary name in 1927, has long been used
to refer to vacuum cleaners generically. If you worry about whether
it’s possible to hoover with a Dyson, you might want to consider a
career in corporate law. Losing control of a proprietary name can
have serious financial implications, and McDonalds are notoriously
vigorous in pursuing commercial and charitable concerns using the
Mc- prefix. McDonalds asked the publishers of a Merriam–Webster
Collegiate Dictionary to remove the definition McJob “a low-paying
dead-end job” (1986—), on the grounds that it was insulting to
their highly motivated and generously paid workforce. Slang adop-
tions of proprietary names include hoover (up) “to inhale (cocaine)”
(1980/2—, originally US), Special K “ketamine” (1986—), and nugget
“boot polish” (1903-1986, NZ and Australia, not slang in later use).
Spawning 35
Slang created by changes in form

Standard English words can also be combined in irreverent and
humorous ways to create slang synonyms. For example, the head
has been described as the knowledge box (1785—), the mouth as the
cake-hole (1943—), and a moustache as a soup-strainer (1867—). It is
not uncommon for slang compounds and phrases to incorporate
jokes and gratuitous insults. For instance, Dutch oven was used to
refer to the mouth (1922) because Dutch people were stereotypically
considered to be greedy eaters. Calling a small round steak and kidney
pudding a baby’s head (1905—) suggests a jocularly callous attitude
towards infants, and it’s particularly appropriate that this term appar-
ently originated among public schoolboys whose younger siblings
remained in the safety and warmth of their own homes. These
terms assume a perspective shared between the speaker and listener.
Calling a man a skirt-chaser (1926—) doesn’t imply any particular
admiration for him, but it may suggest an implicit agreement that
women are interesting as objects rather than as individuals.
Occasionally, combining forms will take on a special meaning in
slang words. For example, -head is used to create compounds mean-
ing “an individual who over-indulges in [a substance]”. It has pro-
duced terms like pisshead “an individual who drinks too much”
(1946—, presumably based on the phrase on the piss “on a drinking
spree” (1929—)), acidhead “a habitual user of LSD” (1965—), and
scaghead “a heroin addict” (1996—, based on scag (also skag) “her-
oin” (1967—)). Meathead usually means “a stupid person” (1863—),
but I’ve also heard it used with the sense “a (stupid) person who eats
too much (or any) meat”. The suffix -age appears to have little effect
on the meaning of a word in current British slang usage, but it’s added
to create humorous connotations, particularly when it’s employed in
a grammatically flexible way. For example, aceage means the same
thing as ace “excellent” (1934—) and drinkage (since at least 2002)
means the same as drink or drinking, but always in reference to
alcohol. Tuneage (since at least 2000) appears to mean “a good tune”,

so it may be that the suffix has positive connotations in its other uses.
Tard (since at least 2000), created by back-formation from retard “a
person suffering from delayed development or learning difficulties”
(1909—) and “a stupid person” (1968—), has acquired the sense “an
idiot” (2001—) in its own right in contemporary British slang. It’s
also given rise to forms like fucktard (since at least 2000) and spack-
tard (since at least 2004), both meaning “a complete idiot”.
A suffix particularly productive at Rugby School and Oxford in the
last decades of the nineteenth century was -er or -ers, which was
usually used in combination with abbreviation to produce forms like
soccer “association football” (1889—), brekker(s) “breakfast” (1889—),
rugger “rugby football” (1893—), and champers “champagne” (1955—).
Combined with abbreviation, -ie or -y suffixes are common in Aus-
tralian colloquial language, producing forms like tinnie “a tin (or can)
of beer” (1986—) and barbie “a barbecue” (1976—), which sound
more slangy in other national contexts. Slang suffixes that are cur-
rently productive are -io (for example, coolio “cool” (since at least 2004)
and dealio “deal” (since at least 2000), presumably from daddy-o), -aroo
(skankaroo from skank “a potent type of marijuana” (2001—)), and
-aroonee (switcharoonee “a switch; a swap” (since at least 2006)). The
combining form -ati, modelled after literati, is currently popular in the
media. Having first been used in glitterati “celebrities” (1946—), it now
appears in the forms bloggerati “those who communicate in blogs”
(since at least 2003) and twitterati “those who communicate via
Twitter” (since at least 2007 with this meaning, but since at least 1989
with the sense “unintelligent talkative socialites”). Glitterati, bloggerati,
and twitterati all imply that although the communicators may influence
opinions on the subjects they discuss, they’re not necessarily well-
informed or worth listening to. More positively, the combining
form -(o)sphere, based on words like atmosphere and biosphere, has
given rise to blogosphere and twittersphere “blog/Twitter writers and
readers and their intellectual environment” (1999—).
Spawning 37
Slang prefixes also occur, but they appear to be less common. Super- is
used to create Standard English terms as well, but some slang products
include superfatted “very fat” (1927—), super-cool “very cool” (1967—),
and superfly “very good; excellent” (1971—). Even less common are
infixes, which are generally informal in English. Currently productive
in slang is -iz(n)-, apparently used as an intensifier, in biznatch “bitch: an
unpleasant person” (1997—, originally African American) and shiznit
“shit” (1997—, originally African American and students). The combin-
ing form -izzle was popularized by Snoop Dogg, and is particularly
found in fo(r)shizzle “for sure” (since at least 2001).
Slang created by abbreviation

Slang terms can also arise from various types of abbreviation of
Standard English terms. The beginning of the word can be omitted,
as in za for “pizza” (1968—) or sup? for “what’s up?” (1981—); or the
end of the word can be omitted, as in Oz for “Australia” (1908—), dis
“to disrespect” (1980—), or leg or ledge (since at least 2007—) for
legend “excellent” (1997—). These forms could be abbreviations of
legendary or derived from the noun (This party is a leg(end)) or
interjection (Great party. Leg(end)!). With slang etymologies like
this, we should feel under less pressure to make a definitive decision
than we might do in Standard English: different users may have
derived the word in all three of these ways, and all three streams of
derivation would have come together to reinforce the common usage.
Sometimes pairs of words are abbreviated and combined in blends,
such as gaydar “the ability to recognize a (fellow) homosexual”
(1982—), fugly “fucking ugly” (1984—), and blog “a web log”
(1999—). None of these processes is restricted to slang: clipping and
blends produce colloquial and Standard English terms too, such as
pop(ular music), telly(vision), (tele)phone, (omni)bus, motel (motor
+hotel), smog (smoke+fog), and emoticon (emote or emotion+icon).
Two other forms of abbreviation became productive during the
twentieth century: initialisms and, particularly after WWII,
acronyms. Both consist of the initial letters of the phrase they repre-
sent, with the distinction being that initialisms, such as BBC, CNN,
and ABC, are pronounced as a series of letters; while acronyms, like
AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), laser (light amplifica-
tion by the stimulated emission of radiation), and WASP (white
Anglo-Saxon Protestant) are pronounced as words in their own
right. As these examples show, Standard English words can also be
produced in both ways. Some slang examples include Naafi (1927—,
from Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes), JAP (1969—, from
Jewish-American princess), and MILF (1995—, from Mother (Mom
or Mum) I’d like to fuck). Lol (1990—) provides a slang example of a
3 Crossed wires I: Mark Parisi, ‘When You Type ROFL’.

Spawning 39
word that can be either an initialism or an acronym. Short for laugh-

ing out loud, it originated in online communication but is now also
used in speech, both as an initialism (spelt out) and as an acronym
(rhyming with doll). In writing it usually means nothing more than,
“I acknowledge your attempt at humour”. In speech it can mean,
“I consider your attempt at humour to have been embarrassingly
unsuccessful”.
Initialisms are pretty easy to spot, in speech at least, but some slang
etymologists have a tendency to see acronyms where none exist. One of
the best known examples is the derivation of posh “smart, stylish,
genteel” (1914—) from the phrase port out starboard home, allegedly
stamped on a superior class of passenger ticket to India to ensure that
the holder enjoyed some respite from the sun on their voyages to and
from India. Even before we start looking at the evidence, we would have
to be wary of an acronym dating from before WWII and having
nothing to do with WWI, because the earliest acronyms tended to
originate in military contexts. Having no doubt received lots of confi-
dent assurances that the word is acronymic, the OED notes, rather
impatiently, that although this ‘popular explanation [is] still frequently
repeated . . . no evidence has been found for the existence of such
tickets’. Similarly unconvincing etymologies have been presented,
sometimes sincerely, for fuck (filed under carnal knowledge; fornicate
under consent of the king), swag (stuff we all get), and gay (good as you;
good at yoga; got aids yet), among others. Sometimes, as in the acro-
nymic explanations for gay (please don’t blame the messenger), the
acronym is actually working the other way round: the word is broken
down into its constituent letters and then a phrase is created to provide
an insight into the meaning of the original word. Sometimes called
bacronyms, these reverse acronyms are often intended to be humorous.
Slang created by changes in spelling

A relatively recent source of slang is typographical variation: the
respelling of words to indicate that they are being used in a specific
sense. This only works in written communication, but it can sometimes

lead to changes in pronunciation when speakers wish to distinguish
between two uses of a word. It’s commonly used in advertising, as well
as in text messaging, on social networking sites, and other online
forums. In its simplest form, this typographical variation involves the
insertion of a symbol to represent a sound (e.g. m8 for “mate”, CU for
“see you”), but sometimes words are respelt to indicate that they’re
being used with a different emphasis. Phat “sexy, attractive; excellent,
fashionable” (1963—) is probably derived from fat, but it’s often respelt
to avoid potential ambiguities. Rap artists often use respellings such as
-a for -er (e.g. nigga, gangsta) and -z for -s (e.g. boyz, gunz) to express
their rejection of conventional values. Sometimes the respelling does
indicate a change in pronunciation. My students report the use of
choon for “tune”, specifically a good tune, innit for “isn’t it”, specifically
when used as a tag question (We’re going to town, innit) or interjection
(A: This is a great party. B: Innit!) (1962—), and tinternet, coined or at
least popularized by the comedian Peter Kay, for “the Internet”, all
apparently with little change in meaning.
Folk etymology
Changes in meaning or grammatical function, various forms of
abbreviation, and respelling are the main ways that slang currently
develops from existing words in Standard English, but these mechan-
isms don’t account for all slang terms by any means. Sometimes a
slang term has no clear relationship to, or only a fancied relationship
with, existing Standard English words, and what often comes into
operation here is a process already touched on, called folk etymology.
Folk etymology produces accounts of the origins of words based on
superficial similarities, like the association made between pot “mari-
juana” and Standard English pot and pod. Usually folk etymology
is a more or less subconscious process: correct and incorrect etymol-
ogies can coexist perfectly happily, but sometimes misunderstandings
about the origins of a word can cause changes in meaning. For
Spawning 41
example, the word bedu meant “a prayer” in OE, but because prayers
were counted on rosaries, the term was transferred to the small round
balls that were passed through the fingers as prayers were counted,
which came to be known as beads. Bare is used both as an intensifier
(this is bare good “this is very good”) and as an adjective (there are
bare people here “there are lots of people here”) (1997—) in contem-
porary British slang. It isn’t yet included in the OED, but Green’s
Dictionary of Slang traces it to a Barbadian use of bare as an adjective
meaning “not many” (as in barely enough), also found in black British
usage. Perhaps because it’s ambiguous in contexts like there are bare
people here, it’s sometimes spelt <bear>. Similarly, merk “to kill or
humiliate (someone)” (2002—) is sometimes spelt <murk> as if it
were connected with murky “dark; unclear”. What a gwaan? and
Wha’gwaan? have been used as greetings among black British teen-
agers since 1986, according to Green, under the influence of West
Indian usage. My students (mostly white) commonly record it as
wagwan and sometimes abbreviate it to wag, leaving open the possi-
bility that later users will develop theories about how this word can
have developed from the verb wag. Over time, assumptions about the
origins of these words may influence their meanings and usage. For
example, if bare is understood to have positive connotations by
association with teddy bears, it may come to be restricted in use as
a cutesy intensifier only for positive adjectives, and be used in sen-
tences like this is bear good, but not this is bear bad.
It isn’t unusual for the origins of Standard English terms to be
obscure or unknown. The origins of awning, beagle, clever, and gravy
haven’t been documented with any certainty, for instance. Because of
the particular difficulties associated with slang etymology, we should
resist the temptations of folk etymology and accept that ‘origin
unknown’ is going to be a more common outcome for slang terms.
Be particularly wary of good stories. You may have read that slang is
related to the Old Norse sleng- and Modern English sling, because slang
is thrown like a missile, but like many a good etymological anecdote, it
isn’t supported by the history of the two words. This and other theories
are discussed in Liberman’s Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology.
Folk etymology demonstrates that we think about the origins of

words and phrases and about how they are related to one another
without being prompted to do so. Before they learnt to read, my two
sons often produced folk-etymological forms, including cheekmonk
(for chipmunk, used to describe someone with too much food in their
mouth), hand-burger, and noodle in a haystack. Luke Skywalker’s
shiny robotic friend was, for a while, referred to as See-Through
P.O. These are the product of analytical thought about the origins
and meanings of words, and the fact that they were produced by
preschool children indicates how fundamental this desire to analyse
meaning is. When we hear a word we don’t know, we try to relate it to
words we do know. The etymologies we come up with may be right or
wrong, but it’s only reference to the evidence that can determine this.
Unfortunately, many people who write about the etymologies of slang
words don’t appreciate the importance of looking at the evidence, and
prefer instead an exotic origin or a jolly good story. Don’t be one
of them: evaluate the evidence, not the theory. If there’s only a theory,
it probably isn’t correct.
The influence of other words

It’s possible, but unusual, for there to be two etymologies for a single
word, either because it’s impossible to distinguish between two closely
related alternatives or because a process of folk etymology or assimi-
lation has led two separate words to fall together. For example,
grammarians now talk about the mood of verbs (indicative, subjunc-
tive, imperative, interrogative), but the OED shows that this sense was
originally part of the noun mode which was influenced by mood
“a prevailing but temporary state of mind”. A slang example of two
words growing together is found in the term shamus “a watchman;
a policeman” (1925—, US slang). In an extremely critical review
of Eric Partridge’s Dictionary of the Underworld (1949), Gershon
Legman ridiculed his derivation of shamus from the Irish personal
name Seamus, arguing instead that it is from the Hebrew word
Spawning 43
shomus “sexton; caretaker; night watchman”. The OED provides both

as possible sources, and there’s no reason why two individuals in
conversation couldn’t understand one another perfectly despite inter-
preting the term differently:
A: Did you see that shomus?

B: Who, Detective O’Malley?
A: That’s the one.
Words that sound like tabooed words sometimes fall from use altogether
instead of changing in meaning. For example, coney used to be the
general term for “a rabbit” (c.1340-1885), but it may have been avoided
after it became associated with cunny “the vagina” (1599—), allowing
rabbit (a.1398—, in various forms) to become the dominant alternative.
Similarly, the phrase kick against the pricks originally referred to animals
risking punishment by resisting attempts to drive them with a prick “a
goad or spur” (c.1225-1993). Once prick “a penis” (c.1555—) acquired
the sense “a stupid or contemptible person” (1882—), it became possible
to understand kicking against the pricks as referring to justifiable stub-
bornness. This extract is from a film review:
Kristin Scott Thomas . . . has a major role as a former British au pair

kicking against the pricks in haut-bourgeois Nîmes. The principal prick
is her rich, insensitive husband . . .
What we can’t know is how many speakers and writers now avoid
using the phrase because they interpret prick with reference to its
impolite senses, or how many hearers interpret it as obscene, and this
is one way in which terms and phrases that were once widely used can
become slang.
The failure to avoid words mistakenly associated with tabooed terms
can have dire consequence. David Howard, head of the American
Office of the Public Advocate, had to resign in 1999 after employees
complained about his use of the word niggardly in conversation. They
associated niggard “a parsimonious person” (c.1384—, in various
forms) with the unrelated nigger (1574—). Although Howard was
rehired after investigations revealed that niggardly has no racial con-

notations, it’s probable that he would have avoided using the word after
this incident, and his experience will have influenced other people too.
However secure you feel in your etymological knowledge, it’s just not
worth using a word that’s open to misunderstanding in this way, and
continuing to use a word once you’ve become aware it might offend
demonstrates a lack of concern for other people’s feelings.
Slang loans
Of course, slang words aren’t always generated from existing English
words. Some are borrowed from other languages, including medico “a
doctor; a medical student”, from Italian or Spanish (1689—), and
kahuna “a skilled surfer” (1957—), from a Hawaiian word meaning “a
priest; wise man; expert” (1886-1948). My students report the use of
über, from the German preposition meaning “above”, but employed
by them as an adjective: this party is über/this is an über party.2
Speakers of English have often derived slang from other languages
they’ve come into contact with, and soldiers have more opportunities
to travel than many other people. Some of the slang words picked up
by British soldiers through the years include wallah “a man”, from a
Hindi suffix meaning “pertaining to or connected with” but used in
English compounds as if it were a noun meaning “man” (1785—),
and also as an independent word (1965—) referring to civil servants
or bureaucrats. Bint “a woman” (1855—) comes from an Arab term
meaning “daughter”. From the French il n’y en a plus “there is no
more”, British soldiers gained napoo, used as an interjection “all gone;
finished” (1915—), as a verb “to finish; to kill” (1915-1925), and an
2
The OED lists a number of loans from German including über as a preposition or
prefix, but doesn’t record its productive use in English. Urban Dictionary records
almost 500 words and phrases containing uber, although variable spelling contributes
to a great deal of repetition. They include uberage “greatness (the state of being uber)”
(since at least 2005), ubergeek “a computer nerd” (since at least 2001), and uber hottie
“an extremely attractive individual” (since at least 2005).
Spawning 45
adjective “good for nothing; finished; dead” (1917—). American

soldiers have also introduced slang terms from other languages.
Geronimo (1941—) was first used as a battle cry from the name of
an Apache chief. Gungho “enthusiastic; eager” (1942—) comes from
the Chinese meaning “work together”. Banzai “a reckless attack”
(1945-a.1982) is derived from a Japanese celebratory cry meaning
“ten thousand years”. Hebrew has also contributed a number of slang
terms to English, usually through the medium of Yiddish, including
meshuga “crazy” (1885—), schmuck “a fool” (1892—), and possibly
also futz “to mess around” (1929/30—).
Slang from sound

Most slang comes from adapting the use or form of existing words,
but slang also creates entirely new words. Imitative (also called echoic
and onomatopoeic) words often remain informal and sometimes
humorous, even when they are widely used as direct representations
of sounds like clink (c.1386—), boom (c.1440—), quack (1577—), ping
(1835—), woof (1839—), and bleep (1953—). Slang terms created in
this way or supported in their use by onomatopoeic associations
include zap “to kill (with a gun)” (1942—), yack “to chatter incon-
sequentially” (1949—), and barf “to vomit” (1956—).
But where does slang come from?

It should be clear that none of these types of etymology is exclusive to
slang. Standard English and slang both borrow words from other
languages, reuse existing words with new grammatical functions or
with slightly different meanings, abbreviate words, and produce
blends, acronyms, and initialisms. There are compounds, combining
forms, prefixes, and suffixes in Standard English. There are also
onomatopoeic terms in Standard English. Most slang words are
produced in ways that aren’t particularly different from the ways
Standard English words are produced.
There have, in fact, been very few mechanisms for producing new
words that are exclusive to slang. Because they are so unusual, they
tend to receive a disproportionate amount of attention, but their
influence is pretty limited. The best known is rhyming slang, a form
of wordplay originating in mid nineteenth-century London, in which
standard (and sometimes slang) words are replaced by a rhyming
phrase. For example, in rhyming slang stairs are referred to as apples
and pears (1857—), one’s wife is one’s trouble and strife (1905—), and
a car is a jam-jar (1930—). It’s not uncommon that the rhyming
element is omitted: someone behaving in a stupid or irritating fashion
might be told that what they’re saying is cobblers (awls) (1934—, from
balls “nonsense” (1903—)): that they should use their loaf (of bread)
“head” (1920—) or stick it up their Khyber (Pass) “arse: anus” (1916—).
Despite the name, rhyming slang terms aren’t always slang: berk(ley/
shire) (hunt) “cunt: a fool” (1936—) and raspberry (tart) “fart: a noise
made by blowing with the tongue sticking out” (c.1880—) are widely
used colloquialisms. Rhyming slang appears to have enjoyed some
limited use among American criminals between the wars, but it
remains reasonably productive in Britain, Australia, and New Zeal-
and. Because the rhyming element is often deleted, it isn’t hard to
produce rhyming slang etymologies for terms that appear otherwise
inexplicable, and so rhyming slang is another productive source of folk
etymologies. For example, a manoeuvre in which a footballer kicks the
ball between the legs of his opponent and then regains possession is
called a nutmeg (1968—), and although it’s often explained as rhyming
slang for leg, there’s no evidence to support this theory.
A few years before rhyming slang terms were first recorded, a social
researcher named Henry Mayhew ventured into London’s dingiest
alleyways to document the lives of their poorest inhabitants.
He published his findings in 1851, observing that market traders
tended to reverse words to obscure their meanings in conversations
that might be overheard by their customers. Back slang was always
less productive than rhyming slang, and also less influential, probably
because it’s both easier to decode and generally less amusing. Some
Spawning 47
mundane examples include neves or nevis “seven” (1851 used adjecti-

vally, 1901-1989 as a noun, particularly for “seven pounds” or “a
seven-year sentence”), slop (1857-1879, from ecilop “police”), and
pennif “a five-pound note” (1862+1891, from the slang term finnip
“a five-pound note” (1839-1966)). Yob “a boy; a thug” (1859—) is the
only widely used term to have originated in back slang.
Conclusions
The mechanisms involved in producing slang terms aren’t generally
different in kind from the mechanisms that produce Standard English
terms, but a comparison between the two would probably reveal some
differences in proportion. Far more slang than standard words are
produced by abbreviation of various sorts, by blending, and by word-
play (such as onomatopoeia and rhyming slang). More slang than
standard words have to be labelled ‘origin unknown’ or ‘origin
obscure’. With the minor exceptions of rhyming and back slang,
slang terms are produced in exactly the same ways as Standard English
words, and there’s no reason why the few terms from rhyming slang
and back slang that have found their way into wider usage shouldn’t
eventually become part of Standard English, at least on a national level.
Many playfully coined words don’t catch on, and they are some-
times mistakenly labelled as slang because they don’t belong to
Standard English. What makes slang different from Standard English
isn’t its form or its origins, but its context and use: new words are just
unfertilized spawn. They aren’t slang yet. When spawn first appears
in your pond, you can’t tell whether it’s going to develop into frogs,
toads, or newts.3 The chances are it won’t develop at all if the
conditions aren’t right. It certainly won’t develop if there’s only
one frog. Slang isn’t slang until other people start using it.
3
Toads and newts can be other types of word, if that works for you, but I don’t
want to push my luck with this metaphor. It’s already a bit shaky—the frog parents are
slang users rather than slang words.
Endnotes
Where tentative dates are given in this chapter, the words are drawn from my
students’ recent observations of their own slang (Leicester Online Slang Glos-
saries). It’s unlikely that they’re the first or only users, but these terms aren’t
documented in the dictionaries I’ve consulted, so the dates are based on Google
blog searches (going back to 2000). The acronymic etymologies are largely from
Urban Dictionary <http://www.urbandictionary.com>. Also cited were Anatoly
Liberman’s Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction (Minnea-
polis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 189–96, and Eric Partridge’s
Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (London: Routledge, 1937).
McDonalds’ objection to McJob is reported in <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
3255883.stm>. Adams, Slang, 82, 126, 166, talks in more detail about -iz(n)-,
-izzle, and -age. I also referred to Bruce Rodgers’ The Queens’ Vernacular: A Gay
Lexicon (San Francisco: Straight Arrow, 1972), Eric Partridge’s A Dictionary
of the Underworld (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949), and Gershon
Legman’s ‘The Cant of Lexicography’, American Speech 26 (1951), 130–7:
(136–7). Michael Quinion’s Port Out Starboard Home (London: Penguin, 2004)
debunks numerous folk etymologies. The film review is from Philip French,
‘Leaving’, The Observer, 11 Jul. 2010, New Review, 26. Henry Mayhew presented
his observations about back slang in London Labour and the London Poor
(London: Woodfall, 1851).
3
In
Development
this chapter I’ll approach slang as a biologist might study a

species of frog: by looking at the habitats it seems to thrive in. If
those habitats have things in common, we can use them to identify
the conditions that are most conducive to new words becoming slang.
Slang and creativity

New slang terms are often attributed to innovative and influential
individuals or more generally to untutored poetic instinct. Inventing
new terms is certainly a creative act, but it takes more than innovative
creativity to qualify a term as slang. The invention of new words has
long been a staple of magazine and newspaper competitions, and
fledgling words can now be exposed to a worldwide audience through
several websites dedicated to that purpose. For example, Urban Dic-
tionary lists prehab “a clinic for patients who don’t yet have an
addiction”, stealth abs “a fat stomach”, and snowpocalypse “an incon-
veniently heavy fall of snow”. No matter how creative an individual is,
no matter how many words they create, and no matter how good
those words are, they will only ever be witticisms unless other people
start using them. I’m going to talk about individuals in the next
chapter, but for now I want to concentrate on slang development as a

group activity.
In this chapter, I’m using slang development to refer to the process
by which a new word is created and becomes slang. I’m going to start
with soldiers, because their situations represent most clearly the
conditions that have traditionally contributed towards the develop-
ment of slang, but I’ll talk about other groups later in this chapter.1
Developments in technology and the media have changed this tradi-
tional model, and I’ll come on to this later too.
Military slang
Military conditions during WWI and WWII were particularly favour-
able to the development of new slang. During both conflicts, military
forces had to train large numbers of conscripted civilians to obey
orders without question, and to put their own needs, wishes, and
safety after those of their battalion, ship, or regiment. This created the
first condition conducive to slang development: a heightened desire
for self-expression. Where all individuality is stripped away by uni-
forms, regulation haircuts, and the necessity of obeying orders with-
out question, the desire to identify oneself as a separate human being
becomes problematic. For individuals who haven’t chosen their situ-
ation, this is particularly difficult. Refusing to conform in other ways
isn’t an option: a soldier who decides to customize his uniform or
march out of step on principle will certainly be disciplined. But
rebellious instincts can find relatively safe expression in the use of
non-regulation language, such as (from WWII) crud “a real or imagi-
nary disease” (1932—, originally US), gremlin “a mischievous creature
who causes machinery to malfunction” (1941—, originally RAF), skin-
head “a (newly recruited) member of the US marine corps” (1943—,
1
All the groups discussed here were held to be conspicuously productive users of
slang in their time. In each case, there are several contemporary dictionaries of their
slang.
Development 51
also meaning “a bald man” (1945—) and “a shaven right-wing yob”

(1969—)), and fuck-up “an incompetent person; a misfit” (c.1945—).
Reduced to their number or last name, soldiers created new words
for use among themselves: nicknames for each other and new labels
for officers and for the objects and activities of military life. These
terms allowed conscripted servicemen to grumble about food, equip-
ment, and those in authority over them. They also offered the oppor-
tunity to use humour to enliven the dull routine of daily life. This
illustrates the second condition conducive to slang development:
slang speakers will usually be situated on the lower rungs of a hierar-
chy. In a military setting, all behaviour that’s potentially threatening
to the hierarchy is carefully monitored, and infringements of the rules
are sometimes brutally punished, but slang offers the possibility for
minor rebellion that won’t usually meet with serious consequences. It
can also be a reaction against having to learn and use new official
terms. By inventing ridiculous terms of their own, soldiers were
mocking the pomposity of official jargon2 such as (from WWI)
debus “to alight from a bus” (1915—), human resources “people”
(1915—), low-maintenance “requiring little attention” (1916—), and
breakthrough “an achievement that leads to a sudden increase in
progress” (1918—).
However, plenty of individuals are situated towards the bottom of a
hierarchy and denied self-expression, and they don’t all become
productive creators of slang. The third factor is that there must be a
sense of group identity. Living under shared circumstances of inferi-
ority and uniformity, individuals will use slang among themselves to
heighten their sense of solidarity. Soldiers, for example, have a num-
ber of disparaging names for officers and military authorities, often
alluding to elements of their uniform that set them apart from
enlisted men. Names for officers include swab (1793-1850 in the
2
Jargon is technical or professional language, with professional slang occupying
the area between slang and jargon. Jargon terms tend to have precise and fixed
meanings. Failure to use the correct jargon brings your expertise into question.
Slang is more fluid in meaning and the use of a specific term is usually optional.
British navy, with reference to an officer’s epaulettes), chicken-guts

(1882—, US, now historical, with reference to gold trimmings or
medals), brass hat (1893—, originally British army), red tab (1899—,
in the British army), and scrambled egg (1943—, widely used with
reference to gold braid or insignia and, by extension, to the officer
himself). Terms like these contribute towards the development of
solidarity between peers and undermine the hierarchy by drawing
attention to the fact that officers are defined by their uniforms just as
enlisted men are. Alluding to outer symbols of rank in this way asserts
that they are only empty symbols: that all men are equal under their
uniforms. The fourth condition, then, is that the oppressed group
must have a sense that their situation is unfair or unreasonable,
usually because they’ve experienced greater freedom in the past or
hope to in the future. Oppressed groups at the bottom of hierarchies
are denied their individuality in many settings, but the conditions for
slang development are best where individuals collectively resist the
forces acting upon them by means short of physical violence.
However, life under difficult conditions at the bottom of a hierar-
chy is rarely harmonious, and army slang also helped conscripted
soldiers to negotiate differences between themselves, to the point of
creating alternative hierarchies in which each branch of the service
despised all the others. Slang allows enlisted men to say, ‘I may be at
the bottom of this pile, but at least I’m not in the army/navy/air force/
marines/office/kitchen (or wherever)’. Such terms include flatfoot “a
sailor” (1835-1932) and “an infantryman” (1864—), webfoot “an
infantryman” (1865-1928, US), gravel-crusher or cruncher “an infan-
tryman” (1889—), leatherneck “a soldier” (1890-1916, UK) or
“a marine” (1907—, US), flyboy “an airman” (1937—, US), and
brown job “a member of the army” (1943—, RAF). Long serving
soldiers use slang to express their disdain for raw recruits and other
individuals who don’t know the meaning of hard work. Slang terms
serving these functions include coffee-cooler “a shirker; a soldier with
an easy or safe assignment” (1862-1977, US), dog-robber “an officer’s
orderly” (1863—, US), and boy scout “an inexperienced soldier”
Development 53
(1918-1929, US). These examples suggest that the alternative hierar-

chy works in tandem with the official one, but terms such as old
soldier “a shirker; one who avoids dangerous assignments” (1723—)
indicate that sometimes those who reach the top of the alternative
hierarchy are those who resist authority most skilfully. In contrast, a
soldier who seeks opportunities to impress his superiors is an eager
beaver (1943—, originally US). While the WWI ace was an airman
who’d brought down a specific (but varied) number of enemy planes
(1916—), ace was more often used sarcastically to mean “a clumsy or
stupid person” (1925—) during WWII, and this illustrates one way
that terms can vary in meaning according to the context. Members of
the infantry undoubtedly referred to themselves as gravel-crushers
and flatfoots in self-deprecation, but also to express pride in their
ability to withstand difficult conditions and hard work, unlike your
average nancy boy “a homosexual or effeminate man” (1927—) in the
navy/air force/administration (etc.).
Friction between individuals in a shared and uncomfortable situa-
tion is almost too universal to be worth mentioning, but for the
creation of slang to flourish it’s necessary for friction within the
group to remain relatively minor. Conditions must militate against
the use of violence to settle personal difficulties. In a military setting,
this is because fights among the enlisted men will meet with severe
punishment, but it can also be motivated by self-preservation in other
ways: if one serviceman attacks another, there may be bystanders
who’ll join in at the time or retaliate later. It’s safer to find outlet for
irritation and resentment in the use of slang terms to an individual’s
face or, even more prudently, behind his back.
A military setting, particularly under conditions of conscription,
will bring together people who wouldn’t otherwise come into contact
with each another: individuals from different places, social classes,
educational levels, and ethnic groups. These disparate individuals will
speak differently, and the differences will give rise to humorous
teasing, or admiring imitation. Some individuals will try to lose
their distinctiveness, but others will want to stand out by using new
or unusual terms. If they’re charismatic enough, or if the terms are

witty enough, others might copy them.
All of the factors discussed so far are met in many workplaces:
individuals with different backgrounds in a shared position at the
bottom of the hierarchy (production line workers, for example, or
shop assistants or people working in a call centre) are required to
behave respectfully towards those above them, and to work towards
a common goal that often conflicts with their individual wishes or
desires. They’re sometimes denied their individuality by being
required to wear uniforms, or to engage with members of the
public using an officially sanctioned script. They’ll be punished if
they rebel, usually by being sacked. There will also be frictions
between these workers that can’t be solved by a punch-up: one will
work too hard, another not hard enough; one will laugh too loudly
at the manager’s jokes, another will fail to display the required
levels of cheerfulness and cooperation; one will talk too much,
another will breathe too loudly. Individuals in this type of setting
usually choose to express their suppressed resentment, irritation,
and anger by grumbling to workmates or, outside the workplace, to
friends and family. If there are enough similarly minded work-
mates, these emotions can also find expression through humour:
through imitation, exaggeration, or practical jokes. A shop-worker
who notices that a supervisor takes an undue number of breaks
might joke to another that he’s going to snort some more cocaine.
By repetition this might become a standing joke, for a time, and
acquire broader uses: I’m just off to have a quick snort might come
to mean “I’m going to the toilet”, for example, and He’s in the loo
might be said with a knowing wink, so that those in the know will
pick up the implied meaning. What works against the transition
from standing joke to slang in most workplaces is that workers
come and go: they may move on to another position within the
company or another job at any time, and they’ll also usually
socialize with other people outside the workplace. What they lack
Development 55
is what the conscripted soldiers had in abundance: a dense social

network leading to a sense of belonging, isolation, and continuity.3
Slang develops best where the oppressed group is set apart from the
outside world, restricted in their interactions by physical boundaries
and regulations, and where at least some key individuals remain in that
setting over periods of years rather than months. Slang also develops
best where group identity is stronger, or at least more compelling, than
external ties. Group identity is enhanced by pressure, which may result
from the enforced position of inferiority, but other pressures may also
contribute: particularly fear (of death, failure, rejection, and so on). In
some situations it’s acceptable to express fear directly, in words or tears,
but in others direct emotional expression is interpreted as a sign of
weakness and seen as a threat to the shared interests of the group. This
is clearly the case within a military unit, where an individual who cried
before a mission would not only make it harder for everyone else to
ignore their own fears but also cause everyone to worry that their
tearful comrade might let them down under pressure. Instead of
expressing fear directly, individuals in situations like these use slang
terms that both acknowledge and belittle their concerns, such as fire-
works “bombardment; anti-aircraft fire” (1864—), tin hat “a steel
helmet” (1903—, originally British, now usually historical), whizz-
bang “a high-velocity German shell” (1915—, British, now usually
historical), grave “a foxhole; a shallow trench” (1918-1930, US), and
flying coffin “a dangerous aircraft” (1918—, US).
Although all of these conditions are met in the navy, not all of the
terms used at sea qualify as slang. As early as the 1590s, in response to
reports of the exploits of Sir Francis Drake, the shore-bound were
offered the opportunity to learn the language of the sea with the help
of reference books about naval life. These generally included non-
standard terms only incidentally alongside more encyclopaedic infor-
mation about knots, charts, and winds. The difference between the
3
Doctors, the police, and restaurant staff are groups commonly identified as
having well-developed professional slang. In each case, the long hours and high
pressure make it difficult to maintain a social life outside work.
language used by conscripted soldiers and conscripted sailors during

the two world wars is that many of the terms a new sailor had to learn
had been in use for centuries. They were fixed in meaning and widely
used throughout the hierarchy on board ship, including terms like
heads “a ship’s latrines” (1748—), galley “the kitchen on board a ship”
(1750—), and wardroom “the room in which commissioned officers
eat” (1758—), none of which is slang. There is naval slang, of course:
there are terms that are used only below decks to resist the hierarchy
and give vent to stress caused by frictions within and among the crew,
such as (in the British navy) rub “a loan” (1914-1948), ditch “the sea”
(1914-1942, used in the RAF later), and wart “a naval cadet”
(1916-1962). The crucial difference between a military and naval
setting is that the levels of isolation and continuity are set slightly
too high in the navy: some terms that may have started out as slang
ended up as jargon, with the result that when people talk about naval
slang, they often find it difficult to distinguish between jargon and
slang, or decide that the distinction isn’t important.
Slang usually operates in rebellion against the standard form, but
in a military setting it’s in opposition with both Standard English and
military jargon. Without a standard form of the language for com-
parison, it’s impossible to say that a specific usage is non-standard.
It’s no coincidence, therefore, that publications dealing with non-
standard English appeared at the same time that a standard written
form was gradually becoming codified. A few books and pamphlets
dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries deal primarily
with the language of beggars and thieves, as we’ll see in Chapter 6, but
the first dictionary attempting to restrict itself to what we now call
slang was Grose’s Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1785).4
4
B. E.’s New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew
(c.1698) is sometimes described as the first English slang dictionary. It included
thieves’ language and slang, but also jargon, dialect, colloquial language, and new
words, and is better characterized as the first dictionary of non-standard English in
general. These other types of non-standard language were still represented in Grose’s
dictionary, in smaller numbers, but a much larger proportion is slang.
Development 57
Grose considered his dictionary to be the counterpart of and antidote

to Samuel Johnson’s hugely influential Dictionary of the English
Language (1755). Johnson attempted to draw boundaries around
Standard English: to make definitive rulings about what was in and
what was out, and he generally omitted terms that he didn’t consider
good usage. This made it possible for Grose, and others, to concen-
trate on terms and senses implicitly designated as non-standard by
their exclusion from more respectable dictionaries. Although less
interesting than some of the other factors, this is probably the most
central: without a recognized standard form of the language there can
be no slang, though it isn’t necessary to apply this rule to individual
words.
In a military setting, slang also plays a variety of functions useful to
those higher up the official hierarchy. It contributes towards the
development of camaraderie, helps keep up morale, and provides a
safe outlet for minor resentments. Because the officers have often
passed through the same conditions as the enlisted men, they under-
stand the importance of slang and therefore tend to turn a blind eye to
its use, even when it functions as an act of petty rebellion. An officer
who attempted to outlaw the use of slang would inevitably fail, and
he’d make himself ridiculous in the process. However, it’s possible to
envisage a situation meeting all the other conditions we’ve identified,
in which slang wouldn’t flourish because the inventors or users of
unofficial terms were so severely punished that the rebellion would
cease to be a safe one: if using slang is punishable by death, you might
as well try to escape instead.
The ideal conditions for slang

Focussing on military settings has allowed us to identify conditions
that appear to support slang development:
a standardized, official, or accepted form of the language which it

exists within and rebels against
a hierarchy
a (real or perceived) threat to individuality and self-expression
a sense of group identity at the bottom of the hierarchy
an awareness or belief that conditions could be better
frictions within the group that can only be expressed verbally
linguistic variation within the group
dense social networks
continuity, but not too much
fear (or some other form of pressure)
some toleration of slang by those in authority.
Going back to our biological metaphor, we can hypothesize that these

factors are the conditions that best ensure that frogspawn develops:
they provide the ideal nutrients, oxygen levels, and water temperature
for the development of slang. Now we need to test the theory.
Prison slang
If these conditions are indeed conducive to the development of slang,
we’d expect to find them replicated in the conditions of other groups
who’ve been identified as productive slang users. Prisoners clearly fit
all of these conditions: some individuals occupy these physically
isolated settings across considerable periods or come back repeatedly,
but all prisoners will have had some taste of the greater freedoms of
life outside the prison walls. Prison slang gives an advantage to
established and habitual inmates by emphasizing their ability to
understand and negotiate systems and hierarchies among officials
and prisoners. A prison visitor in the United States found that the
most influential prisoners, the ones at the top of the unofficial
hierarchy, were the ones who used slang most, and that when a
prisoner was addressed using prison slang he lost status if he wasn’t
able to use it in response. The external hierarchy is represented by
prison staff, but although prisoners are to some extent united by their
situation, there are also considerable frictions within the group that
cannot prudently be expressed in outright violence. Instead, terms
Development 59
like jacket “a reputation for treacherous behaviour” (1963—, from the

earlier sense “a personal file; a criminal record” (1937—), originally
US military slang), nonce “a sex-offender; a paedophile” (1970—,
UK), and muppet “a prisoner easily victimized by other inmates”
(1988—, UK) are used. In this setting, it’s probably interactions
with other inmates that create the most fear, but individual prisoners
might also worry about families, release dates, and the loyalty of those
they care about: spouses, partners, accomplices outside of the prison,
and associates within it. Personal identity is challenged by prison
uniforms, regulation haircuts, physical restrictions, and strict disci-
pline. Although the use of inflammatory language, particularly racist
or homophobic terms, may be punishable in prisons, slang isn’t
intrinsically contrary to good discipline as long as it isn’t used disre-
spectfully in the presence of prison officers.
Public school slang

So far so good: military and prison life both appear to support our
theory of slang development. What happens in situations that don’t
fit the ideal conditions so neatly? The non-standard language of
British public schoolboys was richly documented during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some widely used terms,
such as fag “a younger boy who performs duties for an older boy”
(1785—, now usually historical (or ill-informed))5 and tuck “food”
(1835—), were used in many schools. Others were restricted to a
single school, like sock “food” (1825—, Eton, now historical), lout
“a common fellow” (1857, Rugby), frowst “a lie-in” (1880-1923,
Harrow), and sweater “a servant” (1900+1973, Winchester).
Public schoolboys still exist, of course, and still use slang, but
they’re no longer as isolated or victimized (and victimizing) as once
5
This developed from the sense “hard work, drudgery; fatigue” (1780—), from fag
“to flag, droop, or decline” (1530-1878). It isn’t related to fag “a (cheap) cigarette”
(1888—) or fag “homosexual” (1921—, originally US).
they were and certainly wouldn’t leap to mind as trend-leaders

today, though they evidently did seem peculiarly innovative once.
Nineteenth-century guidebooks for new boys presented non-standard
terms alongside information about school customs and pastimes. In
this unfamiliar and geographically isolated setting, boys who didn’t
behave appropriately were beaten by the masters and also by prefects
occupying the top of the authorized hierarchy among the boys.
Although the boys were united by their shared conditions, they were
also in competition with one another to be top of the class, to be good
at sports, to be more skilful in negotiating personal advantage, and to
be better at fighting, or at least more belligerent. Boys who didn’t
conform would also meet with physical violence from their peers.
The slow progression of boys through the school created continuity,
so that terms could be passed on. Indeed, pride in school traditions
was sometimes so fierce that school terms were used as a tool in
enforced conformity. At Winchester College, for example, new boys
were expected to learn the ‘Notions’ (a mixture of school slang, local
lore, and age-old in-jokes) by rote. They were tested by the older boys,
much as their knowledge of Greek or Latin might be tested in the
classroom, but punished even more harshly if their responses weren’t
up to (the) scratch “up to a required standard” (1843—, originally
sporting). The teachers knew about and tolerated this custom across
several decades, and only restricted the violence involved after a
scandal in the 1870s. Survival as a ‘notion’ doesn’t prove continued
slang usage, however.
Conditions in nineteenth-century public schools weren’t entirely
ideal for slang development. First, the distinction between those with
official and unofficial authority was less clearly marked than in the
army or prison. Prefects and sports captains were chosen by teachers,
which meant that there was less friction between the two hierarchies.
Secondly, school tradition sometimes created too much continuity.
Slang is by its nature fluid: if the meanings and use of individual terms
become too fixed, they develop into jargon rather than slang. Almost
everyone who’s ever compiled a list of public school slang has
Development 61
bemoaned its decline: complaining that current pupils no longer use

the terms familiar from their own youth. These lost terms may well
have been slang, but many public schools still include a list of ‘slang
terms’ on their websites as a way of identifying traditions peculiar to
each school. For example, the Eton College website indicates that
beak “a master” (1888—, from the earlier meaning “a magistrate”
(1749—)), div “a lesson” (apparently short for division “class”), head
man “headmaster”, and slack bobs “boys who neither row nor play
cricket” (rowers are wet bobs (1865—), cricketers dry bobs (1844—))
are terms used among the boys. If conformity is still enforced and a
new boy referring to a lesson or a teacher is ridiculed for his mistake,
then we’re looking at jargon rather than slang.
American college slang

American students provide another case study for slang development.
Their slang includes flunk (out) “to fail an examination; to be dis-
missed from college for failing examinations” (1823—), bone (up)
(on) “to study diligently” (1841—), rushee “a candidate for member-
ship of a fraternity or sorority” (1916—), mouse “to neck; to pet”
(1928-1999), pizza face “a person with facial acne” (1964—), and
brewski “a beer” (1977—). As higher education enrolment rose in
the US, colleges sought to distinguish themselves from one another in
many of the same ways that public schools did: by clothing, sporting
prowess, and language. Students’ moral behaviour was once carefully
monitored by college authorities, so the sense of hierarchy and
repression would have been rather greater than it is for contemporary
students. On the other hand, there was considerable pressure for
conformity not just from those in authority, but also from other
students. Moreover, just like their similarly privileged counterparts
in Britain, many students at the most elite American institutions
weren’t the first member of their family to attend the university,
which might have created just a little too much continuity. College
slang didn’t set into jargon in the way that some British public school
4 Student slang I: Rob Murray, ‘That’s Like, So Random’.
slang did, though. With the exception of students living in the most
exclusive fraternity houses, the levels of isolation weren’t high enough
and the social networks weren’t dense enough.
By the 1940s, it was becoming increasingly difficult to argue that
college students were using slang in unique ways, let alone creating it.
By the 1960s, there was no question that, with the exception of a few
terms relating to courses and locations on campus, college and high-
school students were now using slang in much the same way. What
had happened in the intervening period was the gradual emergence of
a now familiar figure: the teenager. For us, teenagers are probably
archetypal slang users, but they don’t appear to fit the conditions
conducive to slang development. This is because slang isn’t, despite
what we may think, an integral part of being a teenager. Nineteenth-
century public schoolboys may have used slang during their teenage
Development 63
years, but their contemporaries in factories and down mines were

functioning in the adult world, drawing their non-standard terms
from dialect, jargon, or (for some) professional slang. Nineteenth-
century teenagers weren’t a cohesive group in their own estimation or
anyone else’s. So how did teenagers come to be seen as a meaningful
group, and why did they become such archetypal users of slang?
Teenage slang
One of the main factors in the development of the category of the
‘teenager’, from about the mid twentieth century, was the increase in
school leaving ages: young people who would once have been able to
earn money in the adult world were being controlled for longer by
the restrictions of school life. This happened at a stage in their lives
when they began to desire more freedom and greater powers of self-
determination. Behaviour that would have been entirely normal at
their age a century before became problematized (teenage pregnan-
cies, smoking, drinking, etc.). Energy that would once have been
exhausted by the demands of physical labour was expressed in frus-
tration and rebellion. As living standards rose and families had more
money to invest in their children’s education, the pressure on teen-
agers to perform well at school increased at the same time in their
lives that they were most concerned with achieving the approval of
the unofficial hierarchy of their peers. Pressures from both hierar-
chies thus contribute to teenagers’ anxieties, and often pull in differ-
ent directions, as is demonstrated by the numerous slang terms for
social and academic failures of various kinds, including dropout “a
person who withdraws from a course of study” (1930—, now collo-
quial), juvie “a juvenile delinquent” (1930—, US), drip “a feeble or
boring person” (1932—), prick-teaser “a flirtatious girl or woman”
(1939—), nerd “a dull or unnecessarily diligent person” (1951—),
spaz “a fool; an idiot” (1956—), geek “an intellectual or obsessive
person” (1957—), and slag “a promiscuous girl or woman; a prosti-
tute” (1958—). Conditions will be most productive of slang where
schools are large enough to produce consistent social stratification by

age. This creates the continuity necessary for the development of
slang: teenagers will keep the same company across many years of
schooling, and will operate within a social isolation that rivals the
geographical isolation of soldiers and prisoners. Teenagers may
occupy the same houses as their parents and irritating younger sib-
lings, but they communicate primarily with their peers.
From the earliest days of ‘the teenager’, the concept was fuelled by
commercial and media interest. Manufacturers and record producers
recognized this new and susceptible market. Television and radio
presenters wanted to be able to represent their audiences to adver-
tisers as a well-defined group with disposable income and suggestible
tastes. They were quick to use the latest slang so they could benefit by
association with whatever was fashionable at the time. The influence
of youth trends is now so dominant that we oldies might feel that
we’re the ones being oppressed, but you can bet that’s not how
teenagers feel. Expressions of approval and disapproval figure high
in teenage slang, and there tends to be a rapid turnover, sometimes by
recycling, as terms become dated by association with their maturing
users. Terms with which teenagers have expressed their approval
include, in chronological order: bodacious (1907—, originally US),
wizard (1922—), grouse (1924—, originally Australia and New Zeal-
and), lush (1928—, chiefly British), righteous (1930—, originally
African American), snazzy (1931—, ?originally Australian), fantastic
(1938—), mad (1941—, originally US), supersonic (1947—), magic
(1956—), fabulous (1959—), fab (1959—), ridiculous (1959—, origi-
nally jazz), safe (1970—, originally South African; also used among
criminals with the sense “reliable” (1846—)), fabby (1971—), kwaii
(1974—, South African), gnarly (1978—, originally surfing), death
(1979—, originally African American), radical (1979—, originally
surfing), awesome (1979—, originally American, still slang in UK),
def (1981—), fabbo (1984—, chiefly British and Australian), sound
Development 65
(1988—, chiefly British and Irish, and used with the sense “reliable”
since 1879), and kicking (1989—).6
Books, magazines, and films began to address teenagers as a group
during the later twentieth century, and at times this sense of cohesion
has been strong enough to overcome geographical distance alto-
gether. Bill Hailey, Elvis Presley, and the Beatles, for instance, ap-
pealed to teenagers throughout the English-speaking world, as well as
further afield, spreading slang as they went, including gear “excellent”
(1951—, British), rock and roll [a type of music] (1954—, originally
US), see you later alligator “get lost; goodbye” (1956—), grotty
“unpleasant; nasty” (1964—, originally British). Common interests
fuelled a sense of spiritual unity, although direct communication
wasn’t yet easily available. Hippies, in particular, felt themselves to
be part of an international movement resisting the establishment. As
a counterbalance to this globalization of youth culture, it has also
become increasingly fractional. Teenagers have self-identified, and
identified one another, as rockers, mods, punks, glam rockers, new
romantics, skinheads, goths, emos, and gangstas, to name only a few
of the many trends in music and fashion since the 1950s. Some
teenagers choose to identify themselves by reference to a favourite
television programme or sporting team, a preferred social activity or
drug, or by participation in a particular sport: especially surfing or
skateboarding. With the advent of the Internet, it’s also possible for
an individual who’s entirely isolated geographically and socially to
feel that they’re part of a community of like-minded individuals.
Online, within that group, slang will develop as surely as it does in
physical proximity (see Chapter 11).
Military authorities have long recognized the useful functions
played by slang. For example, the US War Department compiled a
list of WWII slang even before the attack on Pearl Harbor made
American participation unavoidable. This was designed to boost
morale at home and in the forces, but also to provide a picture of the
6
Other terms of approval have already been mentioned or will come up later on.
American troops as well fed, ethnically harmonious, and confident of

victory. Similarly, advertisers and broadcasters have also become aware
that by using slang to address teenagers (and, increasingly, also the rest
of us), they can make their products seem newer and more appealing.
For example, in c.1961, Vaseline Hair Tonic was advertised with a
glossary and a competition to create new slang terms:
You’re hip in Teensville today if you’re flip. And to be flip, Daddy-O, you’ve
got to have the latest for your cha-cha-cha with the cats and chicks.
hip “in the know” (1904—) cha-cha(-cha) [apparently referring to

-ville [in invented place names] (1843—) the ballroom dance] (1954—)
flip “flippant; nonchalant” (1847—, cat “a man (who is in the know)”
originally US, usually negative) (1931—)
daddy-o [as a term of address] chick “a young woman” (1899—)
(c.1935—)
Some slang terms originate in the media and advertising, and many
more are popularized there. Advertisers and film makers began to
cash in on the idea of ‘the beat generation’ at the end of the 1950s, for
instance, and continued to employ beat language and stereotypes
badly (as here) long after the trend-leaders had moved on. Despite
the occasional ill-fated campaign against various aspects of teenage
language, there’s considerable toleration, celebration, and imitation of
teenage language by the adult world. Advertising campaigns that have
used slang include Fosters lager in the 1980s (strewth, there’s a bloke
down there with no strides on!), the British National Railway Museum
in 2003 (get down and dirty), Rizla cigarette papers in 2003 (twist and
burn), AT&T in 2007 (idk my bff Rose), and Nike in 2010 (I don’t
leave anything in the chamber).
Street slang
Contemporary American urban gang culture is another situation
apparently conducive to slang development. Here the official
Development 67
hierarchy is represented by the educational and legal systems, by

police and sometimes parents, as well as by the entire white establish-
ment. The gang provides a highly structured unofficial hierarchy, and
friction with rival gangs cements group identity further still.
Although there’s considerable pressure to conform within the
group, gang members police their own individuality by responding
aggressively to those who don’t show them sufficient respect, and this
is associated with fear of losing status or appearing weak, both of
which are potentially dangerous. Differences within the group can be
expressed almost as readily in violence as in words, and in this respect
conditions are atypical for slang development. There’s some social
and geographical isolation, and gang membership produces some
level of continuity, although the need to avoid detection when talking
about drugs may provide a motivation towards continual innovation.
However, what we think of as gang slang is several steps away from
reality. People outside gang culture are exposed to its slang through
music, film, and television. This tends to produce a higher level of
stability of vocabulary and fixedness in meaning than you might
expect to observe on the street, and terms used in The Wire, such as
police “a police officer” (1839—), re-up “to replenish one’s supply of
drugs” (1975—), and five-O “a police officer” (1983—, from CBS’s
Hawaii Five-O), may no longer be in everyday use in the hood “a
neighbourhood, particularly an inner-city area populated by African
Americans” (1967—).
Slang dictionaries and personal identity

All of the groups discussed in this chapter were considered creative
users of slang in their time. There are several (sometimes dozens) of
contemporary slang glossaries for all of them. Popular dictionaries of
current slang are produced for a variety of reasons:
to promote greater understanding of the slang-using group
to expose the dangers posed by the slang-using group
to represent the dictionary-maker as belonging to the group whose

slang they are documenting
to imply or state directly that other people are outside that group
to make money by responding to a current interest or anxiety.
Let me provide some examples. You’re probably familiar with terms

originating in gay slang, including camp “ostentatious; effeminate;
homosexual” (1909—), straight “heterosexual” (1919—), fag hag “a
heterosexual woman who associates with gay men” (1965—), and
breeder “a heterosexual” (1979—, originally US). Since the 1970s, lots
of gay slang has entered into more general usage, but this isn’t what
has motivated the writers of gay slang dictionaries. Glossaries of gay
slang were first published in the late nineteenth century, usually by
psychologists who’d found that understanding gay slang helped them
to win the trust of their patients. A typewritten glossary of the 1950s,
called The Gay Girl’s Guide to the Western World, was designed to
provide an insight into gay slang to those who hadn’t yet ventured out
of the closet (1963—, originally US). In a frank and extensive dic-
tionary called The Queens’ Vernacular (1972), already mentioned in
the last chapter, Rodgers simultaneously celebrated the San Francisco
gay scene and his own sexuality. In contrast, David Noebel’s The
Homosexual Revolution (1977) argues that Rodgers’ list reinforces
Jude’s description of homosexuals as “filthy dreamers” (Jude 1:7,8). It also
confirms the fact that homosexuals do seduce and molest youth.
Noebel provided a glossary of gay slang based on selected and edited

entries from Rodgers’ dictionary to expose what he felt to be the
dangers of tolerating homosexuality. More modern dictionaries, such
as Paul Baker’s Fantabulosa (2002), tend to emphasize the continuity
of gay slang and appear to be motivated, at least in part, by a desire to
bear witness to the existence of a stable gay community with its own
history, traditions, and values. In each case, the motivations for
documenting gay slang influence the types of terms recorded.
Rhyming slang dictionaries illustrate some of the other motiva-
tions for producing popular slang dictionaries. Many rhyming slang
Development 69
dictionaries are brief and haphazardly compiled. Their covers usually

display icons of London (Tower Bridge; The Houses of Parliament;
red double-decker buses; pearly kings and queens) or broader images
of Englishness or Britishness (the flag of St George; the Union Jack).
They’re clearly aimed primarily at tourists, and provide a cheap and
portable caricature of Cockney (or English, or British) life, ideal as a
souvenir or gift. People buying these mini-dictionaries must under-
stand that they’re only intended as a bit of fun, but these publications
can represent a valuable asset to a small publishing company: one
pocket-sized rhyming-slang dictionary has been reprinted at least 34
times since 1971, without once having been revised or updated.
Other rhyming-slang dictionaries appear to be written for the in-
group rather than for outsiders. Strictly speaking, these ought to
address individuals from the East End of London, but migration
from London hasn’t stopped the descendants of Cockney barrow-
boys claiming their heritage, nor those who aspire to be the descen-
dants of Cockney barrow-boys. Actually, rhyming slang now appears
to form part of a wider white working-class sense of self in England,
and some rhyming-slang dictionaries address this broad English
audience. They imply that Englishness is about more than just living
in England or being born in England. Englishness is about having the
shared values that come from a common English heritage, which is as
eccentric, incomprehensible, and as difficult to acquire as rhyming
slang. It is also usually masculine, and defines various types of people
as outsiders, including grass(hopper) “copper: a policeman; an
informer” (1893—), four-by-two “a Jew” (1921—), brass (nail) “tail:
prostitute” (1934—), bubble and squeak “a Greek” (1938—), and
ginger (beer) “a queer: a homosexual” (1956-1978). A few rhyming-
slang terms from Australia and New Zealand function in a similar
way, including Jimmy Grant “an immigrant” (1845-1968),
pom(egranite)>pommie “immigrant; a British person” (1912—), Mor-
eton Bay (fig) “fizgig: an informer; a busybody” (1953-1975), and septic
(tank) “yank: an American” (1967—).
5 Slang play: Malcolm Poynter [untitled] from Ronnie Barker’s Fletcher’s Book of
Rhyming Slang (London: Pan, 1979), 10.
Perhaps even more interesting are the slang dictionaries that

haven’t been produced. Where are the dictionaries of the slang used
by sweatshop workers? Or by girls in boarding schools? Football
hooligans? Skinheads? Paedophiles? These groups probably do use
slang terms, and have probably originated some of their own. You
Development 71
could probably find some of their slang in general slang dictionaries,

but no one has gone to the trouble of publishing a glossary concen-
trating on the slang of these groups in particular, on paper at least.7
This is because no one has come forward to speak for these groups.
No one has chosen to represent them as peculiarly creative users of
slang. Equally, no one from outside the in-group has investigated
whether they are or not. Probably we don’t want to view these groups
as intelligent, innovative, or creative. We don’t want to see them as
trend-setting and rebellious. Perhaps we’d rather not think about
some of these groups or their language at all. We find slang only
where it comes to our attention (i.e. we come into contact with slang
users) or where we look for it. We look for slang only where we expect
or want to find it: once a group has been identified as slang-creators,
they tend to be credited with terms that other people came up with.
Conclusions
The term slang was originally condemnatory, and it sometimes still is,
but through the course of the twentieth century, earlier in Australia
and the United States, later in Britain, it came to be used in a more
celebratory sense. Slang was once considered a sign of poor breeding
or poor taste, but now it indicates that the speaker is fun-loving,
youthful, and in touch with the latest trends. Although some adults
try to discourage teenagers from using slang, plenty of others want to
understand and adopt it. In a world that celebrates youth and novelty,
slang now functions as a visible symbol of success or failure in
keeping up with the times. The entertainment industries, the media,
advertising, marketing, and the Internet have fundamentally changed
the way that slang is created and spread, and the conditions identified
in this chapter are no longer as central to slang development when
7
I have to confess that I haven’t looked for ‘paedophile slang’ because I didn’t want
to find it, but I can confirm that there were, at the time of writing, no online glossaries
concentrating on the slang of the other groups.
newly created or adapted words can be introduced to millions of

potential adopters more or less at the moment of their first use.
There’ll be more on these recent developments in Chapters 10 and 11.
Where slang is a product of a particular type of social setting, many
terms will survive for only a short time: our frogspawn will develop
only so far. Once circumstances change or individuals move on, it’s
likely that many of the terms they once needed will no longer be
useful. But why do some slang terms survive? How do they move
from one group to another until they are widely used around the
world? This is the subject of the next two chapters, in which we’ll see
slang tadpoles developing into fully fledged frogs.
Endnotes
Wilfred Granville’s Sea Slang of the Twentieth Century (London: Winchester,
1949) is an example of a dictionary that lists naval jargon and slang together.
Contemporary naval terms are available in the Sea Cadet Regulations (2008) at
<http://www.sccheadquarters.com>. The Glossary of Eton Expressions is at
<http://www.etoncollege.com/glossary.aspx>. Bert Little’s ‘Prison Lingo:
A Style of American English Slang’, Anthropological Linguistics 24 (1982),
206–44, explains how slang is used in prison, and Tom Dalzell kindly gave me
access to his copy of Your Vaseline Hair Tonic Flip-Talk Contest Booklet (New
York: n.p., c.1961), n.p. Also mentioned are Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the
English Language (London: J. & P. Knapton, 1755), Francis Grose’s A Classical
Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (London: Hooper, 1785), B. E.’s A New Diction-
ary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew (London: W. Hawes,
c.1698), the Gay Girl’s Guide to the U.S. and the Western World (n.p., c.1955),
Paul Baker’s Fantabulosa: A Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang (London:
Continuum, 2002), and David A. Noebel’s The Homosexual Revolution (Tulsa,
OK: American Christian College, 1977). The title of ‘most frequently reprinted
rhyming slang dictionary’ belongs to Jack Jones, Rhyming Cockney Slang (Bristol:
Abson, 1971). Connie C. Eble’s Slang and Sociability: In-group Language among
College Students (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1996) has much
more to say on the development of American college slang.
4 Survival and
Metamorphosis
The last chapter identified conditions favourable to the early

stages of slang development. This chapter will ask why some slang
tadpoles continue to develop, while so many others fail to thrive,
leaving barely a trace behind. In other words, it’s time to consider
how the survival of the fittest operates in slang evolution. As in
biological evolution, linguistic survival isn’t governed by quality.
People don’t speak English around the world because it’s better
than other languages: they speak English because it was a home
language or there were advantages to be gained from learning it
later. Similarly, American slang (for example) hasn’t spread around
the world because it’s objectively better than the alternatives, but
because of the political, economic, and technological developments
that made the United States a world power after WWI.
Slang used by American troops during WWI

We’ve seen that the two world wars presented ideal conditions for the
development of new slang among the troops. This was particularly
the case during WWI, when there were fewer opportunities for leave,
especially for individuals stationed far from home. The mass media
had little influence on WWI slang: films were still silent, gramophone
players were expensive and heavy, and radio broadcasting didn’t
begin until shortly after the war. Music hall songs and acts did feature
in the slang of trenches, but much of the military slang of this period
was generated in the field.1
Some Americans joined the armed forces of other nations early in
the war, and these scattered individuals adopted the slang and collo-
quial language used by their comrades. Although the United States
had declared war on Germany in April 1917, it wasn’t until the
summer of 1918 that large numbers of American troops arrived in
Europe. Nations involved in the conflict from the beginning had had
considerably more time to develop new slang and to cement its use
before the war was over. The American battalions of 1918 brought
military and general American slang with them, and picked up exist-
ing terms from those who’d already adapted to their new and peculiar
circumstances, including Fritz(ie) “a German; the Germans” (1914—),
windy “(justifiably) frightened” (1916—), and ack-ack “anti-aircraft”
(1917—). The invention of new terms was less necessary than it had
been for British and Commonwealth forces, but new terms were
created nonetheless. By 1919, the last American troops had returned
to the United States. Back with their families and back in their jobs,
they had little use for the slang terms they’d used abroad. Most of them
no longer needed to talk about artillery shells and body lice, so their
military slang terms fell from use, perhaps to be revived only nostalgi-
cally when returned soldiers bumped into one another and reminisced
about their experiences orally or in print. American veterans may have
bonded by remembering their common experiences through terms like
jam-can “a field stove” (1918), monkey “tinned meat” (1918+1919, but
used 1918-1983 in the longer form, monkey meat), and Carnegie derby
“a steel helmet” (1918-1921, named after the Carnegie steel company).
Terms like these are badges of experience and belonging, but once
1
Slang terms in this section are from Lighter’s ‘The Slang of the American
Expeditionary Forces in Europe’. For British WWI slang, see pp. 168–9 and 242–3.
Survival and Metamorphosis 75
they’re only used with reference to a remembered environment, they’re

no longer living slang: they’re just the fossilized remains of slang terms.
Sometimes the terms that are remembered and preserved aren’t the
ones that were most widely spread or generally used.
Some veterans continued using some military slang in their every-
day lives. Those who remained in military service inevitably
continued using more of the slang they had learnt in the forces than
those who moved into civilian life: in these more constant conditions,
slang terms could be passed on through decades of military use and
some received a new wave of exposure and use during WWII and in
later conflicts. For example, metal identification disks worn around a
soldier’s neck were first called dog tags during WWI (1918—, origi-
nally US), and the term re-emerged among succeeding generations of
conscripts. Other WWI slang that survived in military and naval use
includes foo-foo “toiletries” (1918—) and acting jack “an acting cor-
poral” (1917—). By the numbers “in a precise military fashion”
(1918—) has spread into wider use since WWII.
A few civilian professions, such as the aviation industry, sought to
recruit men with military experience because they particularly valued
veterans’ technological expertise and discipline. In these professions,
terms originating in the war continued in use, such as office “an
aeroplane’s cockpit” (1917-1989) and jenny “an aeroplane used for
training” (1924-1993). Some military slang continued in use among
the police, such as rookie “a new recruit” (c.1880—, mainly US) and
looey “a lieutenant” (1916—). Other terms are found in the slang of
those who had more trouble adapting to civilian life, including gang-
sters, who found use for typewriter “machine gun” (1915-1979), and
the homeless, who continued using pogey bait “sweets; candy”
(1918—). Some WWI slang was able to stay alive in these contexts,
but there was only room for terms that could adapt to their new
circumstances. As in the physical process of evolution, only the fittest
terms survived, and often it is mutation that makes this survival
possible. For example, WWI soldiers who went over the hill (1917-
1971) or over the top (1916—, historical in later use) were facing
probable and immediate death, but civilians who are over the hill are
merely past their best (1950—) while actions that are over the top are
excessive or unreasonable (1935—). In their original context, these
phrases weren’t better than alternatives like over the firing-step or over
the sandbags, but their survival indicates that they were fitter, in the
evolutionary sense, for post-war use.
As we have seen, only a few American slang terms from WWI
passed into more general use, often as a result of renewed exposure in
later conflicts. Inexperienced new recruits were first described as
raggedy-assed in 1918, and this use survives in military contexts, but
civilians probably understand the term in the more general sense
“inadequate; ragged”. We all sound off occasionally about things that
irritate or annoy us, perhaps without realising that the term originates
with an order instructing a marching band to strike up a tune. The
original sense dates from 1908; the figurative sense from 1918. When
you call someone a basket case to imply that they can’t cope with what
life throws at them, do you have in mind its original sense “an
individual who has lost all four limbs” (1919—)? Few of these WWI
slang terms have retained their original sense unchanged: most sur-
vive only with a different, and often much more general, meaning.
Without mutation, they couldn’t have survived.
American slang after WWI

After all of the linguistic (and other) upheavals of WWI, you might
think that it would be unnecessary to come up with any more new
words for a while. After all the loss and destruction, many people did
value continuity, but the proto-teenagers of the 1920s weren’t inter-
ested in upholding tradition. Flappers and their less numerous male
counterparts, largely just a little too young or a little too female to have
been affected by the war directly, were nevertheless devoted to living
life as though it might end at any moment. Glossaries of flapper slang
appeared in several American newspapers during the early 1920s,
many of them suspiciously similar. They begin by setting the scene:
Scene—A flapper’s home at 1 A.M. Up-to-date member of the younger

generation returning home from evening out, having left her “boy friend” at
or near the door. Meets mother.
Mother—Well, dear, did you have a good time?
Flapper—Hot dog! It was the cat’s pyjamas. Started perfectly blaah, though.
Joe brought a strike-breaker, some tomato he turned sub-chaser for, ’cause
his regular jane had given him the air. Jack had a flat-wheeler along who was a
cellar-smeller. He got jammed. We struck a jazz-garden where a bunch of
bun-dusters were necking it. Some wallie tried to horn in on our gang and we
bloused. We crashed the gate at a swell joint like some finale-hoppers. We
scandaled till one of the boys got beautifully shellacked, so we took the air.
Slang terms in this extract include:
flapper “a prostitute; a young woman jazz [a type of music] (1915—)

who flouts convention” (1888—, now bunch “a group of people” (1622—)
historical) bun-duster “a person who attends social
boyfriend “a woman’s male escort or functions but doesn’t issue invitations in
romantic partner” (1906—) return” (1922)
hot dog [an expression of approval] neck (it) “to dance cheek to cheek; to
(1906, chiefly US) engage in kissing or petting” (1842—)
cat’s pyjamas “the peak of excellence” wallie [see below]
(1922—) horn in “to intrude; to butt in” (1909—,
blah “disappointing; dull” (1922—) originally US)
strike-breaker [used with reference to gang “a group of people” (1632—)
industrial action] (1904—) blouse “to leave” (1922+1922)
tomato “an attractive woman” (1922—) crash the gate “to attend a party
sub-chaser [see below] uninvited” (1919—)
jane “a woman; a girlfriend” (1865—, swell “first rate; stylish” (1812—,
chiefly US) originally UK)
give the air “to dismiss; to jilt” (1900—) joint “a place of resort, especially an
flat-wheel(er) “a mean, poor, or opium den or speakeasy” (1821—,
unimpressive person” (1922-1929) chiefly US)
cellar-smeller “an individual who finale-hopper “someone who arrives at
habitually drinks other people’s the end of an event” (1922—, historical in
alcohol” (1922) later use)
jammed “drunk; stoned” (a.1856—) scandal “to dance ‘the Scandal’” (1922)
strike “to arrive” (1798-1915, originally shellacked “drunk” (1922—)
colonial)
Flappers were characterized by their disregard for convention and for

the views of their elders. They thought for themselves, they dressed in
shockingly revealing clothes that didn’t restrict their movements, they
cut their hair, smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol (despite Prohibition),
and socialized without the inconvenience of chaperones whenever
they could get away with it. They were, above all else, modern.
Commentators observed them as individuals but wrote them up as
a social movement. All of this behaviour was undoubtedly more
striking among young women than young men, and young men
were in short supply at this time, but it’s a rare youth trend in
which women are foregrounded, and this may be another way in
which the war was being deliberately placed at a distance. Untouched
by the war, unworried by financial restraints or economic portents,
unrestricted by the demands of work or the conventions of the past,
the flapper lived life to the full on behalf of all those who had to
continue worrying. They also functioned, at this time, as a symbol of
the folly of extending the vote to women. Their frivolity may have
been endearing to some, but it was alarming to others.
It might be thought that newspapers presenting flappers’ language
would choose to foreground new terms even if better established
words had continued in use, but many of the terms attributed to
our flapper had already been in use for ten or fifteen years, and
sometimes much longer.2 Although these terms were by no means
new, they were still novel enough or informal enough to strike a
conservative mother or reader as modern, particularly in the mouths
of middle-class young women. The flapper is being given credit for
other people’s inventiveness because it was modern for young ladies
to be drinking, dancing, and using slang at all. Her use of slang is in
keeping with the rest of her speech and with the way she lives her life.
It is, above all, emphatic and exuberant. She uses intensifiers like
perfectly and beautifully to celebrate experiences that aren’t really
2
Note that flappers aren’t slang-developers, on the whole: they’re slang-adopters
(so they don’t bring the conditions for slang development into question).
perfect or beautiful. She and her friends aren’t forced to leave the
party in disgrace, they take the air. A girl who socializes with someone
else’s boyfriend is a strike-breaker, in topical reference to the growing
influence of the unions. The flapper abbreviates because to ’cause, a
form the OED describes as ‘vulgar’, and uses some repeatedly to
emphasize her lack of interest in individuals who don’t meet with
her approval as well as her lack of concern for the consequences of her
own actions. None of this was particularly modern, but its concentra-
tion in the speech of a well-to-do young woman addressing her
mother would have been striking. But this isn’t the genuine speech
of a genuine flapper. This isn’t social commentary: it’s imaginative
journalism.
It’s clear that much of the flapper’s speech was not as new as it
might have sounded to newspaper readers of the time, but some of the
slang in this extract does appear to have originated in this period. We
can’t be sure whether flappers were the originators of these terms, or
whether they’d been in use unnoticed for several years before they were
caught inadvertently in the trawler-net of media interest in flappers.
Some are documented in use elsewhere, and a small number are still in
use today. Of the slang terms included in this extract, blouse, finale-
hopper, flat-wheel(er), to crash the gate,3 blah, shellacked, the cat’s
pyjamas,4 and tomato were all quite modern. It’s possible that the British
term wally “an unfashionable or inept person” represents continued
use of the flapper term wallie “a goof with patent-leather hair”, with
the term apparently having crossed the Atlantic during the 1960s.
The language presented as belonging to these modern women
shows very little overlap with WWI military slang. Of all the slang
3
The form gate-crasher “one who crashes the gate” was first recorded in 1927;
gate-crashing is recorded as a noun from the same year, and as an adjective from 1929.
By 1931, to gatecrash had been created by back-formation.
4
Other phrases referring to the peak of excellence that were also fashionable at the
time include the cat’s whiskers (1920—) and the bee’s knees (1922—). The dog’s
bollocks (1949—) is rather later, and the badger’s nadgers (2003—) is still relatively
rare.
terms used in this scene, only sub-chaser could possibly be traced to

military usage, having been used with the sense “a vessel which chases
submarines” from 1918, though sub could also be understood as an
abbreviation for substitute or sub-deb “a girl in her mid teens”
(1917—, chiefly US) in this context. Flappers aren’t so easily identi-
fied as enlisted men: they didn’t form a group with regulations and
agreed periods of membership, but the type of girl identified as a
flapper during this period must have come into social contact with
veterans of the war, men only a few years older than themselves. They
must also have heard and read reports of wartime experience, but
there’s little sign of it in the language attributed to them. Perhaps the
soldiers and flappers had so little in common that there just weren’t
any terms that were relevant to both of them. There weren’t many
jazz gardens in the trenches, after all. But it could be that the essence
of flappers’ modernity lay in their rejection of the war and everything
associated with it. Not only must it never happen again, but it was
also better not to dwell on it. Perhaps flappers and those who wrote
about them were deliberately constructing a wall of solid frivolity to
stand between themselves and any thought of the war.
Of these flapper terms, bun-duster, cellar-smeller, and scandal don’t
appear to have enjoyed wide usage. They all fall into the sections of the
alphabet that haven’t yet been updated in the OED, and if there’s
sufficient evidence of use some will undoubtedly be included in the
completed third edition. But for some, there’ll be no additional evidence
of their use. Or, put another way, there will be no evidence of their use at
all. This wouldn’t be the only time journalists had talked up a trend.
The birth and death of slang

We’ve seen that it isn’t a simple matter to identify when and where a
slang word was created. Slang is characteristic of speech rather than
writing (a statement not as true as it used to be, as we’ll see in Chapter
11, but it certainly works for the flappers of the 1920s), but we’re
largely reliant on written sources for the slang of earlier periods. What
spoken language we do have access to from this period is generally

scripted: in films, plays, books, and songs we can get closer to the
language of speech, but it’s still a representation of speech rather
than genuine spontaneous conversation. Many slang terms are used
for a time without contemporaries commenting on them. It’s only
when they are used by individuals that the wider world is interested
for other reasons, such as flappers, that slang terms are held up as
examples of a current trend. Even in the best record we have of
English words, the OED, and even in the sections of the alphabet
that have been updated for the third edition, it’s often possible to find
earlier examples of use. But even if we could be certain that we’d
found the earliest written example of a term, we still wouldn’t know
when it was first used in speech, and we’ve already seen that this issue
is particularly pertinent for slang.
If identifying the birth of a slang term is hard, it’s harder still to pin
down its death. Veterans of WWI largely left its slang behind them.
Where it wasn’t relevant to civilian life, they didn’t need it and so they
didn’t use it. Perhaps choosing not to use the slang of the war was part
of putting the war behind them, but they could have used it if they’d
wanted to. Terms remaining in their passive vocabularies could easily
have been revived if circumstances had demanded it. Equally, when
flappers grew up and settled down they probably had less use
for the slang of dancing and drinking, but when it was their turn
to be bemused by their children’s lifestyles, they might have tried
to engage with them by using the slang of their own youth. We have
no evidence for this type of conversation. No journalist of the 1940s
or 50s thought to document the slang of middle-aged middle-class
mothers. What was interesting by then was the new slang of the
new generation. In a creative representation of this exchange, it
would be more effective to depict the mother’s language conserva-
tively to emphasize the distance between the generations. Like
mothers, slang past its prime receives little attention.
The soldiers and flappers were close to one another chronologi-
cally, but they lived in different worlds. Their activities and interests
were entirely different. It’s little wonder that they had little slang in
common. But do we see the same kind of slang loss where there’s
more similarity of context? For this purpose, let’s have a look at the
slang allegedly used by beats and hippies in the 1950s and 60s.
Despite the decade that separates them, they have a similar world
view and lifestyle, but does the similarity extend to their language?
Beat slang
Although there were a few earlier glossaries of beat language, the one
in Lawrence Lipton’s The Holy Barbarians (1959) is the earliest to
document the slang of the beats from an internal perspective, and the
beat slang terms listed in this section are all from Lipton’s list. Lipton
lived in Venice, California, which was decidedly where it was at, and
he listed around 80 terms characteristic of his social group as part of
an attempt to explain the beat perspective to the wider world. He
doesn’t claim that the beats originated these terms or that they were
the only people to use them, but he does imply that it would be
impossible to understand them without understanding their
6 Jazz slang: Charley Krebs, ‘Wrong Axe’ from the Chicago Jazz Magazine, April/
May 2005, 10.
language. Naturally the beats hadn’t excised all well-established slang

and colloquial terms from their vocabulary, but it’s surprising how
many terms that now sound definitively beatish had already been in
use for some years and were in relatively widespread usage at the
time. These include (from Lipton’s list) frantic “frenzied; excited
(usually in a bad way)” (1561—), like [as an interjection] (1778—,
originally dialect), and be nowhere “to be out of one’s depth” (1840—)
or “to be insignificant or worthless” (1843—), both originally US.
Many terms attributed to the beats had been in use for some time
in more specialized or restricted contexts. Jazz musicians and enthu-
siasts had been developing and changing their own slang terms for
several decades, and the beats’ association with jazz music and admi-
ration for jazz musicians made it inevitable that they would adopt
some of these terms, including some that originated outside the jazz
world but largely in African American usage:
hot “excellent” (1866—) in the (or a) groove “enjoying music;

ball “a good time” (1879—) enjoying anything” (1932–)
square “conventional; unappreciative of shack up “to cohabit” (1934—)
jazz” (1901—), only a slight shift from the hipster “a cool and
sense “dependable; honourable; upright” knowledgeable individual” (1940—)
(a.1644—) fall out “to faint; to collapse” (1941—)
gig “a professional musical engagement” drug “exhausted; bored; depressed”
(1908—) (1946-1970)
cool “up to date; sophisticated” (1918—) gone “very excited or inspired; high on
go “to be carried away by the pleasure of drugs” (1946—)
music; to make an effort” (1926-1974) far out “excellent” (1954—)
crazy “wild; exciting; excellent” (1927—) funky “bluesy; emotional; fashionable”
be with it “to be informed or up to date” (1954—)
(1931—) ax(e) “a musical instrument” (1955—)
Clearly the beats, like the flappers, were being given credit for the
creativity of others: although many of these terms had been in use
among black musicians for decades before, it was their use by white
dropouts that was considered worthy of attention.
The beats also associated with users and sellers of drugs, and
naturally they picked up some of the pre-existing vocabulary of this
group, including hype “a drug-user; a hypodermic syringe” (1924—),
high “exhilarated by the effects of drugs” (1931—), connection “a
supplier of drugs” (1931—), and hold “to be in possession of drugs”
(1935—). Drug-users shared many of the characteristics that contem-
porary commentators attributed to the beats, notably an unwilling-
ness to wash or hold down a steady job. Whether or not beats were
distinguishable from other drug-users at the time, there were clear
reasons why these two groups might choose to hang out “to loiter; to
consort” (1811—) together.
Terms originally found in the language of thieves and the homeless
may also have become more general by the time the beats adopted
them, but it isn’t hard to envisage individuals passing from one of
these milieu into another. For example, Lipton records that beats
were using the terms pad “a house; a place to sleep” (1914—, origi-
nally in criminal slang) and gimp “a lame person; a lame leg; a limp”
(1920—, originally in hobo and criminal slang). Similarly, since the
beats rejected the values of wider society, it isn’t surprising that some
of the language of psychotherapy had slipped into their usage, such as
relate to “to understand or have empathy with” (1947—).
Once the well-established terms have been accounted for, there are
relatively few new terms in Lipton’s list that could be attributed
to the beats themselves. Of these, the only two to have entered
wider usage are turn on “to introduce to drugs; to arouse sexually”
(1955—)5 and ball “to have sexual intercourse (with)” (1955—),
which could be from ball “to have a good time” (1946—), ball “a
testicle” (a.1325—), or a falling together of these two unrelated words.
5
There’s an isolated use in Henry James’s The Ambassadors (1903), where
it appears to mean “to inform; to confide in; to ask for assistance”, which isn’t quite
the same thing.
Of the words in Lipton’s glossary, only work “sexual intercourse”

appears to have been restricted to this group. Analysing Lipton’s
terms demonstrates that although the beats may have spoken in a
distinctive way, they were by no means as creative (in terms of slang
production) or as far out as they were generally held to be at the time.
Hippy slang
A glossary of similar length was included in May Lay and Nancy
Orban’s Hip Glossary of Hippie Language (1967). Published in San
Francisco only eight years later, it wasn’t far removed from Lipton’s
list in time or space. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that it
contains many of the same terms, some of which had been in use for a
long time, including cut out “to move quickly; to leave” (1797—), drag
“a bore” (1857—), and to split “to leave” (1865—). More numerous in
Lay and Orban’s hippy glossary are terms adopted by the beats from
the jazz scene and from drug users, including some that had been in
circulation for some time:
bust “to arrest” (1899/1900—, from the dig “to understand; to appreciate”
military sense “to demote” (1878—)) (1934—, originally African American)
hep “in the know” (1904—) bread “money” (1935—)
spade “a black person; a black man” square “someone who doesn’t
(1910—) appreciate jazz; a conventional person”
dealer “a supplier of drugs” (1928—) (1944—)
fix “a dose of drugs” (1934—)
Perhaps some of the terms dating from the 1940s and 50s should be
attributed to the creativity and influence of the beats, including:
benny “Benzedrine; a Benzedrine horse “heroin” (1950—)

tablet” (1945—) the scene “a location or milieu in which
flip (out) “to go wild; to become insane” like-minded fashionable people
(1950—, also flip one’s wig (1934—) and socialize” (1951—)
flip one’s lid (1941—))
It shouldn’t be surprising that a few terms used by African Amer-

icans but not exclusively associated with the jazz scene also found
their way into the white counterculture in this period, though they’re
often used with a weakened or more general sense. Soul, for instance,
is defined in the OED as referring to “the emotional or spiritual
quality of Black American life and culture, manifested esp. in
music” (1946—). Lay and Orban define it more generally as “a term
used to describe that quality in a person most easily described in
straight language as compassion; active and lively compassion; a
7 Hippy slang: From Ann Mathers’s The Hip Pocket Book (New York: Aphrodite
Press, 1967), 4.
being at one with the world and man”. Similarly, soul brother (1959—),
which the OED defines as “a fellow Black man” is weakened to “a
friend” and blood “a Black person; a close friend” (1965—) is
described as “a neutral word for a negro”, though its original con-
notations were decidedly positive.
A few other terms in the hippy glossary appear to have developed
from uses included in the beat list. Both glossaries listed wig out “to be
overcome by emotion” (1955—), but the hippy list includes wig “the
head; the brain; the mind” (1944-1980, US Black). Swing, “to be
involved in the uninhibited fashionable scene” (1957—, often histori-
cal in later use) is included in the hippy list, while the beat glossary
includes swinging “uninhibited” (a.1955—, often historical in later
use). The hippy list documents the development of a new layer of
meaning under the influence of the free-love movement of the 1960s,
by also defining swing in the sense “to engage in promiscuous or
group sex” (1964—).
Although most of the terms included in Lay and Orban’s list hadn’t
been listed by Lipton as having been in use among the beats of the
previous decade, they were by no means new. Several, such as hashish
“dried leaves or resin from the cannabis plant” (1598—), hookah “a
pipe that cools smoke by passing it through water” (1763—), peyote “a
hallucinogenic drug made from the peyote cactus” (1849—), and
marijuana “dried leaves or resin from the cannabis plant” (1874—)
aren’t slang at all. With the exception of out of sight “excellent”
(1876—), short “a car” (1932—, used with the sense “a street car; a
tram” from 1909), and bug “to annoy” (1947—, which appears to
have originated in jazz or beat usage), these well-established terms
illustrate the hippies’ interests in politics, self-realization, and drugs:
blow “to smoke” (1773—) the establishment “government; anyone
where it’s at “the true state of in power” (1923—)
affairs; the place to be” (1854—) weed “marijuana” (1929—)
head “a drug-user” (a.1911—) dyke “a lesbian” (1932—)
papers “cigarette papers” (c.1911—) cope “to deal with a situation or
problem” (1934—)
uptight “tense; anxious; inhibited” profits from a crime” (1914—,

(1934—, but not common until 1966) criminals), and more general uses
tea “marijuana” (1935—) hang-up “difficulty; fixation” (1952—)
straight “conventional” (1941—) joint “a marijuana cigarette” (1952—,
the man “a drug-dealer” (1942—) used with reference to hypodermic
up “exhilarated by drugs; equipment since 1935 and normal
high” (1942—) cigarettes since 1942)
grass “marijuana” (1943—) toke “to take a puff on a joint” (1952—)
high “a drug-induced state of psychedelic “mind-altering, especially
euphoria” (1944—) in association with LSD” (1957—)
hung up (on) “confused (about); roach-holder “a cigarette holder”
preoccupied (with)” (1945—, originally (1958—)
jazz) trip “a drug-induced hallucinogenic
matchbox “a quantity of marijuana; a experience” (1959—)
number of joints” (1946—) lid “a measurement of marijuana,
hit “a dose of narcotics; a puff on a usually an ounce” (1961—)
joint” (1951—) bag “a preference or interest” (1962—,
score “the successful acquisition of originally jazz)
drugs” (1951—), from the sense “the meth “methamphetamine” (1963—)
The terms from the 1940s and 50s may have originated in beat usage,
or have been borrowed from the beats by other drug-users, but Lipton
didn’t list them. Lipton also omitted happening “a performance; an
exhibition; an event” (1959—) and the underground “a subculture”
(1959—).
On the evidence of Lay and Orban’s list, the hippies were more
active slang-creators than Lipton’s beats had been.6 Although the two
lists are approximately the same length, Lay and Orban identified 12
terms that had been in use for two years or less, largely relating to
drug use and emotional states:
6
It may just be that hippies had a stronger sense of group identity than the beats and
put more effort into documenting their newness by enregistering their speech.
acid “LSD” (1965—) hallucination” (1966—)

blow one’s mind “to induce be-in “a public gathering of hippies”
hallucinations or pleasurable (1967—), formed by analogy with Civil
sensations” (1965—) Rights sit-ins (1960—)
teeny bopper “a teenage follower crash “to come down from a high”
of current trends” (1965—) (1967—, apparently from crash (out) “to
turn off “to repel; to inspire no interest” sleep, esp. for a single night or in an
(1965—) emergency” (1945—, originally
mellow yellow “banana skin prepared Australian))
for smoking” (1966—) freak “a drug-user” (1967—)
narc “a narcotics officer” (1966—) key “a kilogramme of a drug” (1967—)
trip (out) “to experience drug-induced speed “amphetamine” (1967—)
Three of Lay and Orban’s slang terms aren’t attested elsewhere: color-
head “an individual with a heightened interest in colour”, opiate
“a person under the influence of opium”, and super straight “slightly
unconventional”.
Beats, hippies, and after

So what does all of this tell us about the beats and the hippies? It tells
us that both groups were considered by their contemporaries (or
themselves, at least) to be creative, modern, and unconventional.
Although both groups acquired a great deal of their slang from
elsewhere, they appear to have been credited with innovations that
weren’t theirs. It isn’t clear whether our beat and hippy lexicographers
knew that the terms they were documenting had originally been used
by other groups: it is possible that they’d encountered them first
amongst beats or hippies and assumed that these groups were the
first users. On the other hand, it’s also possible that some of these
terms retained their associations with their earlier users, and that the
beats and hippies were self-consciously associating themselves with
oppressed and creative minorities. This second possibility brings us
on to the reason why there was much more continuity between beat
and hippy usage than there was between military and flapper slang.
Flappers wanted to distance themselves from the war generation, but

the hippies admired the beats: they had a similar world view and
similar ideas about what was and wasn’t important. The continuity of
vocabulary is a reflection of continuities in aspirations and philoso-
phy, as well as in the life stories of some of the individuals involved.
There were differences, of course, between the beats and the
hippies. The beats dropped out from society but were content to
live alongside it, whereas many hippies sought to challenge and
change the values and rules of mainstream society. New trends
reacted against these ideals in their turn during the 1970s, particularly
glam rock, punk, and disco. By the time I was a teenager, in the 1980s,
calling someone a hippy “a person who is or attempts to be hip, now
usually with reference to the late 1960s” (1952—) implied that they
were unfashionably dressed and out of date. Far from being hip, a
hippy was someone who’d failed to keep up with the latest trends.
Individuals of our age or older who used terms like far out or groovy
marked themselves as hippies by association and, for a time at least
(in the circles I mixed in), these terms were only ever used ironically.
If we described a party as groovy we meant not that it was “excellent”,
but that it was the kind of party that someone who might say groovy
would think was excellent. To an adult, this might have sounded like a
positive evaluation, but we knew it wasn’t. So much information in one
little word—no wonder slang survives! In other places and among
other groups of people, these terms probably had entirely different
connotations. Many of the terms used by the beats and the hippies were
more firmly embedded in general American slang than they were in
general British slang, and so they were more marked in British usage in
the post-hippy period and perhaps more carefully avoided.
Slang Survival: Continued use

We’ve seen that there are various levels on which slang can survive.
The first is that they continue in use with the same or a closely related
sense. Many jazz terms, for example, were adopted by the beats and
later by the hippies, often with only a slight widening in meaning.

This will tend to happen where circumstances or attitudes remain
relatively constant and where the new users of the slang terms are
happy to be associated with the old users. The clothes and music may
change, but as long as the underlying philosophy is similar, the slang
terms can continue in use. We have also seen that once youth move-
ments began to rebel against the ideals of the late 60s and 70s, much
of the slang associated with that period began to fall from use.
Slang survival: Adaptation

The second level on which slang terms survive is best represented
by the WWI terms still in general use. In circumstances that
were completely different, and in a situation where many people
were doing their best not to talk about or think about the war,
these terms could survive only by adapting to their new conditions.
Sometimes this survival was in much more restricted use, sometimes
at the expense of a change in meaning, but it always comes about
by chance rather than design. Adaptation for survival isn’t a deliber-
ate choice by the words or their users, any more than Darwin’s wind-
carried finches looked around their new island home and thought,
‘Hmmm, I’m definitely going to need a bigger beak.’
Although changes in meaning are common at all levels of English,
slang terms don’t tend to experience the brakes of conservative usage
and etymology. Individuals who object that petrified really means
“turned to stone”, or who object to the first vowel in latte rhyming
with either batty or farty (with or without a glottal stop), are unlikely
to extend the same careful reference to the etymological origins of
slang terms. Such an individual is unlikely to argue that chill shouldn’t
be used to mean “to pass time idly” (1985—, originally US) because it
really means “to calm down” (1979—, originally US). It’s more likely
that they’d either argue that these senses of chill should be avoided
altogether, because they’re slang, or that they’d be entirely unaware of
them. Changes in slang usage occur more freely and without the
disapproval that sometimes meets changes in Standard English.
Slang survival: Allusion

Slang terms can also survive in allusive use, often with ironic refer-
ence to their original meaning or users. Allusive use may be a
temporary stage on the route to obsolescence, but it also offers the
possibility of revival at a later stage. Similarly revivable are slang
terms that are remembered rather than actively used. WWI veterans
probably didn’t entirely forget the slang of the war. Although most of
these terms had little function in the post-war world, they remained
available for use when required. Perhaps, meeting for the first time,
decades after the conflict, they were still able to reminisce about the
Jack Johnsons (1914-1962)7 and flaming onions (1918-1943). Perhaps
this use of a shared vocabulary drew old soldiers closer by coded
reference to their unspeakable shared experience.
Slang survival: Representation

Slang survives in allusive use, where the original users refer back to
their own usage, but it also survives in representations of usage.
Because words like fab and groovy became so closely associated with
the 1960s (although groovy had already been in use for several
decades), they became easy shorthand for that decade not just
among later youths of an ironic turn, but also for dramatic recreators
of that period. In 1997, when Mike Myers wanted to parody British
cinema of the 1960s, he had Austin Powers use slang that matched his
clothes. After this point, people starting using words like fab and
groovy third-hand: in ironic reference to a parody of 1960s usage, and
these and other terms acquired a new lease of life as a consequence.
7
This is from the name of an African American boxing champion nicknamed ‘the
big smoke’ from smoke “a black person” (1902—, US).
Some of their current users are probably unaware of these terms’

layered and complicated histories, and use them without any ironic
intention.
Conclusions
For slang to survive, conditions have to remain similar or adaptation
has to occur. Slang with no useful function won’t survive in continued
use, though it might survive in allusion or representation (bearing in
mind that the existence of numerous synonyms doesn’t render a slang
term useless). It’s possible for any word to be revived so long as some
trace of its use remains on paper or in memory, and this makes it very
dangerous to claim that a slang term has fallen from use. As we’ve
seen, it can be difficult to identify first dates of use too, but focussing
on slang terms and even on groups of users could distract us from the
fact that neither could exist without individual slang-users. The next
chapter considers the decisions made by individuals in choosing
whether or not to use slang: it looks at the final stage of metamor-
phosis by which the tadpole becomes amphibious and is able to
colonize other ponds.
Endnotes
The American WWI slang is from Jonathan Lighter’s ‘The Slang of the American
Expeditionary Forces in Europe, 1917-1919: An Historical Glossary’, American
Speech 47 (1972), 5–142, with additional information from my main dictionary
sources. I’ve quoted the scene between the flapper and her mother from ‘Flapper
Filology’, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 8 Mar. 1922, 9, but it appeared in several
other newspapers at around the same time. Lawrence Lipton’s The Holy Barbar-
ians (New York: Messner, 1959) and May Lay and Nancy Orban’s The Hip
Glossary of Hippie Language (San Francisco: [self-published], 1967) provided
the beat and hippy slang.
5 The Spread of
Slang
So far we’ve talked about how groups of people adapt slang already
in existence or create their own slang for use in new circumstances.
This chapter will focus on individuals’ motivations for using slang.
Under most normal circumstances, individuals aren’t cut off from
communication with those around them if they don’t adopt new
slang words. That’s not how slang works—it’s embedded within
standard or colloquial language as an optional extra, so it’s usually
entirely possible to communicate clearly and effectively without it.
It’s normal for some individuals within a group to use a lot of slang,
while other members of the same group will use little or none at all.
Although slang development is favoured by the unusual circum-
stances set out in Chapter 3, in normal social interaction slang
use more commonly arises from willing identification with a social
subgroup. Most of us pick up and use slang in everyday conversation
rather than in the enforced companionship of the barracks, prison
cell, or school dormitory. We use slang in casual conversations in
the places where we live, work, and socialize. Although we may
wonder about the origins or meaning of a slang word or phrase
when we first hear it, we quickly become used to it and sometimes
The Spread of Slang 95
adopt it ourselves. By these means, our slang tadpoles finally develop

into frogs and become able to move far beyond their original pond.
Social grooming and individuality

Most slang words are optional substitutes for synonyms in Standard
English. Usually whatever is said in slang could be expressed in
Standard English. For example, here are some of the many responses
to a video clip called ‘BBC mistakes cab driver for IT-expert’ on
YouTube:
Proper blagger . . . LOL, good one matey . . . this guy is a legend I reckon.
hahahahahahaha!! what a ledge
AHAHAHAA this is so EPIC !!!!AHAH
rofl hes like its not me
LOL this guy is sick
This guy kicks ass.
The clip shows a man called Guy Goma, who was waiting for a job
interview when he was mistakenly taken into a studio during a live
broadcast and introduced as Guy Kewney, an IT expert. After his
initial and amusingly apparent shock, Goma did his best to answer
the questions put to him despite his lack of expertise. These responses
to the clip all make the same basic points: that Goma made an
impressive job of bluffing in a difficult situation and that the clip
was very funny. Laughter is represented by haha (OE—), ahah, which
may be a deliberate mistyping of haha, LOL (which we’ve already
seen), and ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing, since at least 2000).
We’re told that Goma is a ledge and a legend (since at least 1997), and
that he kicks ass (1977—, originally and chiefly US). He’s sick “excel-
lent” (1983—) and the clip is epic “significant; excellent” (since at least
2000). Another contributor took issue with the use of the word sick,
interpreting it as criticism rather than a term of admiration (and
assuming that the criticism was motivated by racism). To avoid such
misunderstandings, the contributors could each have made their
point more clearly by typing, ‘I liked this man because his reaction to
an awkward situation made me laugh.’ So why didn’t they? Well, once
a few people had said this, there would be no point in repeating it in
the same words, or adding a chorus of ‘me too’ and ‘I agree’. Using
slang makes it possible to say more or less the same thing in a variety
of ways. Saying the same thing in a variety of ways is less about
communicating meaning than about building and maintaining rela-
tionships. It contributes to the social grooming function played by
conversation, in the same way that greetings, compliments, and
observations about the weather do, but slang helps us to express
ourselves as individuals at the same time. In the responses to this
clip, slang also conveys a far more exuberant sense of admiration and
humour than Standard English can. Finally, using slang allows the
contributors to distance themselves from the authority figure in this
situation (the BBC interviewer) and to identify with Goma or at least
to signal that they’re admiring him rather than laughing at him.
Codes and hidden hierarchies

Often, by choosing to use a slang term in preference to a Standard
English synonym, we’re providing information about ourselves and
about our relationships and interests. Let’s take a more traditional
situation for slang use: face-to-face conversation. Unfortunately, ex-
amples aren’t so readily available, and rather than resort to literary
representations or film clips, I’ve made up my own using current
slang terms documented by my students. These conversations include
more slang than you’d be likely to find in real life.
A white male student—let’s call him Jack—pushes his way over to a
friend in a student bar in Leicester and shouts, ‘Sam, mate. I’m so
crunk!’, probably assuming that Sam will understand what he means.
The meanings of crunk include “excellent; exciting; excited, especially
as a result of listening to (hip hop or rap) music; intoxicated with
drink or drugs; obnoxious” (1995—), and several of these senses work
reasonably well in this context, where the right kind of DJ is playing
the right kind of music. Many contributors to Urban Dictionary

consider it to be a blend of crazy and drunk, and use it specifically
with reference to a state of exhilaration brought about by alcohol or
drugs rather than music. The OED offers this as a possible etymology,
along with a derivation from an otherwise unattested strong past
participle of crank: the DJ cranks up the music, the music is cranked,
the audience is crunk. Urban lexicographers who mention either
etymology generally do so to affirm the correctness of their under-
standing of the meaning of the term and to demonstrate that anyone
who uses it differently is wrong.
In fact, even if Sam had never heard the word before, Jack’s body
language and facial expression, along with the context, would proba-
bly have enabled him to make a pretty good guess at its meaning. The
meaning of crunk is less important than its interpersonal function.
Because crunk tends to be used in the context of hip hop and rap
music, it confirms that Jack likes and understands the music and the
cultural trends that go along with it. To claim this identification, Jack
probably has to work harder as a white British student than if he were
a Black youth from inner London, let alone a genuine urban African
American. But Jack isn’t just saying, ‘I find rap music exhilarating’;
he’s assuming that Sam does as well. If Sam does, he’ll probably be
familiar with crunk and his response will confirm his appreciation
and cement the bond between them. If he doesn’t, but he’s reasonably
socially adept, he’ll probably pretend that he knows the word for now.
Perhaps he’ll look it up on Urban Dictionary, but it’s more likely that
he’ll forget about it until next time he hears or reads it, and that a
combination of the contexts in which he comes across the term will
help him to refine his understanding of its meaning. Jack may intend
crunk to mean “exhilarated by hip hop” and Sam may hear the
slurring in Jack’s voice and decide that it must mean “drunk”. If the
next time Sam hears the word crunk, “drunk” still works as its meaning,
and if enough other people make the same misinterpretation and use
the word accordingly, the word will have that new meaning for some
people, and resistance is futile.
If, instead of bluffing, Sam were to ask what crunk meant, Jack
would either be amused by Sam’s innocence (if he were an exchange
student or had had an unusually repressive upbringing, for example),
or he would conclude that there must be some good reason why Sam
doesn’t have many friends. But Sam won’t ask. For all he knows,
everyone who’s anyone knows what crunk means. Asking its meaning
would reveal that he’s out of touch and out of fashion. It might expose
him to prolonged and damaging mockery, or it might just mean that
the conversation with Jack fizzles out into awkwardness. Using slang
can operate as a kind of password: either you know what I’m saying or
you’re not my kind of person. Fortunately, for now, Sam only has to
pretend to recognize the password when Jack uses it.
After agreeing that Jack is crunk, probably by using a rather non-
specific interjection, such as yeah or safe, and apparently getting away
with it, Sam asks, ‘Have you got any weed, man?’ Jack replies, ‘I’m
down to my last bifta, mate’ (“a (large) joint; a hand-rolled cigarette”
(1936—)). Sam and Jack both smoke marijuana and feel entirely
secure in acknowledging this to one another, though they may not
have had any prior knowledge of one another’s habits.1 Indeed, Sam’s
use of man (1568—) functions as an apology for asking the question,
if it turns out that an apology is necessary. If Jack were a law-abiding
abstainer, a reply of ‘sorry man’ or ‘sorry mate’ (1500—) would have
diffused a potentially awkward situation by signalling that, despite
Jack’s inability to provide the requested substance, the assumed state
of friendliness wasn’t unfounded.2
By using bifta in his reply, Jack is not only confirming Sam’s
assumption that he doesn’t disapprove of marijuana use, but is also
1
This is a useful moment to point out that real students in real universities are far
too busy studying to go to bars, and if anyone offered them a joint they would
certainly not inhale.
2
Terms like man, mate, and brother (1912—, originally African American) imply
common membership of a group, and they can backfire if the person addressed
resents the implied bond. They can also sound condescending when the claimed
equality is undermined by other indications of unequal wealth or status.
indicating that he smokes it himself. In situations like these, slang

terms can be used in a form of one-upmanship, and by producing a
similarly specialized term in response, Sam would be able to demon-
strate that he can equal Jack’s expertise and knowledge. It’s unlikely
that any of this is deliberate or conscious, but whatever Sam’s
response, he and Jack will both leave this conversation with a sense
of each other’s relative experience in pot-smoking and also of the
likelihood of being able to blag “to obtain for free” (1934—) some
from one another in future.
Shared assumptions and implicit judgements

Having established their common ground, Sam and Jack have a beer.
After a while, Jack notices a girl who’s trying to catch Sam’s eye. ‘Hey
man,’ he says, ‘you’ve scored.’ Sam looks around. ‘Over there,’ says
Jack, ‘the hottie by the door. She’s gagging for it’. ‘Shit,’ says Sam.
‘What?’ ‘I copped off with her last week and the skank’s changed her
status to “it’s complicated”.’ ‘You got yourself a stalker, bro.’
A Standard English version of this conversation might run:
Jack: Sam, that woman appears to be interested in you . . . The attractive

one by the door. She seems to be on the look out for a sexual partner.
Sam: Oh no!
Jack: What?
Sam: I had sexual intercourse with her last week and the promiscuous
young lady has changed her Facebook status to indicate that she is
in some kind of relationship.
Jack: I acknowledge the awkwardness of the situation in which you
find yourself. You appear, inadvertently, to have become the object
of her affections.
Again, slang isn’t being used merely to convey factual content.

There’s an additional level of meaning that the Standard English
translation can’t represent: the shared assumptions and values com-
municated by the original. Both versions reveal Jack’s assumption
that Sam is heterosexual, but the slang one indicates that Jack is too,
or at least wants Sam to believe he is: by calling the woman (let’s call
her Amy) a hottie (1913—, originally Australian), he isn’t just signal-
ling that she’s attractive, but also that he finds her attractive.
Although this acknowledges Sam’s success in attracting Amy’s atten-
tion, Jack’s slang also implies that his own previous experience
enables him to identify Amy’s interest in Sam. By using score
(1959—), Jack may also be indicating a healthy heterosexual interest
in sport. Thus he reasserts his own virility in a situation that looks set
to undermine it. There are lots of slang synonyms for “to have sexual
intercourse”, including many that emphasize the act of penetration,
depicting the woman as a passive recipient and downplaying
emotional involvement. By saying that he copped off with (1940—)
Amy (an American might once have said he copped her off (1899-
1976)), Sam is signalling that a casual and purely physical connection
took place between them and that it was inappropriate for her to
assume that this represented the beginning of a meaningful
relationship. Describing Amy as a skank (1964—, originally US)
allows Sam to suggest that there’s no reason for him to worry about
Amy’s feelings because she sleeps around a lot and should understand
that she has no reason and no right to expect any further involve-
ment.3 He assumes that Jack will agree with this interpretation of
their sexual encounter, and Jack acknowledges their shared values by
describing Amy as a stalker (1947—), which was originally used with
reference to celebrities’ criminally obsessive fans but is now used in
the much weaker sense “anyone, especially a spurned lover, who
harbours unwelcome affections”. Jack uses slang to confirm that,
in his view, Sam’s interpretation of events is the only reasonable
and correct one. This dissipates any doubts Sam might have had
3
Let’s not complicate matters by speculating about whether Sam calls Amy a skank
because he is disgusted by her promiscuity or his own. Do you really want me to have
to make up a therapist as well?
about his own behaviour and responsibilities, and also about whether
it’s going to be any fun hanging out with Jack.
Closed doors
Later, Sam leaves with Amy and Jack staggers off on his own. He’s
drunk and tired: disappointed that Sam scored and he didn’t. The last
thing he needs is for his Dad to be waiting up for him, beer in hand:
Dad: Jack! Waaazzuup?

Jack: (Grunts)
Dad: Good gig?
Jack: Yeah, whatever.
Dad: Thought you’d be off bonking some totty by now. When I was
your age . . .
Jack: I’m wrecked Dad. Gotta get some kip.
Dad: Ok son, good night.
Jack: Laters.
In this conversation Jack doesn’t say much because he doesn’t want to

engage in conversation with his Dad (we’ll call him Ian). Ian’s doing
all the work in this conversation—trying to bond with his son by
offering up topics of conversation and using slang to create the shared
intimacy and assumptions that Jack and Sam were able to create
earlier in the evening. Unfortunately, Ian isn’t a very up-to-date or
fluent user of slang. Wazzup was used in a successful advertising
campaign by Budweiser for several years from around 1999 with the
sense “what’s going on?; what are you doing?”, and although Jack may
be too young to remember the adverts, he probably recognizes the
allusion. He’s probably heard it in more recent comedy shows and
cartoons, used by characters who don’t realize they’re embarrassingly
out of touch. Wazzup is still used, but without the lengthening of the
vowel. It’s now more clearly a greeting that, like how do you do,
doesn’t require any answer other than its own repetition. In other
words, in response to wazzup, Jack would generally say wazzup. Here
8 Youth slang: Adey Bryant, ‘I’ve Got My Hat on Back-to-front, but I Still Can’t
Communicate With Him’.
he answers only with a grunt, which isn’t an encouraging response

however you interpret it. Unperturbed, Ian asks about the gig, using
the word as Jack would use it and as he did during his own youth
(though in his day a DJ wouldn’t have counted as a live performer).
Jack resents the implied shared experience and despises Ian for trying
to ingratiate himself.
Ian tries again to assert their commonality by showing that he’s
aware that picking up women is one of the possible goals of a night
out. Unfortunately, he employs totty “a girl or woman, especially a

promiscuous one” (1890—) in a slightly different way than Jack
would, by using it to refer to a single woman instead of to women
collectively. Jack might refer to an individual woman as a bit of totty
or a piece of totty (in a post-feminist ironic sort of way, if he’s
challenged), but hottie is a more likely alternative. Similarly, by
using bonk “to have sexual intercourse (with)” (1975—), Ian intends
to signal that he’s easy-going and open-minded, but his use of this
old-fashioned slang term confirms Jack’s impression that actually Ian
doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Kinder than your average son,
Jack comes up with an excuse for avoiding talking to his Dad, with the
usefully ambiguous confession that he is wrecked “drunk; under the
influence of drugs” (1967/8—) and in need of some kip “sleep”
(1879—). When Ian reverts to Standard English, he’s rewarded with
a friendly laters “see you later” (1999—).
In this conversation, slang plays a different social function. Instead
of drawing the speakers closer together, it drives them further apart.
Although Ian once had a social life rather like Jack’s, and although he
may share many of the same underlying values, he doesn’t have the
fluent command of current youth slang that he needs to signal this.
Instead, by using out-of-date slang, he confirms the distance between
them. In fact, as I’m sure you’ve realised, if Ian had been able to use
the same slang as Jack with great fluency, the distance between them
would have been confirmed anyway. An adult using youth slang is
either ridiculous or creepy “repugnant; sycophantic” (1883—) so Ian
can’t win: because he’s the one trying to use slang to win approval, it’s
Jack who decides the terms on which that approval can (or, more
probably, can’t) be won.
Fitting in and winning approval

Students have often been identified as particularly fluent and creative
users of slang, perhaps partly because they’ve always been readily
available to academics wanting to study slang use. Actually, students
generally arrive at university with an extensive vocabulary of slang

terms at their command. Let’s go back to Amy, a typical first year,
who’s sitting in the shared kitchen in her halls of residence the
morning after. She moved to Leicester from Northamptonshire, not
far away, and found herself sharing a flat with students from various
parts of the UK. Amy and her flatmates have a number of terms in
common, but they each brought a few unusual or local slang terms
with them from home. In this conversation Amy is talking to Liz,
from Scotland, and Laura, from Yorkshire:
Liz: Amy, I’m scoobied. Why did you let that twanger near your fud
again?
Laura: You wuss!
Amy: That’s harsh. I think he’s lush.
Liz: You’re a pikey sweatbag.
Amy: Fair sneech, but it takes one to know one, Mrs Sweatbag.
Laura: Liz, can I borrow some shrap until the weekend?
Liz: I haven’t got any. Have you Amy?
Amy: Nope. No wonga till payday.
Because these three have lived together for some months, some
mixing of slang terms has already occurred. Laura has picked up
wuss “a weak or ineffectual person” (1976—, originally US) from Liz,
Liz has picked up twanger “an odd or eccentric person” from Amy,
and Amy uses Liz’s wonga “money” (1984—). Amy and Liz aren’t as
friendly with Laura as they are with each another, so they haven’t
picked up any of her slang. Here, for example, they use wonga in
preference to Laura’s shrap (short for shrapnel “small change”
(1919—, originally Australian and New Zealand military slang)). As
in the conversation between Jack and his Dad, the slang user is the
one trying to win approval. Laura tries to create a shared bond by
using the other girls’ slang, but Amy and Liz have the power to decide
whether or not to return the compliment by reciprocating. In the
same way that these girls might be influenced by one another’s
clothes or hair, they’ll only emulate the slang of those they admire.
Laura may be tolerated as a third party in this friendship, but the girls’
collective use of slang signals her marginal position.
Status and knowledge

Laura’s younger sister, Mia, is seventeen and in her last year at school.
Because they both went to the same school, the sisters share many
slang terms in common, but not all. Back at home at the weekend, the
following conversation takes place between Laura, Mia, and Mia’s
friend Charlie:
Mia: You got any shrap?

Laura: Nope. Completely out of wonga.
Charlie: Me too.
Laura: What are you doing tonight?
Charlie: Going down the Tavern.
Mia: Looking for Dan the man?
Charlie: OMG! No way. He’s like totally gay.
Mia: Lol!
Laura has decided that shrap isn’t as cool as wonga and signals this to
Mia by using her new slang term instead. Charlie doesn’t repeat either
term, but perhaps later on she’ll use wonga and see how people react.
In conversation between themselves, Charlie and Mia use the Internet
abbreviations OMG “Oh my God” (1917+1994—) and lol, and also
gay in the sense “lame; unfashionable; unappealing”. Because Laura’s
slightly older than the other two, she doesn’t use gay in this sense and
she doesn’t use OMG or lol in speech, nor do her friends at home or
university. Because these terms aren’t used by the people Laura
admires, she thinks they sound childish. Like any older sibling, her
first instinct is to tell Mia why she’s wrong, but she has to decide
whether it’s a good idea to do this while Charlie is around. Laura
holds her tongue for now because being in a minority undermines her
big-sisterly authority.
Whether Laura expresses her disapproval now or later, it’s

highly unlikely that Charlie and Mia will stop using the offending
terms. Although they like Laura and accept that she has marginally
more experience of the world, she can’t challenge the influence of
their peers. If all their friends use OMG, lol, and gay as they do,
they’ll decide that it’s Laura who’s wrong. She’s hanging around
with the wrong kind of people; she’s come over all la-di-da
“affected; pretentious” (1861—) since she went to university; she’s
completely out of touch with what’s really important. In fact, Mia
may begin to use these terms more when Laura’s around, purely to
irritate her:
Mia: OMG, you can’t go out wearing that!

Laura: Why?
Mia: Because it’s bare gay.
Laura: Bare gay! You sound so stupid.
Mia: You would say that.
Laura: Why?
Mia: Gay.
Laura: Yeah, right. Like you even know anyone gay.
Mia: Yeah. Well you’re gay, innit.
Perturbed by her sister’s criticism, Mia goes on Facebook to record

her feelings. Charlie is available to chat:
Mia: my sisters so gay!!

Charlie: lol. why?
Mia: shes always dissing me
Charlie: douchebag! you should frape her!
Mia: rofl!! – Laura is a douchebag.
Charlie: lush!
Mia: gtgpc l8rs ;) xxx
In this exchange, Mia requests reassurance from Charlie, who dis-

misses Laura as a douchebag “an unattractive or boring person”
(1950—, originally US), and advises Mia to make malicious changes
to Laura’s Facebook page. Putting aside its trivialization of sexual
violence, frape, a blend of Facebook and rape (since at least 2007—),

offers a usefully brief way of expressing something that could only be
expressed by a longer phrase in Standard English. Like many people,
Charlie and Mia have terms for approval (lush) and disapproval (gay)
that they use habitually. When they’ve been used so often that they
start to lose their force, newer terms will begin to be used alongside
them to express stronger degrees of approval. Alongside lol and rofl,
Mia and Charlie use abbreviations that they either couldn’t or
wouldn’t represent in speech: representations of the phrase, ‘got to
go, parent(s) coming/calling’, and of laters, which we’ve already seen
in Jack’s usage.
Reasons for using slang

In his book Slang: Today and Yesterday (first published in 1933), Eric
Partridge listed 17 reasons for using slang, and when people refer back
to this list they usually say that he was being more pedantic than was
strictly necessary. Hah! Call that pedantic? So far, we’ve seen that the
people who used slang to respond to the BBC clip were doing so to:
1. express their individuality

2. express themselves more vividly than can be easily done in Stan-
dard English
3. express emotion
4. create humour.
We’ve also seen that Sam and Jack used slang to:
5. identify themselves as a member of a group (which may be a social
group, but also an age group or interest group)
6. fit in with the people around them (which may be a well-defined
group or merely the selection of individuals who happen to be there
at the time)
7. test whether someone else is also a member of the group
8. identify hierarchies within the group
9. express shared attitudes and values (and thus create temporary

group membership)
10. imply or refer back to shared experience
11. deny or distance emotion.
In the conversations between Jack and his Dad, slang was also used to:
12. communicate with deliberate ambiguity (so that the hearer can
choose their own interpretation)
13. identify someone as not being a member of the group.
Among Amy and her flatmates, slang was used to:

14. try to win entry to the in-group
15. exclude someone from membership of the group
16. appear cool to people outside the group.
In Amy’s conversation with Mia and Charlie, slang also functioned to:
17. reject someone else’s values or attitudes
18. shock or offend
19. rebel
20. irritate
21. communicate secretly (so that one hearer understands and
another doesn’t).
In the Facebook exchange between Mia and Charlie, slang was used
because:
22. it’s easier in some way (usually quicker)
23. everyone else uses it
24. it has become a habit or mannerism
25. there isn’t a word that means the same thing in Standard English
26. although there is a synonym in Standard English, the slang-user
doesn’t know it.
I’ve subdivided some of these reasons more than Partridge did, but
this doesn’t entirely account for the difference in number. Partridge
doesn’t mention the creation of hierarchies, the use of slang to shock,
offend, rebel, irritate, or to communicate with deliberate ambiguity,

and he doesn’t acknowledge any of the less positive reasons for using
slang (23–26). On the other hand, Partridge has a few reasons I’ve
omitted, which he numbers as follows:
7. To enrich the language. (This deliberateness is rare save among the

well-educated, Cockneys forming the most notable exception; it is
literary rather than spontaneous.)
8. To lend an air of solidity, concreteness, to the abstract; of earthi-
ness to the idealistic; of immediacy and appositeness to the remote.
(In the cultured the effort is usually premeditated, while in the
uncultured it is almost always unconscious when it is not rather
subconscious.)
10. To speak or write down to an inferior, or to amuse a superior
public; or merely to be on a colloquial level with either one’s
audience or one’s subject matter.
These reveal some striking differences between Partridge’s assump-

tions and mine, and those differences are a result of changes in the
status and use of slang since the early twentieth century. Partridge
assumes that uncultured people use slang without thinking about it,
and that when cultured people use slang it’s conscious and probably
also condescending. My assumption is that slang is concerned more
with power relationships than with culture (it was probably harder to
distinguish between the two in Partridge’s day). Slang users now hold
the power in many conversations, and ‘cultured’ people will often
work hard to gain their approval.
Reasons or functions?
Lists like this imply that users of slang are deliberately employing it
for these purposes. Here’s the conversation between Jack and Ian,
rewritten to represent the thinking processes that this would involve:
Dad: Jack! [thinks: I’m slightly drunk and rather lonely. I need to make
an effort to ingratiate myself with my son by implying that we both
like beer and are interested in one another’s activities. Making

reference to that popular beer commercial will be a useful way of
doing this.]
Jack: [thinks: Dad is trying to win my approval by making reference to
a really old beer commercial. I know what the expected reply is, but
I’m too tired to make an effort right now and I don’t want to talk
about my evening with someone who so obviously can’t even begin
to understand how I feel.]
While it may sometimes be true that individuals use slang self-

consciously to create certain effects, it is probable that most of the
time slang isn’t being used self-consciously. Slang is often just a way
of expressing emotions:
Dad: [feels: drunkenly affectionate]
Jack: [feels: tired and unsociable]
Although the person hearing a slang term may conclude that the
slang-user is cool or rebellious or humorous, the slang-user may be
using the same term they usually would: the same term that everyone
in their group of friends would also use. In other words, although
slang appears to function as a mark of rebelliousness and non-
conformity, and may be created by nonconformists, it’s often adopted
most enthusiastically by the most diligent conformists. In use, slang is
often much more about fitting in than rebelling. It’s about saying the
same thing as the rest of the group rather than about saying some-
thing new.
Equally, although slang can be used for many reasons, most of
these functions could also be fulfilled by Standard English. You can be
funny, rebellious, friendly, aloof, stylish, and many other things in
Standard English, but where Standard English lets you down is that it
changes only slowly. This means that individuals who are less funny,
rebellious (and so on) can achieve the same results merely by imita-
tion. The main thing that sets slang apart from Standard English is its
chronological and contextual specificity. Last year the really cool
people were saying that they were crunk; this year the people aspiring
to be cool are saying it; next year, if not before, the really cool people
will have stopped saying it; and by the year after it will have become a
word whose use identifies you as a hopeless wannabe (1979—, origi-
nally US). This doesn’t mean that the term itself will be short-lived,
just that its social meanings might be. Like a code—incomprehensible
to those who aren’t in the know—slang represents a complex layer of
social coding in conversation. Like any good code, it changes often.
Unfortunately, there’s no enigma machine to help us in decoding it.
You can look up a slang term online or in a dictionary, but under-
standing its meaning is only half of the information you’ll need to use
it properly. If you haven’t picked it up by its use in social situations,
you’ll probably never be able to use it really convincingly. Best not
to try, hey?
Slang creation and use

Think back to the championship bout in Chapter 1: the champions of
slang and Standard English were slugging it out and I avoided declar-
ing which side I was on. Actually, it was an unfair fight. The argu-
ments in favour of slang were about slang itself: it is vibrant, creative,
and so on. These qualities might be attributed to slang-creators. The
arguments against were largely about slang-users: they’re unintelli-
gent and have limited vocabularies. And that’s one of the reasons
why I find it hard to take sides in this argument: slang words often
are witty and appealing, but not all slang-users are. On the other
hand, slang-users might be perfectly charming were it not for their
irritating repetition of tired slang words. The arguments are based on
an entirely false dichotomy. Because new slang is creative (i.e. new),
the argument implies, Standard English isn’t creative. Because some
slang users have limited vocabularies, people who speak Standard
English know more words. This is all nonsense, as I hope you’ll agree.
What really sets slang apart from Standard English is the way it
functions in social contexts: communicating meaning is often a
secondary function for slang; it’s really for communicating attitudes

and cementing relationships.
Models of slang transmission

We’ve seen that individuals generally pick up slang terms within a
social setting. If you admire a group of people you spend time with
and if they all use a particular slang term, then you’re likely to begin
using it yourself, within that group to begin with, and perhaps more
widely later on, but how and why do slang terms pass from one group
to another? How did Jack, our imaginary British student, pick up
crunk from southern American hip hop enthusiasts?
To picture the movement of a slang term from one individual to
the next, let’s imagine our slang term as a bacterial infection (nothing
nasty, don’t worry, we’re talking friendly bacteria). B, C, and
D pick it up from A; E and F from B; G, H, and I from C; and so
on (see Figure 9). It’s rarely possible to trace the elusive first user of a
slang term, but that’s not really important because it wasn’t slang
until it was adopted by a group. By collecting data about the earliest
examples, we can get a good idea of when and where it arose. We may
not be able to track down A, but if we have examples of the term’s use
by B, C, and H, we have documented its earliest use as slang. We now
have six interrelated centres of infection, and it may be better to treat
them as groups rather than as individuals (see Figure 10) because
slang is all about social groups. In this model, the individuals will
probably reinforce one another’s use (reinfect one another).
At some point, the original group will probably stop using the
slang term, either because they start using another term or drift apart
as a social circle, but the infection lives on without them by word of
mouth across interconnected social networks. Under this model, a
British hip hop enthusiast would have picked up crunk in face-to-face
conversation with an American hip hop enthusiast, enabling it to
spread to Britain. The slang term may change in use or meaning
J
E K
B L
F M
N
G
A C O
H P
Q
I R
D S
9 Slang transmission between individuals.
(mutate), and if this happens close enough to the origin of the term,
the mutated form will probably coexist with or even replace the
original. If the mutation occurred in circle 2, for example, it might
feed back to the first circle. Alternatively, it might take place at several
removes from the original users (in circle 6, for example), in which
K
J 4 L
E F 5 M
2
N
B
G H
A 1 C 3 O
P
I
6
D
S Q
R
10 Slang transmission between groups.

case the original users will probably continue using the older form
even though new infections are of the mutated version. On the other
hand, the older form may continue spreading despite a mutation that
occurs later among the first circle of users.
Before we come back to the limitations of this model, have another
look at D. She’s a crucial element in this transmission of slang. D is
resistant to this particular strain of bacteria. She’s marginal to the
group and actually thinks that A is a bit of a jerk (1935—, originally
US) or a tosser (1977—). She doesn’t want to be like him, and doesn’t
think much of the others for being influenced by him. For this reason,
11 Putting the un- in cool: Betsy Streeter, ‘Suzie Would Later Win a Nobel Prize’.
she doesn’t pick up the slang term and doesn’t pass it on. Most people
will be like D some of the time, and if there were no Ds, there would
be no slang because all new terms would quickly enter general use.
The people who are most likely to pick up new slang terms are the
ones whose self-identity isn’t yet secure: the ones who worry most
about what other people think of them or who are more inclined to be
influenced by the people they admire. They’ll be people who want to
be different but need someone to show them how. Does that sound
like any teenager you used to be?
Although this model might once have been a useful representation
of the spread of slang, it can’t possibly do justice to the current
situation unless we add another dimension. Slang isn’t just transmit-
ted by face-to-face spoken contact. This infection would have to be
one that could be transmitted by printed texts, by the telephone, by
films, music and television programmes, but, most of all, via the
Internet.
Jack wasn’t mixing in hip hop circles in the southern states of the
USA during the mid 1990s, when crunk was first used, but we can
forgive him for this because he was only 3 or 4 years old at the time.
Having grown up in the UK and having never been to the US, he’s
probably never had any personal contact with African Americans, let
alone an African American who was mixing in the relevant inner hip
hop circles at the right time. Jack will have picked up the term from
lyrics or from discussions of hip hop online or in the media. Or, once
crunk spread outside these inner circles, Jack might have picked it up
from its use by white American hip hop enthusiasts, perhaps students
like himself with whom he has communicated in person or online,
figuring out its meaning much as Sam did. Or he may have acquired it
at one stage further removed: from its use in British hip hop circles.
Or, once its use had spread to British hip hop circles, from commen-
tators in the British media. With all these possible routes for infection
and reinfection, it’s impossible (and probably futile) to try and deter-
mine the direct source of Jack’s infection. The point is that he’s got it
and he wants Sam to know about it. He uses the term to express his
emotional affiliation rather than any meaningful connection with its

first users.
Slang spreads by social contact, but also via the media and the
Internet. It expresses affiliations and attitudes at least as much as
meaning. A small number of slang terms represent additions to the
semantic range of the language: to represent a new idea, a new
anxiety, or a new technology. We’ll come on to the influence of the
media and the Internet in the spread of slang later on, and also to the
question of why so much contemporary slang comes from African
American usage. The rest of this book takes a longer view of the
history of English slang, which can really only be understood as part
of the history of English itself.
Conclusions
Chapters 2–5 have broken the creation and development of slang into
four stages: creation (spawning), early development (from fertiliza-
tion), adaptation and survival (the tadpole stage), and spreading into
wider use (as frogs). Each slang word or phrase will move through
these processes at different rates, and some scholars use slang for
words in all of these stages. Some scholars focus on the moment of
spawning, trying to track down slang-creators. Others become inter-
ested in words only at their tadpole stage, considering the slang of
tightly-knit professional and special interest groups to be more akin
to jargon. There are also plenty of publications on slang that see only
the frogs: discussing slang in use without reference to its origins or
development. For me (and in this book), words remain only potential
slang while they’re restricted to a very small group of people, such as a
single group of friends or a family (circle 1 in Figure 10), but once
they start to spread they begin to become slang. For the early history
of slang, discussed in the next few chapters, it should be assumed that
a great deal of short-lived slang has come and gone without being
noticed in print.
Endnotes
You can watch Goma being mistaken for a computer expert on YouTube. It’s
been posted several times, but these comments are from <http://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=atfNL0_KAcs>. The student slang dialogues use terms listed
in Leicester Online Slang Glossaries by Tom Green, Lindsey Mountford, and
Alex Herring. Facebook is at <http://www.facebook.com>. Also cited is Eric
Partridge, Slang: Today and Yesterday (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1933), 6–7.
6 Prigs, Culls, and
Blosses: Cant
and Flash
Language
We’ve already seen that slang was first used in the second half
of the eighteenth century in the sense “the special vocabulary used by
any set of persons of a low or disreputable character; language of a low
and vulgar type”. OED citations refer to the slang of ‘the town’, bailiffs,
‘the lowest blackguards’, thieves, ‘the kennel’, and ‘the stable’. By about
1818, slang had acquired the sense with which I’m using it here: “Lan-
guage of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of
standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of
current words employed in some special sense.” The distinction between
these two senses is perhaps one of social class rather than meaning: the
first sense refers to the non-standard language of poor people, and the
second (often) to the non-standard language of richer people. The fact
remains, however, that slang wasn’t available to label this type of
language until the eighteenth century. Does this mean there was no
slang as we know it until then? Or that it was called something else?
The answer is a qualified yes to both questions. There was an
intermediate period when some types of slang began to develop in
Prigs, Culls, and Blosses: Cant and Flash Language 119
English but the term wasn’t yet available (there’s more on this issue in
Chapter 7). Various adjectives were used to describe improper lan-
guage, including knavish (c.1386+a.1529), lewd (c.1386—), ribaldous
(c.1400-1928), bawdy (a.1513—), barbarous (1526-1857), base (1549-
1885), ribaldrous (1565—), broad (1580-1882), canting (1592—),
tavernly (1612), billingsgate (1652—), low (1672—), vulgar (1716—),
and flash (1746—). Connotations of low social status and undignified
behaviour were attached to all of these terms, but conversations can
be knavish or lewd without using slang. Canting and flash were
different in attributing this type of language to specific social groups:
beggars and thieves. Canting is from cant “to speak in the whining
tone of a beggar” (1567-1750), ultimately from the Latin cantare “to
sing”. It still usually implies some type of dishonesty and is now
generally used with reference to the language of beggars, criminals,
estate agents, politicians, and religious hypocrites. Flash developed
from the sense “connected to or pertaining to the class of thieves,
tramps, and prostitutes” (c.1700—), probably derived from the noun
sense “a piece of showy talk” (1605-1735) or “superficial brilliancy;
ostentation” (1674—), and ultimately related to flashes of light.
When canting and flash are used with reference to language today,
they’re generally used with reference to the language of specific histori-
cal periods. The non-standard language of canting beggars and flash
thieves was documented earlier than slang, which was closely associated
with the language of these groups. This chapter concentrates on the
evidence for English canting and flash language until the nineteenth
century. The next chapter will return to the subject of slang proper.
Cheating gamesters and thieving prostitutes

In his Manifest Detection of the Most Vile and Detestable Use of
Diceplay (1555), Gilbert Walker explained that just as a carpenter
uses specialized terms within his profession, so does a cheating
gamester. In this extract, an experienced dice cheat teaches his craft
to a young accomplice:
“Lo here”, saith the cheater to this young novice “A well favoured die that
seemeth good and square yet is the forehead [front part] longer on the
cater and trey than any other way, and therefore holdeth the name of
a langret, such be also called barred cater treys, because commonly the
longer end will of its own sway draw downwards and turn up to the eye
sice, sink, deuce or ace . . . ”
Dice-players counted using terms derived from French: ace

(c.1300—), deuce (1519—), trey (c.1386—), cater (1519-1730/6),
sink (more usually <cynk> or <cynque> c.1386-1870), and sice
(c.1386-1837). Cater-trey, literally “four-three”, was sometimes used
to refer to dice and dicing generally (a.1500-a.1700). These terms
appear to have been commonly used, and many were also adopted
by card-players. Ace and deuce are still used in tennis. Other
specialist terms used by Walker’s cheating dice-players were langrets
(c.1550-1612) and barred (1532-1834) dice or bars (1545-1753),
which were designed so that a certain number couldn’t be thrown,
in this case a three or four.
Walker emphasizes in his title that the newly leisured classes were
particularly susceptible to cheating gamesters. A successful merchant
could make enough money to keep his family in comfort without
needing his sons’ labour, and these idle young men were ideal prey for
fraudsters. In this period, it would have been possible to make a living
as a cheat only in the anonymity of a city like London, where there
was a steady flow of new and unsuspecting victims. It wasn’t a
problem that was going to go away either: during the early 1590s,
Robert Greene published a series of pamphlets warning of the
tricks used by London coney-catchers1 who tricked innocent country
people by cheating at cards, committing highway robbery, robbing
prostitutes’ clients, cutting purses, and picking pockets. He offers a
separate glossary of the terms used in each activity. Here’s an extract
from a conversation between a male and female coney-catcher, in
1
Coney is recorded with the sense “a fool; a dupe” (1592-1736), from its more
usual sense “rabbit” (see p. 43).
which the male begins by complimenting the female on how well and
prosperous she’s looking:
Laurence: Faire Nan well met . . . have your smooth looks linked in some
young novice to sweat for a favour all the bite in his bung . . .
Nan: Why Laurence . . . fair wenches cannot want favours while the world is
full of amorous fools. Where can such girls as myself be blemished with
a threadbare coat as long as country farmers have full purses and
wanton citizens pockets full of pence?
Laurence: Truth if fortune so favour thy husband, that he be neither
smoked nor cloyed, for I am sure all thy bravery comes by his nipping,
foisting, and lifting.
Nan: In faith sir no, did I get no more by mine own wit, than I reap by his
purchase, I might both go bare and penniless the whole year. But mine
eyes are stalls and my hands lime twigs (else were I not worthy the
name of a she coney-catcher) . . .
bite “money” (c.1555+1592) cloy or cly “to seize” (1567-1690) or

bung “purse” (1567-1859), probably not “to steal; to rob” (1610-1821)
related to the modern slang bung “a nip “to steal” (1567—)
bribe” (1958—) foist probably “to cheat” (1584-1611),
smoke “to expose to smoke, so as to rather than specifically “to cheat by
stupefy” (c.1154-1900), “to drive into concealing false dice in one’s hand”
the open by means of smoke” (1593—), (1545-a.1618)
or “to discover; to suspect” (1592-1913) lift “to pick up with the intention of
stealing; to steal” (1526—)
Neither smoked nor cloyed means “neither tricked/discovered/sus-

pected nor robbed/arrested”. By avoiding these fates, Nan’s husband
would demonstrate the quickness of his wits, but fortunately she isn’t
dependent on his ability to provide for her. By describing her eyes as
stalls (c.1500-1592), Nan compares them with decoy birds used in
hunting. A lime twig (c.1400—) is a twig smeared with a sticky
substance so birds that land on it can’t fly away. To link someone is
to entrap them as if within the links of a chain (1592+1887). These
last three examples are probably creative figurative uses rather than
slang, and all depict the prostitute as a hunter snaring innocent men.
Pedlars and beggars

It wasn’t just cheating gamesters and thieving prostitutes who were
believed to be threatening the social order by developing their own
vocabularies. Robert Copland’s Hyeway to the Spital-House (1536)
describes his visit to a poorhouse, guided by the door-keeper:
Copland: Come none of these pedlars this way also

With pack on back, with their bousy speech,
Jagged and ragged, with broken hose [stockings] & breech [breeches]?
Porter: Enough, enough: “with bousy cove maund nase.
Tour the pattering cove in the darkman case
Docked the dell for a copper make.
His watch shall fang a prance’s nabcheat.
Cyarum by Salmon [an oath] and thou shalt peck my ire
In thy gan. For my watch it is nase gear [clothes].
For the bene bouse my watch hath a wyn.”
And thus they babble till their thrift is thine [until your earnings are theirs]
I wot not what with [I don’t know what in] their peddling French.
The porter doesn’t understand the pedlars’ French that he parrots, so

it’s hard for us to make sense of it. Although other uses suggest
meanings for some of these words, they still don’t make complete
sense put together in this way:
bousy “drunken” (a.1529-1842), now dell “a girl” (1536-1834)

more usually boozy (1592—) make “a halfpenny” (1536-1982)
cove “a man” (1536—) watch “self” (e.g. his watch=himself; my
maund “to beg” (1536-1864) watch=myself ) (c.1530-1707)
nase “drunken” (1536-1612) fang “to steal” (a.1066-1922)
tour “to see” (1536-1906) prance for prancer “a rider” (c.1560) or
pattering “that speaks rapidly or by rote” “a horse” (1567-1885)
(1557/8) nabcheat “a hat; a cap; ?a bridle”
darkman(s) “night” (1536-1906) (1536-1890)
case “house; building; (later) brothel” peck “to eat” (1536-1977, later US
(1536-1981) Black)
dock “to copulate with; to deflower”
(1536-1719)
gan “mouth” (1536-1785) now more usually booze (1674—)

bene “good” (1536-1865) win “a penny” (1536-1900)
bouse “alcoholic drink” (c.1300-1764),
In 1561, Thomas Awdelay published a book called The Fraternitye of

Vacabondes, which describes the various types of beggar frequenting
the roads and hedges of England. For example (from the 1575
edition):
An upright man is one that goes with the truncheon or staff, which staff they
call a filchman. This man is of so much authority, that meeting with any of
his profession, he may call them to account, and command a share or snap
unto himself of all that they have gained by their trade in one month. And
though he do them wrong, they have no remedy against him, no though he
beat them, as he uses commonly to do. He may also command any of their
women, which they call doxies, to serve his turn. He hath the chief place at
any market, walk and other assemblies, and is not of any to be controlled.
There isn’t very much canting language here. The meaning of up-
rightman (1561-1834, a compound made from two Standard English
terms), filchman (1561-1699, which may be from filch “to steal”
(c.1561—)), snap (1552-1897, probably slang or dialect rather than
cant, and ultimately from Middle Dutch or Middle Low German),
and doxy (c.1530-1861, of uncertain origin) are all explained within
the passage. What’s most significant about Awdelay’s publication
isn’t his own use of cant, but the purposes to which it was put by
later dictionary makers.
The first glossary of canting terms was compiled by a magistrate
from Kent, called Thomas Harman. He certainly used both Copland’s
and Awdelay’s work, and he represented some of the same types of
rogue that Awdelay had listed. Harman described organized gangs of
beggars roaming the land and extracting charitable donations from
unsuspecting householders under false pretences of disability and
misfortune. His Caveat or Warning for Common Cursitors2 sets out to

reveal these tricks and expose the beggars using them. They include
fraters (c.1561-1749), who pretended to be collecting money for
charitable causes, freshwater mariners or seamen (1567-1817), who
claimed to have been shipwrecked, and counterfeit cranks (1567-
1707), who faked epileptic fits. Named individuals to keep an eye
out for included:
Harry Smith, he drivels when he speaks

John Stradling, with the shaking head
Robert Brownsword he wears his hair long
Harry Walls with the little mouth
John Donne with one leg
Harman also provided a short glossary of terms allegedly collected

from beggars under threat of a whipping. This wouldn’t be considered
an acceptable or reliable way to collect linguistic data nowadays.
There’s a pretty good chance that beggars would have told Harman
whatever he wanted to hear just to avoid being whipped, so we should
probably reserve judgement on the contents of his glossary even if we
believe his account of how he collected it. It contains 114 entries,
including nab “a head” (1536-1922), famble “a hand; a finger”
(1567-1906), skipper “a barn” (1567-1933), and lots of words formed
with cheat “a thing”, including fambling-cheat “a ring” (1567-1721)
and grunting-cheat “a pig” (1567-1684). The glossary is followed by a
dialogue between an uprightman and a rogue (the second in com-
mand). After enquiring politely about one another’s night’s sleep,
they get down to more important matters:
Uprightman: . . . hast thou any lour in thy bung to bouse?

Rogue: But a flag, a win, and a make.
Uprightman: Why where is the ken that has the bene bouse?
Rogue: A bene mort hereby at the sign of the prancer.
2
Cursitor from Latin currere “to run”, means “vagabond”. Like a computer cursor,
vagabonds can move about freely.
Of the canting terms in this extract, we have already seen bung “a

purse”, make “a halfpence”, win “a penny”, bene “good”, and prancer
“a horse; a rider” in earlier canting texts. Other canting terms include:
lour “money” (1567-1889) flag “a groat; four pence” (1567-1851)

bouse “to drink heavily” (c.1300-1922), ken “a house” (1567—)
now more usually booze (1601—) mort “woman” (1567-1997)
The origins of lour and ken are unknown, but bouse, mort, and flag all
suggest Dutch influence. Trade links with the Netherlands had been
strong for centuries, and many early English books were printed
there, but the 1560s saw an unprecedented influx of Dutch Protes-
tants fleeing persecution at a time when the English were beginning
to develop a stronger sense of national identity. Perhaps Harman
was suggesting that the strangers roaming England’s green and pleas-
ant lands were doubly untrustworthy: not only beggars but also
foreigners.
Entries from Harman’s glossary were included in Thomas Dekker’s
Bellman of London (1608), in which we are told that these terms were
used by London’s criminals. Lists based on Harman’s presented
essentially the same terms, sometimes saying they belonged to crim-
inals in general, sometimes highwaymen, and sometimes gypsies.
We may have doubts about the reliability of Harman’s glossary, but
when later writers include the whole of Harman’s list in theirs, it’s
impossible to believe that all of these terms were really still in use.
Some of the thieves’ cant used in Scorsese’s Gangs of New York film
can be traced back through various dictionaries each compiled from
an earlier word list, all the way to Harman’s glossary. Where there’s
limited evidence that English beggars really used these terms in the
sixteenth century, or that anyone used them in the meantime, how
likely is it that American criminals used them in the nineteenth?
This ‘slang’ has little to do with representing linguistic reality:
instead, it’s being used to construct and represent groups of people
as outsiders.
Canting literature
Texts like these, offering a privileged glimpse of a threatening secret
language, were clearly appealing to contemporary audiences, and
these early glossaries were used as source material by writers of
several plays. For instance, a group of beggars sing and drink in
Richard Brome’s Jovial Crew (1641):
Autem Mort: Go fiddle, patrico, and let me sing. First set me down here on
both my prats. Gently, gently, for cracking of my wind, now I must use it. Hem,
hem. [she sings]
This is bene bouse; this is bene bouse;
Too little is my skew.
I bouse no lage, but a whole gage
Of this I’ll bouse to you.
This bouse is better than rum-bouse;
It sets the gan a-giggling.
The autem mort finds better sport
In bowsing than in niggling.
This is bene bouse, &c. [she tosses off her bowl, falls back, and is carried out]
In addition to terms we’ve already seen, such as bouse “drink” and “to
drink”, prat “a buttock”, and gan “a mouth”, this extract includes:
patrico “a beggar priest” (c.1536-1993) autem mort “a married woman”

crack (wind/one off) “to fart” (1641—) (1567-1861)
skew “a cup; a wooden dish” (1561-1707) niggling “sexual intercourse”
lage “water” (1567-1688) (1608-1723, but the verb to niggle is
gage “a quart pot” (c.1440-1821) found from 1567-1931)
rum “good” (1567-1926)
The origin of all of these terms is unknown or uncertain. Apart from

cracking wind, they’re all in Harman’s glossary, and it is no accident
that Brome uses so many of them in such a short extract: he was
undoubtedly writing this scene with a copy of Harman’s glossary (or
more probably a version of Dekker’s) to hand. The whole play isn’t

like this—that would make for terrible theatre—but this scene estab-
lishes the beggars as recognisable types. For some of these words, such
as bouse, niggle, rum, lift, and prat, there’s genuine evidence of use
outside Harman’s list and works closely related to it. For autem, bene,
skew, gage, lage, gan, and patrico, there’s little or no independent
evidence that anyone used these terms outside canting literature or
dictionaries.
It wasn’t just plays that were written using Harman’s glossary or
related works. Songs were also constructed using cant and slang
terms, and some seem to have become popular accompaniments to
a night of serious drinking. Here’s the beginning of ‘The Canting
Song’ by Dekker (1612):
Bing out bene morts, and tour, and tour,

bing out bene morts and tour:
for all your duds are binged awaste,
the bene cove hath the lour.
I met a dell, I viewed her well,

she was benship to my watch:
so she and I, did stall and cloy
whatever we could catch.
This doxy dell can cut bene whids,

and wap well for a win:
and prig and cloy so benshiply,
all the deuse-avile within.
Some of this may have made sense to you. We’ve already seen bene
“good”, mort “a woman”, tour “to look; to see”, duds “clothes”, cove “a
man”, lour “money”, dell “a woman”, my watch “myself”, cloy “to
steal”, doxy “a woman”, and win “a penny”. Many other words can
also be traced back to Harman, including:
bing (awaste) “to go (away)” (1567-1927) wap “to have sexual intercourse” (1611-
benship “very good” (1567-1707) 1707+1925)
stall [see below] prig “to steal” (1567—)
cut “to talk; to speak” (c.1500-1853) benshiply “very well” (1612-1754)
whid “a word” (1567-1861) deuseavile “the countryside” (1567-1859)
All of these are either found in Harman’s list or derived from terms in
it. Stall “to set in place; to establish”, which appears to be a combina-
tion of Old French and Old English forms, was widely used at the
time, but it’s possible that it should be understood here in the sense
“to screen (a pickpocket) from observation” (1592-1950, from an
Anglo-French word meaning “a decoy bird”). She and I did stall and
cloy could mean either “we became a couple and stole things together”
or “we shielded one another from observation and stole things”, and it’s
probably useful to be ambiguous when discussing these things. Both
interpretations would make sense in the context: the speaker either sees
that the woman is attractive or observes that she is a skilled pickpocket,
either of which would be a fine basis for a relationship.
Later writers sometimes comment on the astonishing continuity of
canting vocabulary across the centuries and regard this as a reliable
indication that the criminal underworld is and has long been tightly
knit and highly organized. Without any other evidence, we probably
ought to conclude instead that people have always enjoyed scaring
themselves with thoughts of a tightly knit and highly organized
underworld, and that there will always be enterprising writers who
will happily make money by feeding whichever fear is likely to be
most profitable at the time. These writers either unthinkingly relied
on their written sources as reliable representations of contemporary
canting language, or didn’t care about the authenticity of their dia-
logue at all. The important thing, in each case, is that the dialogue
should sound convincing to an audience which, on the whole, knows
nothing about the language of beggars and criminals other than what
they’ve heard in other plays. Canting words came to play the same
function as the striped jersey and face mask of the cartoon burglar:
they’re symbols rather than realistic representations. The various

versions of Harman’s list tell us which groups were most frightening
at different times, but they don’t provide any evidence of current
language use.
Other evidence of early modern cant

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey offer very few examples of these
terms in their canting senses between 1674 and 1913, which suggests
that criminals carefully concealed their secret language in court, that
these terms had fallen from use by 1674, that although they were used
in court, they were not preserved in the written record, or that they
were never commonly employed. Because there’s little independent
evidence for many of the words they list, most of the early canting
texts are of little use to us in recreating genuine usage, not least
because the canting terms tend to cluster in highly stylized scenes.
Shakespeare depicts a group of thieves in Henry IV, Part I without
resorting to the canting tradition for his vocabulary. In this scene, Hal and
his friends are plotting a highway robbery (although actually Hal is
planning to steal the money from his accomplices later on and return
it to its original owner). The conspirators lie in wait for their victims
in an isolated spot, and Falstaff complains about having to walk so far:
Falstaff: A plague upon you all! Give me my horse, you rogues; give me
my horse and be hanged.
Hal: Peace, ye fat-guts. Lie down, lay thine ear close to the ground and list
if thou canst hear the tread of travellers.
Falstaff: Have you any levers to lift me up again, being down? ’Sblood, I’ll
not bear mine own flesh so far afoot again for all the coin in thy father’s
exchequer. What a plague mean ye to colt me thus?
Hal: Thou liest: thou art not colted; thou art uncolted.
Falstaff: I prithee, good Prince Hal, help me to my horse, good king’s son.
Hal: Out, ye rogue; shall I be your ostler?
Falstaff: Hang thyself in thine own heir-apparent garters! If I be ta’en, I’ll
peach for this.
Even though Hal disguises himself as a soldier before Agincourt

to mingle with his troops unsuspected, he doesn’t talk like this
again. His language is as much an indication of his debauchery as
his companions and behaviour are. We have swearing (plague, be
hanged, ’sblood), insults (rogue, fat-guts), and humour, all of which
indicate that this isn’t a formal conversation, as does the fact that it is
in prose rather than verse, but there’s more to it than that. Peach
(1570—) originated as a shortened form of the more formal appeach
(1401-1650), meaning “to give evidence against; to impeach”, but its
continued use suggests that it has also been understood as an abbre-
viation of impeach (1428—). Falstaff means colt in the sense “to cheat;
to take in” (1580-1618), but Henry pretends to understand it in the
sense “to be provided with a horse” so that he can make a joke at
Falstaff’s expense. In each case, Shakespeare could have chosen to
employ an unmarked term from Standard English: impeach or cheat,
both of which he uses in other places, but here he emphasizes his
characters’ positions outside decent society by using terms that some
members of his audience wouldn’t have used, and might not even
have known. Whether they represent the language of contemporary
criminals is less important in the dramatic context than the fact that
they sound as if they could.
Inside information from the eighteenth century

Much more information about canting language is available from
the eighteenth century. An anonymous publication from 1708, called
Hell on Earth, describes the conditions and inhabitants of London’s
Newgate prison. Its grammar is a little unstable, but the author seems
to know what he’s talking about:
Some are very expert for the sneak; which is, sneaking into houses by night
or day, and pike off with that which is none of their own. Some are very
acute for the running-smobble; which is a lay two or three have together,
one of ’em running into a shop, when people are in a back-room, or busy
behind a counter, snatching up something, conveys it to one of his nimble

comrades, and trip it away as fast as a racehorse over Newmarket Heath.
Some are very good for the sneaking-budge; which is, privately stealing
anything off of a stall.
We can place more faith in the vocabulary presented by this writer

because it’s not a neat fit with the terms found in the earlier canting
tradition, and because many of these terms are also recorded inde-
pendently elsewhere, including the sneak “burglary; sneak-thievery”
(1699—), pike off “to depart” (c.1529—, originally dialect and cant,
later colloquial), running-smobble “a shop lifter; the act of shop
lifting” (1703-1718), lay “a criminal act or scheme” (1707-1973),
and sneaking-budge “one who robs alone” (c.1698-1751). Off of
(c.1450—) hadn’t yet become non-standard in British English.
Another individual with first-hand knowledge of London’s crimi-
nal classes also published an anonymous account of their language,
though we can identify him as Charles Hitchin, Under-Marshal of
London. His purchased position enabled him to make a good living
by charging the victims of theft for the return of their stolen property,
but he was soon suspended from office and imprisoned for sodomy.
Hitchin’s assistant, Jonathan Wild, far exceeded his master’s achieve-
ments in the field of extortion: rather than just inducing criminals to
return stolen goods in return for a share of the reward, Wild arranged
for them to be stolen in the first place. The speed at which he could
locate stolen goods was quite remarkable. Hitchin’s attempt to expose
Wild suggests that housebreakers were no longer opportunistic
thieves who sneaked in and snatched what they could. These thieves
bring professional equipment with them and are willing to use vio-
lence if necessary:
A buzz, alias prig, alias thief. A cove, alias man. A dub, alias tilt, alias pick-
lock-key. A glim-stick, alias dark-lantern. A bess, alias betty. Pops, alias
pistols. To slum the ken alias to break into the house. All’s Boman, alias
all is safe. The Dancers, alias the Stairs. . . . To bundle the cull of the ken, alias
to tie the man of the house neck and heels. . . . To lope off, alias to get away.
The baggage-man, alias that is he that carries off the booty. A Fence, alias or
lock, alias a buyer of stolen goods. Ridge, alias gold. Wedge, alias silver.
A boosing-ken, alias an ale-house. The cull is flash, alias that is he associates
himself with thieves.
Of these terms, cove “a man”, betty “a crowbar”, ken “a house”, and

flash “associating with thieves” have already been mentioned. Buzz,3
bess, tilt, slum, glimstick, and all’s boman are only documented by
later writers in the canting tradition: there’s no independent evidence
of their wider use. Better documented canting terms include:
prig “a thief” (c.1561-1980) baggage-man “a pickpocket’s

dub “an instrument for picking locks” accomplice” (1718-1768)
(c.1698-1887) fence “a receiver of stolen goods” (c.1698—)
pop “a pistol” (1700-1992) lock “a receiver of stolen goods”
dancers “stairs” (1665—) (c.1698-1804)
cull “a dupe, a fool; a man” (1648- ridge “gold” (1665-1955)
1962) wedge “silver” (1703—)
lope “to run” (c.1572—) bousing-ken “an alehouse; a public
house” (1567-1931)
Although many of these terms had become standard features in

canting literature by this date, Hitchin appears to have learnt them
from their spoken use rather than from earlier written sources.
In 1754, John Poulter gave evidence against his accomplices in a
robbery, under the impression that this would help him to avoid
punishment. When he realized it wouldn’t, he escaped from prison,
but was recaptured and hanged. This extract is from Poulter’s confes-
sion, which was popular enough to be published in seventeen editions
during the following quarter of a century:
3
The apparently related terms, buzz “to steal” (1812), buzzer “a pickpocket”
(1862), and buzzing “picking pockets” (1819+1884), aren’t found until considerably
later.
In a fair or market, where there is a throng of people, we say, “Come culls,

shall us pike to the push or gaff, a rum vile for the file or lift to peter-lay or
leather-lay; come let us pike, we shall nap a rum bit”; that is, “come men,
shall us go to the throng or fair, a good town for the pick-pocket or shop-
lifters to steal portmanteaus or leather-bags; come, let us go, we shall take a
good bit.” Then three or four persons go to the fair or market, and put up at
the first ken (or house) they come to in the vile (or town) in order to be out
of the push (or throng) as soon as we have napped (or taken) a bit; then we
pike to glee if there’s a cull that has a bit; if so, the files go before the cull
and try his cly, and if they feel a bit, cry gammon; then two or three of us
hold him up, whilst some prads or rattlers come by: if they nap the bit, they
cry pike, then we go and fisk the bit and ding the empty bit, for fear it
should be found . . .
Most of these terms are defined for us in the extract. Poulter is, after
all, revealing to his readers something that they could not otherwise
understand, but you’ll already recognize cull “a fool; a man”, pike “to
go; to depart”, rum “good”, and ken “a house”. Poulter also uses:
push “a crowd” (1718—) northern dialects), but here with the

gaff “a fair” (1753—), also found with the sense “to look” (1753-1799)
sense “a shop; a residence” (1920—) cly “a purse” (1699–1877)
vile or vill(e) “a town” (1688—) cry/give gammon “to distract
file “a pickpocket” (1665-1848) someone’s attention while an
lift “a thief” (1591-1777) accomplice robs them” (1720-1821)
peter-lay “the theft of a peter” hold up “to rob forcibly; to delay
(“a portmanteau; a large bag or traffic” (1851—, although this would
trunk” (1667-1979)) be a very early usage)
leather-lay “the theft of a leather” prad “a horse” (1703—, now chiefly
(“a purse; a wallet” (1753-1955, US Australian)
in later use)) rattler “a carriage; a noisy vehicle”
nap “to steal; to take” (1665—) (1622—)
bit “money” (1552-1967), used with fisk [see below]
the sense “a purse; a wallet” ding “to throw away”, referring
glee “to squint” (c.1300-1876, especially to incriminating
particularly in Scotland and then in objects (1753—)
The OED records fisk with the sense “to move briskly; to scamper”
(c.1340-1906), but not “to search”. Fisk is apparently related to the
more familiar frisk “to move briskly; to scamper” (1519—), which
developed the sense “to search” in about 1781. It appears that fisk also
enjoyed short-lived use with this meaning (1724-1768).
Other evidence of eighteenth-century cant

Independent evidence of eighteenth-century canting language is
provided by the publications of the Ordinaries, or chaplains, of
Newgate Prison. It was their responsibility to provide spiritual com-
fort to condemned prisoners, and they were compensated by the
profitable right to sell accounts of prisoners’ lives, last words, and
deaths. In these two extracts, criminals describe the circumstances of
their crimes:
We had not sat long before he fell fast asleep in the chair, having, as
I observed before, drank pretty hard, and being very much tired. As soon as
we found him in this condition, we began to examine the contents of his
pockets, and found upwards of 15* ridges, besides a { rum fam upon his
finger. We not being content with this, took his } wedges out of his jj
stomps, and observing before, he had a pretty rum outside and inside {{
togee, we pulled them off, and made free with them likewise.
*Guineas { Diamond ring } Buckles jj Shoes {{ A good coat and
waistcoat
Some short time after, they all went out again upon the old lay, and picked
up another bubble in the park, whom one of them asked to take a walk,
whilst the rest followed at a distance, and coming up at a time they judged
convenient, they furiously catched the man by the collar, and cried, “D—n
your blood! What? Are you Mollying each other?”
In addition to the terms that we have already seen, these extracts provide
evidence for the use of stomp for stamp “a shoe” (recorded with the sense
“a leg” (1567-1819)), toge “a toga; a coat” (?a.1400-1965), bubble “a
dupe; someone easily fooled” (1600-1807), and molly “to engage in

homosexual anal intercourse with” (1726-1746). Perhaps, having
already been convicted, prisoners had nothing to lose by revealing
their canting terms. Perhaps the Ordinary inserted them to increase
sales by livening up the confessions. In either case, their inclusion
suggests that some of the terms listed in the dictionaries of this
period (and some that were also found in the earlier dictionaries)
were widely known at this time.
Flash language
The language of London’s criminals and lower orders had a guilty
appeal for wealthier contemporaries. Moll King’s coffee house served
market traders in the morning and prostitutes later in the day, with
the prostitutes’ clients drawn from a broad social spectrum. In this
extract from The Life and Character of Moll King (1747), Moll is
chatting with a customer called Harry. Of the many canting terms
included, we’ve already seen file “a pickpocket”, fam “a ring”, rum
“good; excellent”, mort “a woman”, Oliver “the moon”, ken “a house”,
and nap “to take”:
Harry: . . . you must tip me your clout before I derrick, for my bloss has
nailed me of mine; but I shall catch her at Maddox’s gin-ken, sluicing
her gob by the tinney; and if she has morrised it, knocks and socks,
thumps and plumps, shall attend the frow-file buttocking b—h.
Moll: I heard she made a fam tonight, a rum one, with dainty dasies, of a
flat from t’other side; she flashed half a slat, a bull’s eye, and some other
rum slangs.
Harry: I’ll derrick, my blood, if I tout my mort, I’ll tip her a snitch about the
peeps and nasous. I shall see my jolly old codger by the tinney-side,
I suppose with his daylights dim, and his trotters shivering under him.—
As Oliver wheedles, I’ll not touch this darkee. I’ll nap the pad and see
you in the morning.
tip “to give” (1610—) flash “to make a display; to show off”
clout “a handkerchief” (c.1380-1927, (1747—)
not originally slang) slat “a crown (five shillings); half a
derrick “to go” (1747+1754), from the crown” (1703-1753), though used here
name of a noted hangman, also with the sense “a pound”
referred to in the sense “a hangman; bull’s eye “five shillings” (1699-1899)
the gallows” (c.1600-1680) slang perhaps an early use with the
bloss “a woman; a mistress or prostitute; sense “a watch chain” (1819-1937),
a thief” (1699-1747) but it appears to mean “an object;
nail “to steal; to rob” (1747—) a thing” more broadly
sluice (one’s gob/mouth (etc.)) “to drink” blood [in swearing] (1541-1950)
(1747-1885) tout “to look for; to see” (1699-1837)
gob “mouth” (1568—) snitch “a blow” (1676-1747)
tinny “fire” (1747-1823) peeps “eyes” (1747-1989)
morris “to go; to force to leave; to sell” nasous “nose” (1747)
(1726-a.1903) codger for cadger “a travelling salesman”
frow “a woman” (1587-1953) (a.1522-1861), here presumably one
buttock “to have sexual intercourse” who deals in stolen goods
(1703+1747), from buttock “a daylights “eyes” (1747-1901)
prostitute” (1673-1743) trotter “a human foot” (c.1699—)
bitch “a lewd or sensual woman” wheedle for whiddle “to turn informer”
(?a.1400—, never complimentary, (c.1661-1834)
but not always slang) touch “to receive money; to steal”
make “to steal” (1699—) (1654—, cant in later use)
daisy “a diamond” (1747) darkey “a night” (1747-1893)
flat “a gullible fool” (1747-1938) pad “the road” (1567-1986, now
t’other side “Southwark” (1747-1897) dialect and Australian)
A few terms date the passage quite closely to 1732, when the dialogue
is supposedly set, including bloss, morris, and slat. Recorded first in
this passage are derrick, nail, sluice (one’s gob/mouth (etc.)), tinny,
flat, t’other side, flash, peeps, daylights, Oliver, and darkey, all of which
are found in later texts, giving us some confidence in nasous “nose”
and daisy “a diamond”, even though there’s no other evidence of their

use. Daylights broadened from this sense to mean “any vital organ”
(1838—), and living daylights are scared and beaten out of people to
this day. The modern uses of tout “someone who resells tickets at
inflated prices” (1959—), snitch “an informer” (1785—), oil derricks
(1861—), codger “a (stingy) (old) person, usually a man” (1796—),
and flash “to expose oneself indecently” (1846—) have all developed
from these earlier slang senses. Again, this gives us confidence in their
authenticity in this text.
What’s most interesting about the Moll King dialogue is its author’s
comment that although the coffee house was first used by individuals
associated with London’s underworld, wealthy individuals began to
frequent it too, presumably drawn by the prostitutes rather than the
thieves. They began to use the canting terms they heard there to signal
their involvement in the dubious morals of Moll’s world and, simul-
taneously, to reject the values of more conventional society. Moll
King’s dialogue could thus be taken as the beginning of the transition
from cant to flash language.
London’s fascination with its own underbelly is also evident in the
success of George Parker’s Life’s Painter of Variegated Characters
(1789). In this extract, a strolling ballad singer in one of London’s
poorest districts encourages his audience to show their appreciation:
Ballad Singer: What, no copper clinking among you, my hearties?

No one to give me Hansel? What, have you got red-hot heaters in
your gropers, that you’re afraid to thrust your daddles in them? It won’t
do I say, to stand here for nicks—all hearers and no buyers—what, will
none of you drop your loose kelter? Crap me but I must shove my
trunk, and hop the twig—I see as how there’s nothing to be got in this
here place.
Female Ballad Singer: Don’t mizzle yet.
Male Ballad Singer: The kelter tumbles in but queerly—however, we’ll
give ’em one more chaunt . . .
copper “a coin made of copper or kelter “money” (1789-1865)

bronze; (in plural) small change” crap (also crop) “to hang” (1772-1833)
(1712—) shove my trunk [see below]
my hearties (1789—, now chiefly pirates) hop the twig “to depart; to die” (1785—,
handsel [see below] now often with reference to Monty
groper “a pocket” (1789-c.1830) Python’s dead parrot)
daddle “a hand” (1754—, historical in mizzle “to depart” (1772-1976)
later use) queerly “badly; villainously” (1699-1812)
nix “nothing” (1781—, from German) chaunt [see below]
drop “to spend (money)” (1676—)
loose with reference to money (1760—)
Parker uses shove one’s trunk, for which there’s no other evidence,
quite a lot earlier than documented uses of shove (off/out) “to depart”
(1844—). Three usages in this extract had become more slangy
through the course of time. Handsel had been used to refer to a gift
given to seal an agreement since around 1200. By 1569, it had
developed the sense “a first instalment; a deposit”, but by the time
Parker was writing the term was specifically associated with the first
successful transaction of the day (or night) made by traders or
prostitutes. This here is first recorded in around 1460, but it doesn’t
appear to have been stigmatized as vulgar or dialectal until around the
1760s. Chaunt (now more usually <chant>) “a song” (1671-1882) was
once poetic, but by this point had become associated with the lan-
guage of beggars and thieves.
Not all of the attention paid to the poor in this period was
motivated by idle curiosity. In 1839, W.A. Miles published a parlia-
mentary report called Poverty, Mendicity, and Crime, describing the
living conditions of London’s poor. It included a ‘Dictionary of the
Flash or Cant Language’ compiled by Henry Brandon, which pro-
vides ‘specimens of flash’ and their translations. For example:
I buzzed a bloak and a shakester of a reader and a skin. My jomer stalled.

A cross-cove, who had his regulars, called out ‘cop bung,’ so as a pig was
marking, I speeled to the crib, where I found Jim had been pulling down
sawney for grub. He cracked a case last night and fenced the swag. He told me
as Bill had flimped a yack and pinched a swell of a fawney, he sent the yack to
church and got three finnips and a cooter for the fawney.
TRANSLATION.
I picked the pocket of a gentleman and lady of a pocket-book and a purse. My
fancy girl stood near me and screened me from observation. A fellow-thief,
who shared with me my plunder, called out to me to hand over the stolen
property, so as somebody was observing my manœuvres, I ran away to the
house, where I found James had provided something to eat, by stealing some
bacon from a shop door. He committed a burglary last night and had disposed
of the property plundered. He told me that Bill had hustled a person and
obtained a watch; he had also robbed a well-dressed gentleman of a ring. The
watch he sent to have the works taken out and put into another case, (to
prevent detection,) and the ring realized him three five-pound notes and a
sovereign.
Of the many flash terms in this passage, we have already seen buzz “to
steal”, bloke “a man”, stall “to screen a pickpocket from observation”,
cove “a man”, pig “a police officer”, case “a house”, and finnip “a five-
pound note”. Others include:
shakester for shickster “a (promiscuous) crib “a (small) house; a shop; a public

woman” (1834—, from the Yiddish house” (1600—)
shiksa “a gentile girl”) pull down “to steal” (1839-1882), the
reader “a pocketbook” (1718-1900) sense “to earn” (c.1899—, originally US)
skin “a purse” (1795-1955) appears not to be directly related
jomer “a girlfriend” (1839-1882) to this
cross “dishonest; dishonestly acquired” sawney [see below]
(1811-1911) grub “food” (1659—)
regulars “a criminal’s share of the crack “to burgle” (a.1674—)
profits” (1811-1937) fence “to deal in stolen property”
cop bung “look out: police!” (1610—)
(1839-1882) swag “stolen property” (1794—)
mark [see below] flimp “to rob; to steal” (1824-1906)
speel “to run (away)” (a.1818-1945, yack “a watch” (1789-1978)
chiefly Australian in later use)
pinch “to rob; to steal” (1592—, not church “to remove the works of a stolen
originally slang, now colloquial) watch from its case” (1868-1935),
swell “a fashionably or stylishly though in this case it’s send to church
dressed person” (1786—) couter “a sovereign” (1834–1898)
fawney “a ring” (1796-1906)
Mark had been used with the sense “to observe” since around 1400,
and the OED cites it until 1961, commenting that it is ‘now archaic or
literary’. This extract suggests that it was also cant, at least for a while
(1839-1882), and the sporting usage “to keep close to (and hamper) a
player in the opposing team” (1887—) may have developed from this
sense. Sawney was first used as a derisory nickname for a Scottish
man (1682-1883), and is formed from Sandy, an abbreviation of
Alexander, which was, at this time, characteristically Scottish. It was
also used as a technical term in cloth-manufacturing and with the
senses “a fool” (1699-1993) and “bacon” (1819-1906). The OED
comments that ‘the connection of the other senses [with the first] is
doubtful’.
In 1857 a booklet called The Vulgar Tongue, published under the
pen name ‘Ducange Anglicus’, listed some 480 terms from contem-
porary London English. These include:
COPPER, n. Policeman. Th.

MINCE PIES, n. Eyes. Th.
ROUND ME HOUSES, n. Trousers, pronounced trouses. Th.
ROWDY, n. Money. ‘Got any rowdy, Bill?’ Also rhino. Gen.
Copper “a policeman” (1838—) and rowdy “money” (1841-1885)

were both relatively new at this date, but it’s mince pies (1857—)
and round me (also the) houses (1857—) that are particularly worthy
of note. This glossary was the first to list any rhyming slang, labelling
most of it as thieves’ language. By the end of the century, rhyming
slang had come to be strongly associated with London’s coster-
mongers through its use in cockney music hall acts and songs, and
it’s now useful short hand in dramatic representations of characters

from London.
Conclusions
This chapter has discussed the evidence for cant, the language of
thieves and beggars, from 1567 to the middle of the nineteenth
century. The early part of this period provides us only with a tangled
mess of interrelated glossaries and plays, but from the eighteenth
century onwards there’s independent evidence to suggest that some of
the terms included in dictionaries of criminal language, even some of
those found in the earliest glossaries, were genuinely used in contem-
porary canting language. We’ve considered some of the methods by
which canting language might have spread into wider usage, and the
next chapter will pick up the history of slang. As in this chapter, the
evidence is largely drawn from texts written in and about London,
although other large cities undoubtedly developed their own criminal
language and slang. If these local cant or slang terms were recorded at
all, they would probably have been treated as dialect.
Endnotes
Many of the citations in this chapter are via Early English Books Online
<http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home>. I’ve modernized capitalization, spelling,
and punctuation, except in the quotation from Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth,
Part I, which was modernized by David Scott Kastan for the Arden Shakespeare
edition (London: Thompson Learning, 2002), II. ii. Other quotations are from
Gilbert Walker’s A Manifest Detection of the Most Vile and Detestable Use of
Diceplay, and Other Practices Like the Same. A Mirror Very Necessary for all
Young Gentlemen [and] Others Suddenly Enabled by Worldly Abundance, to Look
in (London: Abraham Vele, c.1555), C1r; Robert Greene, A Disputation between
a He Coney-Catcher and a She Coney-Catcher . . . Discovering the Secret Villainies
of Alluring Strumpets (London: T.G., 1592), A3v; Robert Copland, Hyeway to the
Spital-House (London: Copland, c.1536), C3v; John Awdelay, The Fraternitye of
Vacabondes (London: John Awdelay, 1575), A3v; Thomas Harman, Caveat or
Warning for Common Cursitors (London: William Griffith, 1567), G2r and G3v;
Richard Brome, A Jovial Crew, or, The Merry Beggars (London: E.D. and N.E.,
1652), II. ii; and Thomas Dekker, O Per Se O, or A New Crier of Lanthorn and
Candlelight (London: John Busbie, 1612), ‘The Canting Song’. Also cited in this
section was Martin Scorsese’s Gangs of New York (New York: Miramax, 2002).
Information about links between England and Holland is from Ben Parsons’s
‘Dutch Influences on English Literary Culture in the Early Renaissance,
1470-1650’, Literary Compass 4/6 (2007), 1577–96. The Proceedings of the Old
Bailey: London’s Central Criminal Court, 1674-1913 <http://www.oldbaileyonline
.org/index.jsp> provided two confessions from the Ordinary’s Account, dating
from 1741 and 1744 (OA17410731 and OA17441224). Extracts are also included
from Charles Hitchin’s The Regulator or, A Discovery of the Thieves, Thief-takers
and Locks (London: T. Warner, 1718), n.p.; John Poulter’s The Discoveries of John
Poulter, 5th edn (Sherbourne: R. Goadby, 1753), 30; and George Parker, Life’s
Painter of Variegated Characters (London: R. Bassam, 1789), 126. Hell upon Earth
(n.p., 1703), 3, and The Life and Character of Moll King (London: W. Price, 1747),
10–11, were both published anonymously. Also quoted are the ‘Specimen of Flash’
from W. A. Miles’s Poverty, Mendicity and Crime . . . to which is added a Dictionary
of the Flash or Cant Language, Known to Every Thief and Beggar edited by
H. Brandon, esq. (London: Shaw and Sons, 1839), 167, along with entries from
Ducange Anglicus, The Vulgar Tongue: Comprising Two Glossaries of Slang, Cant,
and Flash Words and Phrases used in London at the Present Day (London: Bernard
Quaritch, 1857).
7 Jolly Good Show:
British Slang to
the Twentieth
Century
We’ve seen that there had been considerable interest in cant
from the sixteenth century onwards. By that time, London was big
enough to have distinct social layers, making it very different from
contemporary rural parishes in which the poorest and the richest
would all have been on speaking terms with one another. There were
enough people in London by the end of the sixteenth century that it
had become possible to socialize mainly with people of the same
social class, or with shared interests, occupations, or political views,
and with social isolation comes dislike and fear of other groups. The
rich had more to lose than the poor, and their fear of the poor, whose
nefarious designs were magnified by contemporary writers, motivated
the interest in English cant that developed during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
The use and documentation of slang were also influenced by socio-
economic developments. As international trade grew, British mer-
chants from humble backgrounds amassed large fortunes, blurring
previously dependable class divisions. Wealth no longer provided a
reliable indicator of class, so etiquette and language became more
important in determining gentility. The more precisely Standard
English was defined and the more fiercely its borders were policed,
the more interested people became in non-standard English and in

representing types of people by their use of it. This chapter provides a
roughly chronological account of the early development of English
slang, but it also considers the main strands of influence on the
development of slang: those with new money, old money, and no
money, students, soldiers, and (going full circle) criminals and their
associates. Clearly there were overlaps and connections between these
groups.
The medieval period

Little is or can be known about non-standard language in the medie-
val period. There’s a tendency to refer to swear words as ‘Anglo-
Saxon’, though most of them aren’t, particularly the most forceful
ones. There’s no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons used swearing in the
way that we do. We know that when they swore to do something they
were expected to follow through (‘I swear that I will not leave the
battlefield alive now that my lord has fallen’), but we don’t know what
an Anglo-Saxon warrior shouted when he dropped his shield on his
foot. Evidence that the Anglo-Saxons used slang is similarly absent.
Lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean there was no slang, but it
does mean that we can’t say anything definitive about it. Unless we’re
going to label everything that’s obscene or insulting as slang by
default, which I don’t think we should, my feeling is that the Anglo-
Saxons didn’t have slang. I’m confident that no one will ever be able
to prove me wrong.
This isn’t to say that during the medieval period everyone spoke
pure and Standard English nicely to one another in idyllic thatched
cottages until the corruption of urbanization occurred. It would be
nearer the truth to say that no one spoke Standard English. For most
of the medieval period people didn’t write Standard English either
(though there was some standardization of spelling during the medi-
eval period). This is because there was no Standard English: with no
national educational system or media, everyone spoke in their own
Jolly Good Show: British Slang to the Twentieth Century 145
dialect, and those that could write wrote in their own dialect too:
representing the sounds of their own speech. What’s more, English
coexisted with other languages. If Chaucer’s contemporaries wanted
to sound more intelligent, they didn’t use better English words, they
used Latin words; if they wanted to sound more cultured, they used
words from French. Students might have cemented their group
identity by using informal Latin rather than informal English; fash-
ionable people would probably have commented on one another’s
clothes and dalliances in French. That left English to fulfil many of the
other functions listed in Chapter 5 without the necessity for a special
non-standard variety: English was already intrinsically undignified.
But could Chaucer and his late fourteenth-century contemporaries
really be rebellious, rude, offensive, vivid, and insulting without using
slang? Puh-leeze! (1931—, originally US). This exchange comes from
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. A group of pilgrims travelling to Canter-
bury have agreed to take part in a story-telling competition. Once
the Knight has told his tale, the Host invites the Monk, who is second
highest in rank, to go next. The Miller isn’t happy with this arrangement:
“By arms and by blood and bones,

I can [know] a noble tale for the nones [for the purpose],
With which I will now quite [match] the Knight’s tale.”
Our Host saw that he was drunk of ale,
And said, “Abide [wait], Robin, my leeve [dear] brother,
Some better man shall tell us first another,
Abide, and let us work [proceed] thriftily [in a proper manner].”
“By God’s soul,” quod [said] he, “that will not I,
For I will speak, or else go my way.”
Our Host answered, “Tell on, a devil way [in the devil’s name]!
Thou art a fool, thy wit is overcome!”
There’s lots of swearing here: by God’s arms, blood, bones, and soul,
and by the devil. There are also plenty of insults (thou art a fool, thy
wit is overcome), threats (I will . . . go my way), and there are clear
differences in social status. The Miller doesn’t take issue with the
notion that there are better men than him: only with the suggestion
that he should wait until after they’ve spoken. Social difference is also
indicated by the Host’s use of thou to address the Miller: he had just
used the politer, and originally plural, form you to the Knight and
Monk. We’ve already seen thou used in this way in the extract from
Henry IV, Part One in the last chapter. For Chaucer, thou was the
appropriate way to address one’s inferiors; by Shakespeare’s time it
was either intimate or insulting, depending on the context (in the
same way that many slang terms are now). So the language here is
vivid, it’s expressing emotion; it’s creating social groups and hierar-
chies. The Miller is speaking in an undignified manner. Why can’t we
just call this slang? The simple answer is that it’s not possible to point
to any of these words individually and say, ‘that is slang’. The Middle
English Dictionary (MED), edited by Hans Kurath, and others,
doesn’t use the label ‘slang’ at all: although we can see that words
are sometimes used in ways that seem slangy, we don’t have enough
evidence from the early or late medieval period to allow us to say that
in a particular time and place, the only people using a particular word
in a particular way were young people or soldiers, or students, or any
other social group.
If we can’t find Middle English slang by looking at social groups,
perhaps we can do it by looking at promising words. Here are some
citations from the MED, all from John Trevisa’s translation of Bartho-
lomaeus’s scientific (for the time) encyclopaedia De Proprietatibus
Rerum (‘On the Properties of Things’). The translations are my own:
Emoroydes beþ five veynes þat strecchiþ out at þe ers [Hemorrhoids are
five veins that extend out of the arse]
Þe weies of pisse beþ I-stoppid [The passages for piss are blocked]
Þis beest . . . schitiþ fleynge and nou˘t in hire hyue [This beast [the bee] . . .
shits flying and not in her hive]
Words that became slang later appear to have been unremarkable in

Middle English: arses were called arses because that was the word for
them (and always had been). It wasn’t until euphemistic substitutes
became established in general use, that arse could be stigmatized.

Arse, and words like it, undoubtedly featured in bawdy tavern talk,
but they weren’t restricted to it. There’s nothing, in the medieval
period, that we can safely call slang.
Slanging matches
As urban communities grew larger during the late medieval and early
modern period, law-makers became increasingly involved in the task
of keeping the peace by outlawing public quarrelling. Early statutes
were particularly directed towards women, and several terms from
this period specifically meaning “a quarrelsome or scolding woman”
12 Unfeminine language: from The New Art and Mystery of Gossiping (London:
n.p.,?1760).
indicate that ‘the gentler sex’ weren’t supposed to speak up for

themselves: virago (c.1386-1891), shrew (c.1386-1839), common
scold (1467-1858), callet (a.1528-1611), cotquean (1592-1633), scold-
ster (c.1600), and termagant (1659-1896). We’ll see later that there
has been a strong sense that slang is more proper to men than to
women, which means that this restriction in women’s speech was
essential to the early development of slang.
Slang wasn’t used in the sense “to rail in abusive or vulgar
language” or “to abuse or scold violently” until the nineteenth cen-
tury, but it’s in dramatic representations of arguments that we find
some of our best evidence of what looks like early modern slang. In
this extract from The Alchemist (1610), Ben Jonson sets the scene
with a lengthy and violent argument, which begins:
Subtle: Away, you trencher-rascal!

Face: Out, you dog-leech!
The vomit of all prisons –
Dol Common: Will you be
Your own destructions, gentlemen?
Face: Still spewed out
For lying too heavy o’ the basket.
Subtle: Cheater!
Face: Bawd!
Subtle: Cow-herd!
Face: Conjurer!
Subtle: Cut-purse!
Face: Witch!
Dol Common: Oh me! . . .
Face: Away this brach! I’ll bring thee, rogue within
The statute of sorcery, tricesimo tertio
Of Harry the Eight: ay, and perhaps thy neck
Within a noose for laundering gold and barbing it.
Dol Common: You’ll bring your head within a coxcomb, will you?
And you, sir, with your menstrue! – Gather it up.
’Sdeath, you abominable pair of stinkards,
Leave off your barking, and grow one again,
Or, by the light that shines, I’ll cut your throats.

I’ll not be made a prey unto the marshal
For ne’er a snarling dog-bolt of you both.
Now that’s what I call a row! There’s lots of swearing ((god)’sdeath,

by the light that shines) and plenty of insults (trencher-rascal “glut-
ton”, bawd, cow-herd, conjurer, cut-purse, witch, brach “bitch”,
rogue, stinkard “smelly person”). Subtle lies too heavily on the basket
in which food is distributed to poor people in prison: he’s so greedy
that other people don’t get their share. Some of these insults may
have been slang when they were used figuratively, but we are on
firmer ground when we can identify a clear standard alternative. For
example, spew was once unexceptional—it’s recorded in sermons
and saints’ lives from the Anglo-Saxon period—but by this date the
more learned vomit (a.1500-1872) was also available. Puke (1601—,
now colloquial) was also being used in medical texts alongside
various politer alternatives, so spew may well be functioning as
slang in this context. We’re familiar with the idea of laundering
money (1973—), but Jonson’s use is a much more literal reference to
the act of washing coins in acid to remove some of the precious metal.
Another way of increasing the value derived from a coin was to barb it,
whereby slivers of gold were clipped off to be melted down: the coin
was reduced in weight but retained its face value. The existence of
Standard English clip (a.1513-1855) and wash (1421/2-1643) suggest
that barb and launder may have been slang in this context, but we
can’t be certain.
As we’ve seen in Chapter 2, slang is often figurative, and some of
Jonson’s figurative usages may be slang here, including barking, with
reference to human speech (1549+1857). To continue with the canine
theme, which may have been given particular force by the use of dog
as a substitute for God in oaths (?1550—, now chiefly US), a dog-bolt
is “a bolt or arrow fit to be used on a dog” (1593+1612), but it is used
here to mean “a menial; a wretch” (1465-1901). Similarly, the literal
meaning of dog-leech1 is “a doctor for dogs” (1638-1840), but this

figurative sense “an unskilled doctor; a quack” (1529-1874) appears to
be slang: Jonson used both quacksalver (1579—, historical in later
use)2 and the more colloquial quack (1638—) elsewhere with the
same sense, so we can be sure that more standard alternatives were
available to him.
It’s also worth commenting on the use of tricesimo tertio: the
thirty-third (year) of Henry’s reign and menstrue “a solvent used
for dissolving metal”. The first is Latin and characteristic of legal
language at this time; the second, although related to Latin men-
struum “menstrual blood”, was restricted to the language of alche-
mists in this broader sense “a solvent used for dissolving metal”. So
Jonson’s play also indicates that different professional groups were
beginning to develop their own characteristic vocabularies of techni-
cal language within English.
London slang
Unfortunately for the inhabitants of London and for students of
slang, no plays were performed during the period 1649–60, because
the Puritans, who were no fun at all, closed the theatres. When they
reopened, Restoration dramatists made up for lost time by being as
risqué as possible and by depicting contemporary life, warts and all,
providing much clearer examples of slang than those we’ve seen from
Renaissance playwrights. This extract is from William Wycherley’s
The Country Wife. Mr Harcourt has been flirting with Mrs Alithia in
the presence of Mr Sparkish, to whom she is betrothed.3 Mr
1
It would be satisfying if this type of leech was related to the name of the blood-
sucking creatures still sometimes used by doctors, but the two words exist separately
in Old English.
2
This is from a Dutch word now spelt kwakzalver. It has nothing to do with ducks,
and why would it?
3
Mrs is a title of respect here, not an indication of marital status.
Pinchwife, a jealous husband, advises Sparkish to curb Mrs Alithia’s

inappropriate behaviour, but Sparkish refuses:
Sparkish: Why, d’ye think I’ll seem to be jealous, like a country bumpkin?
Pinchwife: No, rather be a cuckold, like a credulous cit.
Harcourt: Madam, you would not have been so little generous as to have
told him.
Mrs Alithia: Yes, since you could be so little generous, as to wrong him.
Harcourt: Wrong him, no man can do’t, he’s beneath an injury; a bubble,
a coward, a senseless idiot, a wretch so contemptible to all the world
but you, that—
Mrs Alithia: Hold, do not rail at him, for since he is like to be my husband,
I am resolved to like him: Nay, I think I am obliged to tell him, you are
not his friend.—Master Sparkish, Master Sparkish.
Sparkish: What, what; now dear rogue, has not she wit?
Harcourt: Not so much as I thought, and hoped she had.
Mrs Alithia: Mr. Sparkish, do you bring people to rail at you?
Harcourt: Madam—
Sparkish: How! no, but if he does rail at me, ’tis but in jest I warrant; what
we wits do for one another, and never take any notice of it.
Wycherley uses his characters’ language to emphasize the different

moral standards of the town and the country. Both parties have
insulting names for the other: Sparkish uses bumpkin “a countryman
or woman” (1570—, probably from Dutch, and always informal);
Pinchwife uses cit (1654—), a contemptuous abbreviation for citizen
“a townsperson; a townsman” (c.1380—). We’ve already seen that a
bubble is a person who’s easily fooled. Rogue is a term of endearment
and approval here (1593—), demonstrating the inversion of main-
stream values that we’ve seen in other slang terms: to be accounted a
wit one had not only to allow other men to flirt with one’s fiancée, but
also to take insults and abuse in good spirit. Actually, people
continued to care about their reputations very much, and even
fashionable wits were sometimes ready to duel to the death in
response to insults. The same words might represent a facetious
witticism in one setting and a deadly challenge in another. With

insults, as with slang, context is all.
Thomas Shadwell’s Squire of Alsatia (1688) depicts individuals
sheltering from arrest in London’s Whitefriars district, an ecclesiasti-
cal sanctuary that had become the notorious haunt of gamblers and
debtors: an unfortunate combination. Belford is set to inherit his
father’s considerable wealth, but resents the restrictions very sensibly
placed on what he can do with it. Fortunately, he can raise money in
anticipation of his inheritance, and this earns him the attention of two
fraudsters, called Cheatly and Shamwell:
Shamwell: This morning your clothes and liveries will come home, and
thou shalt appear rich and splendid like thyself, and the mobile shall
worship thee.
Belford: The mobile! That’s pretty. Sweet Mr Cheatly, my best friend, let
me embrace thee.
Cheatly: My sprightly son of timber and of acres; my noble heir I salute
thee: the cole is coming, and shall be brought in this morning.
Belford: Cole? Why ’tis Summer, I need no firing now. Besides, I intend to
burn billets [logs cut for burning].
Cheatly: My lusty rustic, learn and be instructed. Cole is in the language of
the witty, money. The ready, the rhino; thou shalt be rhinocerical, my
lad, thou shalt.
Belford: Admirable I swear: cole, ready, rhino, rhinocerical; Lord, how
long may a man live in ignorance in the country!
Ready and rhino, which we’ve already seen, join cole or coal (1671-
1870) as synonyms for “money”, with rhinocerical meaning “wealthy”
(1688-1834). Mobile (1676-1830) is short for mobile vulgus “the
common (and fickle) masses” (c.1599—, now chiefly historical, but
also medical). As in the extract from Wycherley, newcomers from the
country are vulnerable until they’ve been corrupted by London man-
ners and slang.
Jonathan Swift’s Polite Conversation (published in 1738, but appar-
ently based on notes written at least two decades earlier) depicts
wealthy Londoners with nothing better to do than gossip and take

part in ostentatious social events:
Mr Neverout : [to Lady Smart.] Madam, have you heard, that Lady Queasy
was lately at the Playhouse incog?
Lady Smart : What! Lady Queasy of all women in the world! Do you say it
upon rep?
Neverout: Poz, I saw her with my own eyes; she sat among the mob in the
gallery; her own ugly fiz: And she saw me look at her.
Colonel Atwit: Her Ladyship was plaguily bambed; I warrant, it put her
into the hips.
Neverout: I smoked her huge nose, and egad she put me in mind of the
woodcock, that strives to hide his long bill, and then thinks nobody sees
him.
Colonel: Tom, I advise you hold your tongue; for you’ll never say so good
a thing again.
incog “incognito” (1709—) plaguily “perniciously; annoyingly; very”

rep “reputation” (1677—) (a.1586—, now archaic)
poz “positive” (1710—) bam “to hoax; to cheat” (1738-1884)
mob “mobile (vulgus)” (1688—) hyps for hypochondria (1705-1956)
fiz for phiz “physiognomy: a face” (1687—) smoke “to observe” (1715—)
Swift parodies the turn-of-the-century fondness for clippings by pack-

ing six into a few lines of dialogue. He also includes a little swearing
(egad “Ah God”, but used in the sense “by God” (1673—, now archaic))
and inserts trivially used emphatic phrases, such as with my own eyes
(1707—) and of all the women in the world (phrases including of all
the . . . are found from 1738—) to emphasize the insubstantiality of the
conversation. The names are carefully chosen too. Although Atwit isn’t
directly related to twit “a fool” (1896—), both are derived from the verb
twit “to blame; to find fault with”, ultimately derived from the Old
English atwitan, with the same meaning. Neverout’s name probably
implies “never out of fashion”, from out “unfashionable” (1660—).
Smart suggests “witty” (1639—) or “stylish” (1719—). Queasy probably

implies “sensitive; scrupulous (of the conscience)” (1545—).
Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer (1773) gives us a taste of
the conversation of wealthy young men slightly later in the eighteenth
century. Here Lumpkin hopes to avoid marrying his cousin by help-
ing his friend, Hastings, to elope with her:
Hastings: My honest ’Squire! I now find you a man of your word. This
looks like friendship.
Lumpkin: Ay, I’m your friend, and the best friend you have in the world, if
you knew but all. This riding by night, by the bye, is cursedly tiresome. It
has shook me worse than the basket of a stage-coach.
Hastings: But how? Where did you leave your fellow travellers? Are they in
safety? Are they housed?
Lumpkin: Five and twenty miles in two and a half is no such bad driving.
The poor beasts have smoked for it. Rabbit me, but I’d rather ride forty
miles after a fox, than ten with such varmint.
Hastings: Well, but where have you left the ladies? I die with impatience.
There is much about this conversation that’s informal, including the

swear words cursedly “very” (1570—) and rabbit “drat” (1701-1995,
dialect and archaic in later use). Varmint, from vermin, is used with
the sense “an objectionable or troublesome person or persons”
(1773—, now chiefly US). The OED labels look like “to have the
appearance of being” (c.1440—) as now colloquial and chiefly US,
but it’s also commonly used in British English. By the bye is related to
words like by way and by-law, and literally means “by a side way”,
though figuratively “incidentally”. This parenthetical use dates from
1708. The basket (1773-1840) of a stagecoach contained two external
seats at the back, which offered an exhilarating but uncomfortable
way to travel. Shook has been used for the past participle (shaken)
since at least 1671, and although it was stigmatized as non-standard
during the eighteenth century, it continued in use among those who
were wealthy and fashionable enough not to care about bourgeois
grammatical rules. Similarly casual is the omission of hours in ‘five
and twenty miles in two and a half’, and it’s possible that the use of
beast to refer to a gentleman’s horse was equivalent to describing an
expensive car as a heap (1921—, originally US), jalopy (1929—,
originally US), or banger (1962—) “an old motor car”. There’s also
understatement in no such bad driving “very good driving” and
exaggeration in I die with impatience “I am very impatient”. Smoke
“to sweat” appears to be slang here, though it could also be an entirely
literal description of the evaporation of smoke from the horses’
flanks.
In his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1785), Grose
observed rapid changes taking place in London slang:
A BORE, a tedious, troublesome man or woman, one who bores the ears of
his hearers with an uninteresting tale, a term much in fashion about the
years 1780, and 1781.
TWADDLE, perplexity, a confusion, or any thing else, a fashionable term
that succeeded a bore.
To suffer from the bore “a fit of boredom” (1766-1767) was consid-

ered a French affectation, and a person who affected such ennui and
the thing or person causing boredom could also be called a bore
(1766, 1778—, and 1785—, respectively). As Grose suggests, twaddle
replaced bore, but only with the narrower sense “senseless, silly, or
trifling talk or writing” (1782—). Clearly bore didn’t fall from use, but
it appears that there was a short period in Regency London when
using bore instead of twaddle to describe conversation was shamefully
unfashionable.
Pierce Egan was a prolific sports writer who also published an
edition of Grose’s dictionary. His Life in London (1821) depicts the
introduction of Jerry Hawthorn to the pleasures of London by his
cousin, Corinthian Tom. It’s a rambling work, produced in instal-
ments of very variable length and quality, but it was tremendously
popular at the time and gave rise to several stage plays. In this extract
from W. T. Moncrieff’s adaptation, Tom introduces Jerry to his
student friend, Bob Logic:
Tom: I was telling him before you came in. Bob, that he must go in training
for a swell, and he didn’t understand what I meant.
Jerry: Oh, yes, I did, Tom.
Tom: No, no, you didn’t; come, confess your ignorance.
Logic: Not know what a swell meant?
Tom: No; he wasn’t up.
Jerry: Not up?
Logic: That is, you were not down.
Jerry: Not down!
Tom: No; you’re green!
Jerry: Green!
Logic: Ah! not fly!
Tom: Yes, not awake!
Jerry: “Green! fly! awake!” D— me, but I’m at fault. I don’t understand one
word you are saying.
Logic: We know you don’t, and that’s what we’re telling you. Poor young
man very uninformed. . . .
Green “gullible” (1605—, now old-fashioned) was long established by

this time, and we have already seen swell used with this sense. Fly
(1724—), down (1794—), up (1800—), and awake (1811—) all mean
“knowing; wide awake; well informed; sharp”. As we’ve seen, new-
comers to London had to learn its fashionable ways to be accepted
into the most sought-after social circles. Understanding the current
slang was central to that acceptance.
In the extracts from Wycherley, Shadwell, Goldsmith, Swift, and
Moncrieff, we’ve seen slang being used in very similar ways. It
characterizes individuals as immoral, easily led, and trivial. It repre-
sents and sometimes celebrates the corruptions of modern life and
London, which lure people away from the simplicity of traditional
country living. Unlike Jonson’s squabbling alchemists, and unlike the
criminals and beggars of the last chapter, these characters are all
relatively wealthy and socially elevated. Social class is central to an
understanding of British slang, then as now. These writers also
demonstrate what Grose explicitly observes: that fashionable speech
was changing rapidly. Wealth and fashion were no longer synony-

mous in this more complex network of in- and out-groups.
The lure of low London

Grose and Egan were also documenting the beginning of a new
fascination among wealthy Londoners with the lives and leisure
activities of the poor. While middle-class young women were begin-
ning to lead increasingly restricted lives, their brothers sought out
taverns, brothels, cock fights, dog-fights, and boxing bouts. There
could be no better way of broadcasting one’s credentials as a man of
the world, perhaps even within hearing of the ladies, than casually
using the latest word from the street.
The appeal of low London is also illustrated by Charles Dickens’s
Pickwick Papers, published in monthly instalments in 1836–7. It
enjoyed a marked increase in popularity when Sam Weller was
introduced. In his first appearance, as a shoe-cleaner in an inn, Sam
described the people to be found at Doctors’ Commons, a society of
civil lawyers in London:
‘ Touts for licences,’ replied Sam. ‘Two coves in vhite aprons – touches their
hats wen you walk in – “Licence, sir, licence?” Queer sort, them, and their
mas’rs too, sir – Old Baily Proctors – and no mistake.’
‘What do they do?’ inquired the gentleman.
‘Do! You, sir! That an’t the wost on it, neither. They puts things into old
gen’lm’n’s heads as they never dreamed of. My father, sir, wos a coachman.
A widower he wos, and fat enough for anything – uncommon fat, to be
sure. His missus dies, and leaves him four hundred pound. Down he goes
to the Commons, to see the lawyer and draw the blunt – wery smart – top
boots on – nosegay in his button-hole – broad-brimmed tile – green
shawl – quite the gen-lm-n. . . . ’
Putting aside Sam’s pronunciation and grammar, both of which are

worthy of comment in their own right, there are a number of terms
that appear to be slang. We’ve already seen cove “a man” and tout in
the sense “to observe”, but the noun tout was used to mean “a thief ’s
scout or lookout” (1718-1919) and, as here, “one who solicits custom”
(1853—). Tile “hat” (1813-1973) and blunt “money” (1703—) were
certainly slang. Sort had been used to refer to a group of people since
1548, but if Sam had referred to a single tout as a queer sort, he would
have been ahead of his time (c.1869-1891, colloquial). Several of
Sam’s idioms are marked as ‘colloquial’ in the OED, but their con-
centration in a single exchange may suggest a more slangy tone in this
early period of their use. These are the emphatic and no mistake (1818—),
for anything “excessively” (c.1832—), uncommon “uncommonly;
extremely” (1784-1891), to be sure “undoubtedly” (1657—), quite the . . .
(1752—), and the use of the singular pound following a number, which
dates back to Old English, but is described in the OED as ‘still common in
regional and colloquial English’. People had been putting ideas into each
other’s heads since 1548, and an idea has been referred to as a thing since
the Old English period, but their combination may also have seemed
slangy here.
Youth and student slang

Those who disapproved of this fascination with low London tended
to consider it a weakness of youth. In 1858, The Times published an
article quoting a lecture on slang given by the Rev. A. Mursell in
Carlisle:
There are many young men who seem to consider it essential to manliness
that they should be masters of slang. The sporting world, like its brother, the
swell mob, has a language of its own; but this dog-English . . . comes with its
hordes of barbarous words, threatening the entire extinction of genuine
English.
Mursell objected specifically to the use of regular “very; truly” (1740—),

hard up “poor” (1800—), up to snuff “in the know; up to scratch”
(1810—), ugly customer “any person or animal likely to be difficult to
deal with” (1811—), brick “a dependable individual” (1812—), on one’s
own hook “at one’s own risk” (1812—, originally American), stump up
“to pay” (1821—), plucky “brave” (1835—), make tracks “to leave”
(1835/40—, originally American), stunner “an excellent person or
thing” (1842—), and blow up “to lose one’s temper” (1858—). Mursell
remarks that although most slang terms are harmless and expressive,
their use in the presence of or in reference to family members indicates
a lack of love and proper respect.
The popularity of sporting slang at this period was also commented
on by The Caledonian Mercury:
Our dashing young friend of today never tells

The hotel he puts up at, or house where he dwells,
Of his Diggins perchance we’ll hear something about
Or his Crib, or Concern, Sir, or where he Hangs out.
Our friend has no pocket, he may have a Fob,
Though it holds not a shilling, it may hold a Bob;
It has not a sixpence, or any coin in,
Though it may have a Tizzy, a Bender, or Tin.
Although their movement out of sporting circles may have been rela-
tively recent, many of these terms had been in use for several decades
already, including crib “a house” and bob “a shilling”, which we have
already seen. Hang out “to loiter; to consort” was newer, as were:
dashing “fashionably showy (of people concern “a property; an estate” (1787

or clothes)” (1795—) +1877)
put up “to stop or stay somewhere fob “a small pocket in a trouser
temporarily” (1706—), not apparently waistband” (1653-1839), although it
slang, but the final preposition might appears to mean “a pocket” more
have made it seem so generally here
diggings “lodgings; quarters” (1838—), tizzy “a sixpence” (1795-1946)
abbreviated to digs (1893—, originally bender “a sixpence” (1789-1933)
theatrical) tin “money” (1836-1961)
In his Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant, and Vulgar Words, first

published in 1859, John Camden Hotten described the slang used by
13 Student slang II: John Lynch, ‘Oxford Costume’, Punch, 7 May 1853, 191.
various groups in his own time, including fashionable society, sol-

diers, and sailors, but also parliamentarians and ecclesiasts. Here he
considers the slang of students:
The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the great public schools, are
the hotbeds of fashionable slang. Growing boys and high-spirited young
fellows detest restraint of all kinds, and prefer making a dash at life in a
slang phraseology of their own to all the set forms and syntactical rules of
Alma Mater. Many of the most expressive words in a common chit-chat, or
free-and-easy conversation, are old university vulgarisms. CUT, in the sense
of dropping an acquaintance, was originally a Cambridge form of speech;
and HOAX, to deceive or ridicule, we are informed by Grose, was many years
since an Oxford term. Among the words that fast society has borrowed
from our great scholastic (I was going to say establishments, but
I remembered the linen drapers’ horrid and habitual use of the word)
institutions, I find CRIB, a house or apartments; DEAD-MEN, empty wine bottles;
DRAWING TEETH, wrenching off knockers;* FIZZING, first-rate, or splendid; GOVER-
NOR, or RELIEVING-OFFICER, the general term for a male parent; PLUCKED, de-
feated or turned back; QUIZ, to scrutinise, or a prying old fellow; and ROW, a
noisy disturbance. The slang words in use at Oxford and Cambridge would
alone fill a volume.
*This is more especially an amusement with medical students, and is
comparatively unknown out of London.
cut “to break off an acquaintance; to fizzing “excellent; exciting” (1845—)

affect not to see or know an governor “a father” (1827-1960)
acquaintance” (1634—, now colloquial) relieving officer “a father” (1858-1883)
hoax “to deceive or ridicule” (1796-1869) pluck “to fail (a student)” (1713-1984)
dead man “an empty bottle or glass” quiz “to pry; to interrogate” (1795—)
(1699—, originally military) quiz “an inquisitive person” (1781-1982)
drawing teeth “stealing doorknockers” row “a noisy disturbance; an
(1859) argument” (1746—)
Hotten emphasizes the importance of youthful exuberance in the

creation and adoption of slang terms, an association that’s so central
to our use of slang that it hardly needs to be made. Governor, relieving
officer, pluck, and the use of quiz as a noun do appear to have
originated in the slang of young men, but hoax, row, fizzing, dead
man, crib (which we’ve already seen), and the verbal use of quiz
appear to have been in wide use. There’s no additional evidence for
drawing teeth. As with the flappers and beats in Chapter 4, students
were being characterized as particularly creative slang users and given
credit for slang that they didn’t come up with.
A complaint that was to be made increasingly during the next
half century was that not only had respectable young men adopted
the slang of those beneath them, but young women were adopting
this slang too. In 1865, the Glasgow Herald published a poem be-
moaning the use of slang by young women:
Oh! why should our dear English girls—

The brightest beauties in creation—
Whose words should drop like Orient pearls,
Use semi-slang in conversation?
Why should their language break the dream—
Our golden vision swift dispelling?
Like to the bright galvanic stream—
Attracting first and then repelling.
The repellent words singled out elsewhere in the verse are jolly
“delightful; agreeable” (1549—, restricted to slang or colloquial lan-
guage by the 1800s), spoony (on) “infatuated (with)” (1810—), awful
“very” (1818—, dialect in later use), slap-up “excellent” (1823—, now
usually used to describe meals, but used more broadly in the middle
decades of the nineteenth century), and stunning “excellent” (1837/
8—). Similarly emphatic terms used ‘in society’ were objected to by
another journalist just a few years later, including beastly “unfit for
humans; unpleasant” (1611—, slang in the weakened sense), cropper
“a fall; a failure” (1858—, originally sporting), awfully “very” (1859—),
form “(good/bad) behaviour or manners” (1868—, originally sport-
ing),4 plunger “a man of fast habits” (“a person who gambles or
speculates rashly” (1868—)), and in the swim “up to date with current
trends” (1869—). This later writer comments that jolly ‘has become a
perfect nuisance’ and it was still capable of provoking wrath a decade
later, when an article in the North Wales Chronicle argued that the
leaders of society should set themselves against slang ‘as resolutely as
they do against other breaches of decorum and good manners’. This
writer objected in particular to ass “a fool” (1578—, ‘now disused in
polite literature and speech’, presumably by association with the
4
This objectionable term was quickly assimilated. J. D.’s diatribe against ‘Slang’,
published in The Newcastle Weekly Courant in 1892, begins ‘That it is bad form to use
slang, irrespective of place, no one can doubt.’
14 Feminine language: George Du Maurier, ‘The Slang of the Day’, Punch, 5 Aug.
1871, 44.
unrelated ass “the buttocks” (1860—, US)), briny “the sea” (1831—),
and groom “to make (a person or thing) tidy” (1843—). He also
disliked three slang intensifiers: dreadfully (1602—), immensely
(1654—, apparently in this weakened sense since around 1738), and
screamingly (1847—).
Even those who had used slang in their own youth objected to new
slang. In 1913, a writer in the Times wrote that:
However much slang we may use ourselves, we all dislike and despise a
slang that is not our own . . . We do not want new words for old discoveries
that we made so long ago for ourselves; we do not want youth to be
incessantly insisting upon the fact that it is young and implying that we are
not . . . Youth, no doubt, must be silly, but we do not see why it should get
so much enjoyment out of its silliness, and it is the sense of enjoyment in
slang that makes us dislike it.
This article comments on relatively few slang words: prig (1676-1999,

now historical), toff (1851—, originally working class), masher (1875-
1971, originally American), and nut (1904-1923, British slang), all
with the sense “a fashionably dressed young man; a dandy”, and each
replaced in fashionable usage by the next as it lost its air of freshness
and novelty. It seems unlikely that these opinions would have been
expressed in the same way during or after WWI, when the balance of
power between the generations was to shift irrevocably, and the idea
that age equals wisdom could no longer be taken for granted.
In the interwar period, British writers continued to document the
tensions between generations in wealthy families, often using slang to
characterize youthful characters as modern. In this extract, John
Galsworthy depicts a meeting between two cousins separated by a
family feud that’s never been explained to them. They’re discussing
the roulette game they’d met at the night before:
“I saw you last night. How did you do?”

“I didn’t play.”
“I won fifteen quid.”
. . . “Rotten game, I think; I was at school with that chap. He’s an awful fool.”
“Oh! I don’t know,” said Val, as one might speak in defence of a disparaged
god; “he’s a pretty good sport.”
They exchanged whiffs in silence.
“You met my people, didn’t you?” said Jolly. “They’re coming up to-
morrow.”
Val grew a little red.
“Really! I can give you a rare good tip for the Manchester November
handicap.”
“Thanks, I only take interest in the classic races.”

“You can’t make any money over them,” said Val.
“I hate the ring,” said Jolly; “there’s such a row and stink. I like the paddock.”
“I like to back my judgement,” answered Val.
Jolly smiled; his smile was like his father’s.
“I haven’t got any. I always lose money if I bet.”
“You have to buy experience, of course.”
“Yes, but it’s all messed-up with doing people in the eye.”
“Of course, or they’ll do you—that’s the excitement.”
Both of these men speak forthrightly, using emphatic language wher-

ever possible, such as stink “a disgusting smell” (a.1300—), rare
“splendid; excellent” (a.1534—), row “noise; clamour” (1845—),
awful “utter” (1873—), rotten “horrible” (1851—), and messed up
“spoilt; ruined” (1909—). Both use sporting terms, with Jolly appar-
ently introducing them in a conciliatory way, to gain Val’s approval.
They include the ring “boxing” (1770—), handicap “a race in which
horses carry weights to equalize their chances” (1812—), the paddock
“a turf enclosure near a racecourse; horse racing” (1839—), and
classic, used with reference to the chief annual horse races (1868—).
Terms associated with betting include do “to cheat” (1641—), quid “a
pound” (1661—), back “to bet (on)” (1697—), tip “a piece of insider
knowledge” (1842—), and do (someone) in the eye “to defraud; injure;
humiliate” (1891—). Other slang indicates that despite their use of
terms originating in vulgar sporting circles, these men share a
privileged background. Chap “a man” (1716—), good sport “a fair-
minded person” (sport had been used in this way since 1881, and was
qualified with good from around 1916), and people “one’s family”
(1916—) identify them as upper or upper middle class. Although the
differences between these modern young people and their parents are
central to Galsworthy’s plot, the two men are characterized more by
the density of their slang than its modernity. Putting aside new terms
introduced as a result of WWI, British slang was still relatively slow
moving. In this period, slanginess often resided in who used a term or
where it was used rather than how: it’s the adoption of terms belong-
ing to the working classes (by the middle or upper classes), to the
outside world (in the drawing room), or to men (by women) that
constitutes slang in this period.
Working-class slang
We’ve seen that, moving on from their fascination with the working
classes, wealthy young people began to develop their own distinctive
fashionable slang during the later part of the nineteenth century.
The language of the poor had continued to move on too. Here’s an
extract from Arthur Morrison’s short story ‘The Red Cow Group’, in
which a gang of amateur revolutionaries plot to blow up a gas works.
When one of them balks at planting the nitro-glycerine, they decide
to get him drunk and use him as a human bomb so he can’t betray
them:
Then his pockets were invaded by Gunno Polson, who turned out each in
succession. “You won’t ’ave no use for money where you’re goin’,” he
observed, callously; “besides, it ’ud be blowed to bits an’ no use to nobody.
Look at the bloke at Greenwich, ’ow ’is things was blowed away. ‘Ullo! ’ere’s
two ’arfcrowns an’ some tanners. Seven an’thrippence altogether, with the
browns. This is the bloke wot ’adn’t got no funds. This’ll be divided on free
an’ equal principles to ’elp pay for that beer you’ve wasted. ’Old up, ol’ man!
Think o’ the glory. P’r’aps you’re all right, but it’s best to be on the safe side,
an’ dead blokes can’t split to the coppers. An’ you mustn’t forget the glory.
You ’ave to shed blood in a revolution, an’ a few odd lives more or less
don’t matter-not a single damn. Keep your eye on the bleed’n’ glory! They’ll
’ave photos of you in the papers, all the broken bits in a ’eap, fac-similar as
found on the spot. Wot a comfort that’ll be!”
As with Sam Weller’s speech, respellings represent non-standard

pronunciations, and there are also non-standard grammatical con-
structions, such as the double negatives (you won’t have no use for
money) and past tense forms for past participles (was blowed).
Along with the swearing (damn, bleeding), these represent the class
and place of origin of the speaker, so the use of slang is less
necessary from a literary perspective. However, a few slang terms
are included. We’ve already seen bloke “a man” and copper “a
policeman”, but other terms here had also been in use for some
time, including tanner “a sixpence” (1795—, historical in later use),
split “to turn informer” (1795—), brown “a coin made of copper or
bronze; (in plural) small change” (1819—), and old man used in
affectionate address to a man who isn’t old (1828—). These work-
ing men’s non-standard language emphasizes the difference
between them and the educated reader, and makes their criminal
intentions seem credible.
Similarly angry are the working-class soldiers depicted in Rudyard
Kipling’s Barrack-Room Ballads (1892):
I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,

The publican ’e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.
As in Morrison’s work, Tommy’s language is characterized as non-

standard largely by respelling, though there are some non-standard
grammatical features, such as up and, followed by a verb (1883—), the
use of third-person present tense verbs in a first-person past tense
narrative (e.g. sez (1682—)), and out “to go out” (for which I’ve found
no other evidence of use). Fit to die isn’t listed in the OED in its own
right, but fit has been used in similar constructions since 1580. Many
of Kipling’s contemporaries would have considered all non-standard
working-class speech to be slang, and so perhaps it was unnecessary
to include genuine army slang, but it certainly existed:
ammunition “officially issued” on the peg “under arrest” (1888-1942)

(1663-1858) quiff “a curl or lock of hair plastered
dock “hospital” (1785-1963) down on to or brushed back from
Johnny Raw “a new recruit” the forehead” (1890—)
(1810-1966) get one’s head down “to go to sleep”
pack “a soldier’s bundle of (1894—)
possessions” (a.1811—) gong “a medal” (1894—)
loaf “the, or an, act of avoiding work” tell off “to reprimand” (1894—)
(1855—, originally US) gippo “gravy” (1896-1925)
As a result of the popularity of Kipling’s Barrack-Room Ballads,

Tommy Atkins (1883—, usually historical in later use), usually short-
ened to Tommy (1884—), came to be used as a nickname for British
infantrymen, particularly those who served in WWI. It was in this
context that working-class language began to be presented in a
slightly more positive light. Maximilian Mügge, whose German par-
entage denied him a commission in the British army, joined up as an
infantryman instead. His comrades were largely working class, and
Mügge commented on their language in his diary:
The “slanguage” of the boys is very forcible and stands in a peculiar contrast
to the undoubtedly kind and gentle nature of their heart of hearts. [They] . . .
might create the impression of semi-savages to a superficial observer. But it is
only their “slanguage” that does it. At heart most of them are really a good-
natured lot, and with not a few I have become quite chummy.
Although Mügge was intimidated by their apparently aggressive

language at first, he learns to like his comrades. His glossary includes:
swearing, e.g. crikey (1832—), blimey (1889—)

working-class colloquialisms, e.g. afters “dessert” (1909—), cheerio
“goodbye” (1910—)
military terms, e.g. chit “a letter or note; a pass” (1776—, originally
Anglo-Indian), ticket “a pay-warrant, particularly the last pay-warrant;
discharge papers; the end of a contracted period of service” (1596—)
words and phrases picked up from French, e.g. camouflage “disguise;

concealment” (1917—), merci boko “thank you” (as mercy bucket(s)
from 1953, mercy buckup from 1960, and mercy buttercups from 1981)
terms used by English-speaking allies, e.g. cobber “a companion; a
mate” (1895—, Australia & NZ), doughboy “a US infantryman”
(1847—, chiefly US).
Mügge also lists some slang that originated in or was popularized

during WWI, including scrounge “to obtain by irregular means”
(1909—, originally dialect), pozzy “jam; marmalade” (1915—), and
the wind-up “a state of nervous anxiety or fear” (1917—).
Other influences on British slang

Slang interchange between the army and civilian society was a rela-
tively straightforward process, because individuals moved between
the two groups. In India, officials and soldiers picked up words from
the local languages and employed them in conversations among
themselves.5 These were sometimes adopted by civilians serving in
India and exported back to Britain, where they were often extended in
meaning. Informal terms from Hindi and Urdu borrowed during this
period include pukka “genuine; reliable; high class” (1776—), shading
into the current slang usage “excellent” (1991—, now chiefly Jamie
Oliver), bobbery “noisy disturbance; a row” (1795-1924), toco “corporal
punishment” (1823-1944), loot “goods taken by force; booty” (1839—),
rooty “bread; rations” (1846-1989),6 choky “prison” (1866—), baboo
English “ornate unidiomatic English spoken by an Indian” (1878—),
jildi “haste; quick; quickly; to hurry; to enliven” (1890—), and dekko
“a look” (1894—). Conscription during WWI helped spread some of
5
Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell documented Anglo-Indian terms in a substantial
dictionary called Hobson-Jobson (London: John Murray, 1886). Only a small fraction
of Anglo-Indian terms were slang.
6
Also occurring in the form roti, which refers more specifically to a type of bread
originating in South Asia (1838—).
those that had remained restricted to army slang into wider civilian
usage.
Other itinerant groups that introduced terms from foreign lan-
guages into English slang included criminals, gypsies, and (as we
shall see in Chapter 10) entertainers. British Gypsies, speaking
Anglo-Romany, have introduced monnisher/mollisher “a woman; a
girlfriend; a prostitute” (1765—), mang “to beg” (1811-1979), pani
“water; rain” (1816-1999), posh “money; a coin of small value” (1830-
1912), rocker “to speak or understand (a language)” (1856-1973),
mooey “a face; a mouth” (1859—), chavvy “a baby; a child” (1886—),7
minge “the female genitals” (a.1903—), mush “a man”, particularly
used as a term of address (1936—), and muller “to ruin; to defeat
decisively” (1990—). Although many of the earlier terms were used
only in bilingual conversations or as part of criminal cant, terms
borrowed from Anglo-Romani have more commonly entered general
slang in the twentieth century, perhaps because the traditional separa-
tion between travelling Gypsies and the settled population became
harder to maintain.
Early twentieth-century British slang

We’ve already seen early signs of the influence of American English
on British slang. It remained a relatively minor influence until the
early twentieth century, however, with the adoption of Americanisms
tending to occur among those wealthy enough to move in transatlan-
tic social networks. When he first published his Dictionary of Slang
and Unconventional English (1937), Partridge made what must have
seemed an entirely reasonable decision at the time: to include Ameri-
can slang terms that were used in Britain and the Commonwealth but
to exclude those that were restricted to the United States. Despite this
restriction, almost a fifth of entries in the first edition of Partridge’s
7
Chav “a brash and loutish working-class youth” (1998—) is probably derived
from this or a closely related term. Any association with Chatham is purely
circumstantial.
dictionary were labelled as American or originally American. When

he undertook a major revision of the dictionary in 1949, Partridge
added thousands of new terms, but labelled only around five per cent
of them as originally American. During the intervening period,
American troops had been stationed in Britain, British dance halls
had reverberated to the sound of American dance music, and Ameri-
can movies had drawn crowds in British cinemas. The influence of
American English on British English was growing, and Partridge
realized that it was no longer possible to document all the American-
isms used in Britain, so he changed his policy to list only those that
were most frequently used. He wasn’t the only one troubled by this
development: after WWII, newspaper complaints about the adoption
of American slang terms tend to swamp earlier concerns about class
and gender.
Conclusions
Socially stratified language isn’t necessarily slang: working- and
upper-class families can speak differently among themselves without
either group using slang. Working-class terms become slang when
wealthy people adopt them. When young or fashionable members of
the upper classes adopt novel terms in preference to the ones used by
their parents, they are using slang. However, for eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century commentators, slang was a symbol of the tension
between social classes, and much of what is documented during this
period concerns the fashion for slumming—or, to be more accurate, a
developing prohibition on social mixing. This slang was vulgar in the
sense that it was “of or pertaining to the common people” (1597-
1870) but also “coarsely commonplace; lacking in refinement or good
taste” (1716-1891), and we have also seen that vulgar speech had a
particular appeal to young men and (shudder to think it) young
ladies. During the twentieth century, the focus shifted so that slang
became associated more strongly in Britain with differences in age
and with American influence, rather than with differences in class,

but the association with class has never entirely gone away. As social
mobility has slowed again in recent years, comedy characters such as
Ali G and Vicky Pollard have given re-expression to the notion that
slang is a working-class phenomenon associated with low levels of
intelligence, education, and aspiration.
By the end of the nineteenth century, British slang dictionaries
were almost all historical: the study of old slang appears to have been
more respectable than the study of contemporary slang. Partridge’s
dictionary was to dominate the British slang dictionary market for
almost five decades even though his coverage of contemporary slang
became increasingly patchy after 1949. Because of the influence of
American slang, particularly after WWII, it became harder to identify
national slang in Britain. Although Partridge’s dictionary documen-
ted a stratum of traditional British slang, much of which continued in
use, those wanting to understand the language of young people in the
1960s could only have found the newer terms in Wentworth and
Flexner’s Dictionary of American Slang. It is to the history of Ameri-
can slang that we now turn.
Endnotes
The extract from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is from <http://www.librarius
.com/cantales.htm>, but I’ve modernized the spelling wherever possible. Also
cited or quoted are Hans Kurath et al., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1952–2001); Ben Jonson, The Alchemist (London:
John Stepneth, 1612), I. i; William Wycherley, The Country Wife (London:
Thomas Dring, 1675), II. i; Thomas Shadwell, The Squire of Alsatia (London:
James Knapton, 1688), I. i; Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation in Three Dialogues
(1738), ed. George Saintsbury (London: Chiswick, 1842), Dialogue I, 112–13;
Oliver Goldsmith, She Stoops to Conquer, or The Mistakes of a Night (London:
F. Newbery, 1773), V. ii; Pierce Egan, Life in London (London: Sherwood, Neely
& Jones, 1821); W. T. Moncrieff, Songs, Parodies, Duets, Chorusses [sic] &c. &c.:
in an Entirely New Classic . . . in Three Acts, called Tom & Jerry, or, Life in London
(London: John Lowndes, 1821), I. iv; and Charles Dickens, The Posthumous
Papers of the Pickwick Club (London: Chapman & Hall, 1836), Ch. 10. Newspa-
per articles cited in this chapter are, in order of appearance: ‘Slang Words and
Phrases’, The Times, 3 Apr. 1858, 5F; ‘A Chapter on Slang’, Caledonian Mercury,
8 Jul. 1859, n.p., originally from Punch; ‘Slang in the Salon’, Glasgow Herald,
22 May 1865, n.p., originally from The Owl; ‘Slang’, The Sheffield and Rotherham
Independent, 9 Nov. 1869, 7; J. D., ‘Slang’, The Newcastle Weekly Courant, 23 Jan.
1892, n.p.; Charles Mackay, ‘Fashionable Slang’, North Wales Chronicle, 18 Jan.
1879, n.p.; and ‘On Slang’, The Times, 31 Dec. 1913, 63F. John Camden Hotten’s
A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant, and Vulgar Words (London: Hotten, 1860),
65, is quoted from the second edition because the passage had been edited and is
slightly easier to follow. Also quoted are John Galsworthy, To Let (London:
Heinemann, 1921), Part II, Ch. 1, ‘The Third Generation’; Arthur Morrison,
Tales of Mean Streets (London: Methuen, 1865), ‘The Red Cow Gang’; Rudyard
Kipling, Barrack-Room Ballads and Other Verses (London: Methuen, 1892),
‘Tommy’; and Maximilian August Mügge, The War Diary of a Square Peg
(London: Routledge, 1920), 17, 57–8. Examples of late nineteenth-century
army slang are from ‘Military Slang’, Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle,
23 Jun. 1894, n.p., and ‘Barrack-Room Slang’, Pall Mall Gazette, 17 Dec. 1896,
n.p. Also mentioned were Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell’s Hobson-Jobson
(London: John Murray, 1886); Eric Partridge’s A Dictionary of Slang and Uncon-
ventional English, 3rd edn (London: Routledge, 1949); and Harold Wentworth
and Stuart Berg Flexner’s Dictionary of American Slang (New York: Crowell,
1960). I’ve written about these and other slang dictionaries in much more detail
in A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004–10).
8 Whangdoodles
and Fixings:
Early American
Slang
The vocabulary of English became distinctively American in the
United States as soon as the earliest settlers began to name unfamiliar
animals, plants, and features of the landscape and started to interact
with existing inhabitants and fellow immigrants. Terms such as
moccasin (1612—), wigwam (1628—), and tomahawk (1634—) were
borrowed from indigenous languages, and existing English words
were used in new ways, as in robin “a migratory thrush” (1703—)
and corn “maize; sweet corn” (1726—). New combinations were also
created from within the resources of English, many of which were
later introduced into international English, including mileage (1724—),
advisory (1778—), and cocktail (1803—). Some words that had fallen
from use in Britain, like barber shop (1579—), sidewalk (1739—), and
menfolk (1749—), enjoyed continued currency in the United States,
but although there are some respects in which American English is
more conservative than British English:
Many people outside the United States seem to think that American English
is synonymous with slang, and that slang is a particularly American
phenomenon.
Whangdoodles and Fixings: Early American Slang 175
The earliest settlers didn’t all speak in the same way: they arrived
speaking various kinds of English as well as many other languages.
New settlers joined those of a similar background if they could, and
regional trends in settlement sometimes explain modern dialect dif-
ferences. Geographical boundaries and distance contributed towards
the development of further linguistic diversity, but a tendency to
describe dialect terms as slang in the United States, particularly
those used in contemporary urban dialects, can obscure the develop-
ment of American slang.
American cant
Just as in Britain, the language of criminals and beggars was docu-
mented long before there was much written about slang, and the
earliest lists suggest continued use of British cant. These examples are
from The Life of Henry Tufts (1807):
Darky: cloudy
Douse the glim: put out the light
Evening sneak: going into a house by night the doors being open
Glaze: a square of glass
Most of these terms, or ones closely related to them, appear to have

been current with these senses in the language of British criminals,
including glim (1676-1963/4), douse (1753—), glaze (1699-1889), and
sneak (1699—). Darky appears to have developed from the sense
“night”, first recorded in The Life and Character of Moll King (see
Chapter 6). Many early accounts of American criminal language
emphasize this continuity between British and American usage, and
some of the earliest lexicographers of American cant turned to British
dictionaries for their word lists, including George Matsell, chief of
police in New York. Although his position should have given him the
knowledge necessary for writing about contemporary New York slang
and cant, Matsell based his Vocabulum, or, Rogue’s Lexicon (1859) on
a selection of older British dictionaries.
15 American cant: Alfred Trumble’s Slang Dictionary of New York, London and Paris
(New York: National Police Gazette, 1881) based on George Matsell’s Vocabulum,
or, Rogue’s Lexicon (New York: Matsell, 1859).
Fortunately there were more reliable witnesses. Josiah Flynt Willard’s

autobiographical Tramping with Tramps (1899) and World of Graft
(1901) explore connections between the language of tramps and crim-
inals, including words that originated among British criminals like mob
“a gang of criminals” (1791—) and croak “to die” (1819—), alongside
newer American terms such as graft “a criminal technique” (1865—),
cooler “a prison” (1872—) or “a cell used for solitary confinement”
(1899—), and beef “to inform against a criminal” (1899—). Despite the
misleading evidence of writers like Matsell, it’s clear that distinctively
American tramping and criminal cant was being added to the British
stock during the course of the nineteenth century.
Only a few decades later, during Prohibition and after, pulp
magazines, paperbacks, and films were to spread the language of
American crime around the world. Henry Leverage’s ‘Flynn’s
Dictionary of the Underworld’ appeared in Flynn’s magazine in
1925, listing around 3000 words. By this stage, many more were
American innovations, and some were to spread into wider usage.
Terms included:
kiddy “a thief; a young thief ” fin “five pounds; five dollars” (1868-

(1770-1863, originally UK thieves) 1992, originally UK), apparently from
fin “the hand” (1785-1974, originally finnip “a five pound note; five dollars”
UK jocular) rather than fin “hand”
kangaroo “an Australian” (1823-1981, lotion “alcoholic drink” (1876-1997,
originally UK) originally UK)
ochre/ocher “gold; money” (1836-1894, battle-ax(e) “a scolding
originally UK) woman” (1896—, originally US)
cocum, used with flexible grammatical rustle “to steal cattle” (1902—, originally US)
function to mean “cunning; shrewdness” tail “to follow closely” (1907—,
(1839-c.1886, originally UK) developing from the Australian and
hush shop “an unlicensed drinking New Zealand
establishment” (1841-1872, originally tail “to follow cattle” (1844-1890))
UK) cherry “a virgin; virginity” (1918—,
sawbuck “ten dollars” (1850—, US) originally US)
We don’t have to imagine long-tentacled criminal networks to

explain the influence of British cant: repeated waves of migration
would have ensured that established and new British terms were
introduced during this period, and criminals probably had more
reason to migrate than other people. The language of New York in
particular, the main point of disembarkation, must always have been
varied and fluid, with non-standard language developing differently
among different ethnic groups.
Early American slang

As long as American English was being measured against British
English, slang was a very broad category, encompassing slang terms
imported from Britain as well as all American innovations. However,
early commentators have relatively little to say on the subject. Noah
Webster explains the need for An American Dictionary of the English
Language (1828) by reference to differences in natural habitat and
political organization, rather than with reference to colloquial speech
and words of recent origin. Even dialectal differences weren’t consid-
ered desirable: the United States required a unified language. Webster
concedes that new words had been coined that weren’t acceptable in
refined circles:
But the lexicographer is not answerable for the bad use of the privilege of
coining new words. It seems to be his duty to insert and explain all words
which are used by respectable writers or speakers, whether or not the
words are destined to be received into general and permanent use
or not . . . Lexicographers are sometimes censured for inserting in their
vocabularies, vulgar words, and terms of art known only to particular
artisans . . . In this work, I have not gone quite so far as Johnson and Todd
have done, in admitting vulgar words. Some of them are too low to deserve
notice . . . As to Americanisms, so called, I have not been able to find many
words, in respectable use, which can be so denominated.
Webster’s position was that Americans should have their own

national standard with a status every bit as high as British English.
This aim would have been undermined by the inclusion of slang.
Aiming to be less tolerant of slang than Johnson was setting the bar
pretty high, but Webster labels a number of terms as ‘popular’ to
indicate their uncertain status, including close “stifling (of air)”
(1591—), bright “clever” (1741—), average “arithmetical mean”
(1802—), and deed “to convey by deed” (1816—, originally US).
Hands off “keep away” (1563—), piping (1823—) or piping hot
(1568—) “very hot”, and monstrous “very” (1711-1968, US regional in
later use), all of which originated in Britain, are labelled ‘vulgar’. Webster
doesn’t often use the label ‘low’, but fun “pleasure; merriment” (1727—)
and slang “low vulgar unmeaning language” are outlawed as such.
A rash of extravagant and playfully ostentatious terms from this
period may have been a response to this exaggerated respect for
linguistic propriety, including sockdolager “a powerful blow” (1824-
1943), hornswoggle “to embarrass; to cheat; to confuse” (1829—),
catawampus “fierce; destructive; askew” (1840-1917), callithumpian
“discordant” (c.1845-1946), whangdoodle “an imaginary beast; an
unspecified object” (1858-1979), and skedaddle “to retreat hastily”
(1860—, originally military). Most have fallen from use, but they’re all
affectionately remembered.
During his first American tour, in 1842, Dickens was particularly
struck by the frequent and various applications of the word fix:
‘Will you try,’ said my opposite neighbour, handing me a dish of potatoes,

broken up in milk and butter, ‘will you try some of these fixings?’
There are few words which perform such various duties as this word ‘fix.’
It is the Caleb Quotem [Jack-of-all-trades] of the American vocabulary. You
call upon a gentleman in a country town, and his help informs you that he
is ‘fixing himself’ just now, but will be down directly: by which you are to
understand that he is dressing. You inquire, on board a steamboat, of a
fellow-passenger, whether breakfast will be ready soon, and he tells you he
should think so, for when he was last below, they were ‘fixing the tables:’ in
other words, laying the cloth. You beg a porter to collect your luggage, and
he entreats you not to be uneasy, for he’ll ‘fix it presently:’ and if you
complain of indisposition, you are advised to have recourse to Doctor
So-and-so, who will ‘fix you’ in no time.
For Dickens, fix meant “to fasten; to attach; to make firm or con-

stant”, in various applications, and usually carried implications of
permanence. These wider uses must have sounded comically over-
wrought to him: perhaps equivalent to a contemporary speaker using
institute or establish in similar contexts. Fix “to make ready or put in
order” has been used with various applications in the United States
since 1725, but specifically with reference to dressing since 1783, and
the preparation of food since 1830. The sense “to deal with”, as used
by the porter, is recorded since 1836, and “to mend” since before
1762, though usually with reference to vehicles and other mechanical
objects rather than people. The fixings (1820/1—) in a meal are more
widely known as (all the) trimmings (1828—), with both terms
traditionally applying to everything other than the meat. What’s
most significant for us, though, is that none of this is slang. Even
Webster admitted fix “to make ready” as proper to ‘popular use’.
Dickens was struck by the colloquial American use of familiar words,
but his observations of American slang are, like Webster’s, extremely
limited. We could interpret this in a variety of ways:
1. there was slang, but these writers had never heard any
2. there was slang and these writers had heard it, but chose not to
record it
3. there was little difference between the slang used in Britain and the
United States
4. these writers couldn’t distinguish between slang and colloquial
American English
5. there was no meaningful distinction between slang and colloquial
American English
6. there was no slang to record.
Figure 16 attempts to answer this question using a random sample of

almost 700 entries from HDAS, showing the earliest examples of use
for each term. Grey indicates terms originating in the United States;
black is for terms marked as ‘non-North American’ in origin. This
suggests that in the 1820s (when Webster was compiling his diction-
ary), slang in the United States was broadly similar to British usage.
American slang appears to have become increasingly distinctive from
the 1840s (when Dickens was writing). By the 1860s, slang terms
originating in the United States outnumbered those imported from
Britain.
Laurence Oliphant’s Piccadilly (1865) supports this view of Amer-
ican slang. In this extract, Lord Frank asks a newly arrived American
traveller about his acquaintances in London:
“Well, sir,” he said, “I have only been here a few days, and I have seen
considerable people; but none of them were noblemen, and they are the
class I have to report upon. The Earl of Broadhem, here, is the first with
whom I have conversed, and he informs me that he has just come from
one of your universities, and that the sympathies of the great majority of
your rising youth are entirely with the North.”
“You may report to your Government that the British youth of the
present day, hot from the university, are very often prigs.”
“Most certainly I will,” said Mr Wog; “the last word, however, is one with
which I am not acquainted.”
“It is an old English term for profound thinker,” I replied.
Mr Wog took out a pocket-book, and made a note; while he was doing so,
he said, with a sly look, “Have you an old English word for ‘quite a finegurl’?”
“No,” I said; “they are a modern invention.”
“Well, sir, I can tell you the one that sat ’twixt you and me at dinner would
knock the spots out of some of our ‘Sent’ Louis belles.”
Mr Wog1 is characterized as American by his use of considerable “a

large quantity” (1839—, US colloquial) and knock the spots out of
1
This name can’t be derived from the racially offensive term because that wasn’t
recorded until 1929. It’s more likely to be from pollywog “a tadpole” (c.1440—, British
dialects and US), which had come to mean “a person (especially a politician) who is
considered untrustworthy” (1854—, US).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
a.1620
1620
1630
1640
1650
1660
1670
1680
1690
1700
1710
1720
1730
1740
1750
1760
1770
1780
1790
1800
1810
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
16 New American slang.

(also off) “to outdo; to defeat” (1856—, originally US), as well as by his
pronunciation of<gurl> and <sent>, but his language is rather
stilted and careful. He doesn’t use anything that might be called
slang until after the sly look. Perhaps because he’s trying to avoid
seeming vulgarly American, he comes across as pompous and out of
touch. He is the one who’s stumped by slang, and Frank enjoys
misdefining prig “a conceited or self-important and didactic person”
(1677—) and misrepresenting it as ‘an old English term’ in standard
use. Oliphant may not have been aware that prig had been in use with
this sense for long enough that it should have been familiar (Webster
included it in his dictionary, for example). Because fashionable slang
emanated from London at this time, Oliphant’s speaker of American
English is the one who has to catch up with current usage.
The late nineteenth century

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, there are signs that some
British people were beginning to consider American slang to be both
distinctive and useful. In 1878, an article in the London Times
remarked that English slang lacked both wit and clarity, but ‘Ameri-
can slang . . . is so palpable and clear that it can almost be called an art
by itself’. Among the ‘really admirable’ American slang terms noted
were bottom dollar “one’s last dollar”, used to indicate certainty of
outcome (1857—), pan out “to conclude (successfully)” (1865—), and
die with one’s boots on “to die a violent death; to die in action or at
work” (1873—). The writer particularly commended the clearness of
these idioms, in which the hearer had only to understand the context
to make sense of the phrase. The contexts, let it be noted, were the
gold fields and gambling dens of the Wild West, far from the influ-
ence of European norms of speech and behaviour.
Figure 16 suggests a marked increase in new slang, most of it
home-grown, towards the end of the nineteenth century, so Walt
Whitman was ahead of the curve “a deflected trajectory” (1879—,
originally baseball) when he wrote ‘Slang in America’ (1885) in
celebration of what he saw as the general human and specifically

American impulse to use language creatively. He commented largely
on place names and nicknames, but listed a few overheard slang
terms, including:
barefoot(ed) “undiluted; unmixed (of a mystery “hash” (1882-1918)

drink)” (c.1845-1912) sleeve-button “a codfish ball” (1883-1888)
stars and stripes “ham and beans” nail “to work as a carpenter” (1885)
(1877/8-1952) snatcher “a horse car conductor” (1885)
Eight years later, Stephen Crane’s worldly-wise Pete impressed the

heroine of Maggie: A Girl of the Streets with his slang fluency:
“I met a chump deh odder day way up in deh city,” he said. “I was goin’ teh
see a frien’ of mine. When I was a-crossin’ deh street deh chump runned
plump inteh me, an’ den he turns aroun’ an’ says, ‘Yer insolen’ ruffin!’ he
says, like dat. ‘Oh gee!’ I says, ‘oh gee! Git off d’ eart’!’ I says, like dat. . . . Den
deh blokie he got wild . . . ‘Gee!’ I says, ‘gee! Yer joshin’ me,’ I says . . . An’ den
I slugged ’im. See?”
Non-standard pronunciations are represented by <d> for <th> in

odder, den, and dat; <eh> for unstressed vowels in deh, teh, and
inteh; <’> for missing final consonants in frien’, a-crossin’, and
insolen’; and one dropped <h> in ’im. Non-standard verb forms
include runned and a-crossin. There’s quite a lot of slang too, with
chump “a fool” (1857—, originally cant), way plus preposition “far”
(1849—), plump “with a sudden impact” (1594—), turn (a)round “to
change one’s stance (from friendly to hostile)” (1822—), blokie “a
man” (1841—), and slug “to hit” (1862—, originally northern), all
originating in Britain. Josh “to indulge in banter or ridicule” (1845—)
and gee to express surprise (1851—) originated in the United States.
When James Maitland published his American Slang Dictionary in
1891, he took approximately two thirds of his entries from British
slang dictionaries, particularly Hotten’s, presumably selecting terms
he was familiar with in American usage. His additions include some
that originated in the United States:
highfalutin “pompous; pretentious” hoodlum “a youthful ruffian”

(1839—) (1871—)
strapped “short of money” (1851—) scalper “one who buys and sells
bach “a bachelor” (1855—) (railway) tickets at a profit” (1875—)
potwalloper “a cook; a kitchen-worker angel “a financial backer, especially in
(especially on board a ship)” (1859—) the theatre” (1891—)
—but despite these successes, Maitland failed to list many other terms
current in American slang:
toot “a drinking spree” (1790—) pine-top [a type of illicit whisky]

brig “a military or naval prison” (1858-1985)
(1803—) canoodle “to indulge in caresses and
set-down “a sit-down meal” fondling endearments” (1864—)
(1824-1941) dope “any mixture or drug; heroin;
baldface [a type of whisky] (1834-1913) marijuana” (1872—)
jism “energy; strength” (1842-1978), God-awful “terrible” (1877—)
developing the sense “semen” (1854—) keister “a suitcase or bag” (1881-1962)
dinero “money; cash” (1856—) belly ache “to complain” (1881—)
A body of distinctively American slang had undoubtedly developed

during the nineteenth century, but it wasn’t possible to record it all
because slang wasn’t a national phenomenon in this period. Each of
these terms must have been used first in a distinct locality or among a
restricted group of people: Maitland notes, for example, that hoodlum
originated in San Francisco. It would have been impossible for him,
or anyone else, to travel widely enough or mingle in sufficiently varied
social circles to collect them all.
In 1894, a British newspaper discussed American slang in an article
in the Detroit Free Press, including stake “to lend” (1853—), cop “a
policeman” (1859—), on one’s uppers “poor” (1886—), play horse
with “to treat roughly” (1892-1923, from horseplay “rough or inap-
propriate play” (1590—)), Easy Street “a comfortable situation”
(1894—), and well-heeled “having plenty of money” (1894—), which
all originated in the United States. Neither the American author of the
article nor its British commentator appeared aware that come down
(with) “to pay” (1700-1877), mug “a fool” (1838—), and lush “a
drunkard” (1851—) had originated in Britain. Similarly, a British
reviewer of the New Century Dictionary described the following
American slang terms and phrases (ironically) as ‘charming’, ‘taste-
ful’, ‘polite’, and ‘elegant’: face the music “to accept the inevitable
blame; to face up to reality” (1824—), drummer “a commercial
traveller” (1827—), keep one’s eyes skinned “to remain alert”
(1828—, now more usually keep one’s eyes peeled (1844—)), splurge
“to make an ostentatious display” (a.1848+1888, now more usually
“to spend money extravagantly” (1934—)), and bone-pit “a cemetery”
(1872+1894). Because these terms were selected from a dictionary,
they were all fairly well established, but the article also includes idea-
pot “head” (1751—). This may have been misidentified as American
because it’s vivid and metaphorical: qualities that were felt to be
characteristic of American slang. British reviewers wouldn’t necessar-
ily have been authorities on British slang, and it’s similarly unlikely
that a well-informed chronicler of American slang in this period
would have known which terms were also used in Britain. Because
speakers of both British and American English were starting to feel
that American English was slangy, slang terms were beginning to be
attributed to American English regardless of their actual origin, in the
same way that we’ve seen flappers, beats, and other groups being
given the credit (or blame) for slang that originated elsewhere.
Even those American writers who conceded that slang enlivens
speech and allows for vivid expression generally tended to come
down against it. Sherman Malcolm wrote that slang terms:
are drifting us away into a carelessness of speech or a want of gracefulness in

our deportment, which, in the case of many is to be much lamented . . .
others, not quite so fortunate, will be vitiated, debauched, and finally by
reading slang novels, slinging slangs and associating with the companions
who use them and love the low dens in which they are nurtured, will be
landed into irretrievable ruin.
British commentators from this period were worrying that slang-

users lowered themselves socially; American commentators, working
within a more flexible social structure, tended to focus more squarely
on morality and self-respect:
Still another reason why slang can never gain a permanent foothold in the
language is its utter lack of dignity. No subject can be seriously treated in
slanguage. Its sole function is to tickle by its patness or its grotesqueness. It
reflects a fugitive iridescence upon current wit and humor, but, like the
bubble, it vanishes even while you behold it.
Words and phrases objected to by this writer included sand “boldness;

courage” (1864—),2 I should smile, used to ridicule an idea (1874-
1957), off one’s trolley “crazy” (1896—),3 and not on your tintype
“certainly not” (1900—, referring to a photograph taken as a positive
on a tin plate). The writer concludes by remarking that although some
slang is useful, ‘concerning its misuse there can hardly be two opinions
among people whose opinions are worth anything’. The people who
habitually use slang, he reasons, are the most forceful arguments
against it: slang not only causes but also reveals its users’ vulgarity.
Specialized and localized slangs

George Ade’s Fables in Slang were written at the end of the nineteenth
century, in the first wave of the ‘Chicago Renaissance’, which
2
This occurs earlier in the phrase knock the sand from under (someone) (1847
+c.1858), but later uses suggest that sand is inside, rather than underneath, the
courageous individual. It may be related to grit “determination; courage” (1825—),
also originally US.
3
This originally referred to trolley-cars (trams), but British users may understand
it with reference to trolleys that transport patients in hospitals or shopping in
supermarkets.
celebrated representations of real life and real language. This extract is

from ‘The Fable of the Baseball Fan who Took the Only Known Cure’:
Once upon a Time a Base Ball Fan lay on his Death-Bed. He had been a
Rooter from the days of Underhand Pitching . . . More than once he had let
drive with a Pop Bottle at the Umpire and then yelled “Robber” until his
Pipes gave out. For many Summers he would come Home, one Evening
after Another, with his Collar melted, and tell his Wife that the Giants made
the Colts look like a lot of Colonial Dames playing Bean Bag in a Weedy Lot
back of an Orphan Asylum, and they ought to put a Trained Nurse on
Third, and the Dummy at Right needed an Automobile, and the New Man
couldn’t jump out of a Boat and hit the Water, and the Short-Stop wouldn’t
be able to pick up a Ball if it was handed to him on a Platter with Water
Cress around it, and the Easy One to Third that ought to have been Sponge
Cake was fielded like a One-Legged Man with St. Vitus dance trying to do
the Nashville Salute.
Of course she never knew what he was Talking about . . .
Obviously this is exaggerated for comic effect. It’s unlikely that

anyone would use slang this densely, particularly in conversation
with a spouse who’s showing neither understanding nor interest. To
avoid tedium, sportswriters have to find new ways of saying that
someone hit, missed, threw, or caught a ball, and the vivid language
of sporting commentaries often finds its way into the conversations of
sports fans and then into more general use. Rooter “a supporter”
(1889—) and shortstop “an infielder standing between second and
third base” (c.1837—) originated in baseball slang, as did third
(1891—, from third base (1845—)) and right (1867—, from right
field (1857—)). However, much of the colourful language used here
was general American slang, including many terms that weren’t
restricted to the United States, such as let drive “to aim a blow or
missile” (c.1380—), pipes “the voice; the vocal cords” (1567—),
dummy “a fool” (1796—), and pop “a carbonated drink” (1812—).
Dame “a woman” (1744—, British dialect and US slang) developed
from the sense “the mistress of a household” (c.1330-1855). Sponge
cake “something easily accomplished” (1899+1947) wasn’t trans-

ported to Britain, but a similar image emerged there in the use of
piece of cake (1936—) with the same meaning. The Dial magazine,
which had long railed against the danger posed to correct speech by
immigrants and the uneducated, reviewed Ade’s Fables in positive
terms, ‘conceding that certain kinds of slang were actually of Anglo-
Saxon derivation’. Slang may be vulgar, but at least it can be pure.
Sportswriters and enthusiasts weren’t the only groups developing
their own slang terms. In 1908, a British article on ‘Restaurant Slang’
described a couple’s visit to ‘a cheap restaurant’ in New York. The
man orders his food:
“Give me two eggs fried on one side and three slices of crisp, broiled
breakfast bacon,” ordered the man.
“Two cackles slapped in the face and three squeals crisp,” howled the
waiter while the woman looked aghast . . .
“What would you like to drink?” he asked.
The woman ordered a cup of coffee with cream, two lumps of sugar,
and, of course, a spoon. The man wanted a cup of coffee without cream.
Here is what the waiter ordered –
“Cup of mud, two chunks of ballast, milk the Jersey, and throw in a piece
of scrap-iron; draw another in the dark.”
Mud “coffee” (1855—), cackle “an egg” (1908-1946), squeal “bacon;

ham” (1908-1949), and draw one (in the dark) “pour a (black) coffee”
(1886—) all occur in later lists of American restaurant slang. The
other terms may have been ad hoc coinages or enjoyed only a limited
period of use, but several informal terms originating in restaurant
slang are now widely found, including BLT “a bacon, lettuce, and
tomato sandwich” ([1941]+1952—), OJ “orange juice” (1934—), and
sub “a large sandwich” (1949—, also submarine (1955—)).
Other groups were also originating new terms that were spreading
into wider use and, sometimes, developing extended meanings. Cow-
boys were using words like red eye “whisky” (1819—), round up “the
driving of cattle into an enclosure” (1873—), and wrangler “one who
herds horses or cattle” (1888—) that hovered between slang, dialect,

and jargon. Circus and carnival workers were responsible for plant “a
salesman’s confederate who masquerades as a member of the public”
(1926—) and wow “to impress; to excite” (1924—). It’s probable that
many other occupational groups were also using words distinctively
in this period, particularly newer occupations without a traditional
jargon. It should come as no surprise that the groups whose words
were documented and disseminated were, on the whole, the glamor-
ous and appealing ones.4 During the twentieth century, America’s
film-makers, journalists, and musicians were to bring their own slang,
and those of these other groups, to wider public knowledge not only
around the world, but also throughout the United States. In a country
this vast and varied, syndication and national media outlets were
essential to the development of a national slang alongside the
specialized and local slang terms developing in America’s professions
and growing cities (see Chapter 10).
The twentieth century

Until the end of the nineteenth century, American slang received
relatively little attention, and relatively little of that was positive. It
was only under the influence of broader modernist trends in the early
decades of the twentieth century that slang was celebrated for its
newness. Sportswriters and journalists weren’t the only ones turning
away from linguistic conservatism. For example, in 1913 the Univer-
sity Missourian published an article citing the opinions of various
professors, many of whom argued that slang could be a valuable
resource for those who knew how to use it properly:
There are two kinds of slang—the kind that is a natural expression of a

vulgar mind, and the kind that is used occasionally by persons of culture as
4
Hoboes might not strike you as particularly appealing, but think factory/office
job or family farm in the Depression: hoboes were still living the pioneer life, going
where the work was and working only when they needed money.
a form of relief . . . Even men of classical training occasionally indulge in

slang for the sake of humor or local color.
For others, slang was becoming an emblem of equality in contrast

with the elitism of written English (still largely conforming to
eighteenth-century rules). Another professor commented:
That particular brand [of slang] that appeals to me most is the kind you get
from the working classes . . . We go in for slang more in this country
because it makes its point so quickly and because we usually have a dislike
of anything that sounds academic.
The conservative voice remained dominant in American educational

circles, however:
I have always abhorred slang, abhor it now, and shall abhor it as long as
I live. I do not like emotions put into language, and a person who uses slang
seems to show that he has no rational argument, and that he has to
substitute emotion for reason.
Oh dear. Someone was bullied by the cool kids. Although this article
is largely theoretical, it does list a few slang phrases, including get
someone’s goat “to irritate (someone)” (1904—) and I should worry
(1913—, originally Yiddish).
In 1919, when he published the first edition of The American
Language, Henry Mencken devoted only 8 of his 380 pages to slang.
This should come as no surprise. Mencken’s purpose, like Webster’s,
was to enhance the status of American English. His eight pages are
largely taken up with theoretical discussions of earlier and current
approaches to slang, and although Mencken remarks that American
slang deserved greater attention, his own attitudes were hardly more
egalitarian than those of his British contemporaries:
In its origin it is nearly always respectable; it is devised not by the stupid

populace, but by individuals of wit and ingenuity . . . But when its inventions
happen to strike the popular fancy and are adopted by the mob, they are
soon worn threadbare and so lose all piquancy and significance.
Mencken cites a number of terms that had once seemed slangy but
were, by his account, acceptable in Standard American English, includ-
ing nice “agreeable, pleasant; attractive” (1747—), slacker “a person
who avoids work or exertion” (1898—), muck-raker “a scandal mon-
ger” (1906—), and steam roller “to overwhelm (political opposition)”
(1912—). He contrasts these with shoo-fly [an expression of annoy-
ance] (1867-1919), fall for “to be deceived by” (1903—), let George do it
“leave it to someone else” (1910—), and have a heart “show some pity”
(1917—). These, Mencken claims, were perfectly good words and
phrases that might have been granted entry to the standard language
if they hadn’t been so enthusiastically adopted by the vulgar masses.
Slang and gender

Attempts to standardize American English led to high levels of
conservative prescriptivism. For example, Jo is berated for using
slang in the early pages of Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women (1868):
“ . . . though we do have to work, we make fun for ourselves, and are a pretty
jolly set, as Jo would say.”
“Jo does use such slang words!” observed Amy . . . Jo immediately sat up,
put her hands in her pockets, and began to whistle.
“Don’t Jo; it’s so boyish!”
“That’s why I do it.”
“I detest rude, unladylike girls!”
“I hate affected, niminy-pimimy chits!”
A group of relatively well-to-do young women living in a small town

aren’t obvious candidates as slang innovators, so it should come as no
surprise that Jo’s slang is made up of well-established terms that she
could have encountered in general conversation or in printed sources:
pretty “fairly” (1565—), jolly, which we’ve already seen, chit “a young
woman” (a.1657-1879), set “a select social group” (1780—), and
niminy-piminy “mincing; affected” (1786—). Perhaps, given
Webster’s view, fun is also being identified as slang here. In the absence
of their father, the appearance of propriety is paramount in the March

household. As in Britain, the same terms wouldn’t have been consid-
ered so slangy used by a man.
The careful and occasional use of slang in appropriate contexts was
gradually becoming acceptable among educated men by the early
twentieth century, but the use of slang by women indicated an
unmistakeable lack of refinement. An article in a British newspaper
reported that the pupils of a San Francisco ladies’ school were cam-
paigning to suppress slang. When asked if this was likely to succeed,
their spokeswoman said You bet! “absolutely” (1857—). A similar
article from the Rambler, reprinted in The Hampshire Telegraph and
Sussex Chronicle in 1885, included an interview in which a Chicago
woman responded to the suggestion that women in Chicago used
more slang than those in Boston:
“Come off” she ejaculated playfully. “Take me, for example. I can paw the
ivory with the best of ’em. I can warble a few warbs, and I can elocute too.
No, sir, I can tell you, Boston girls have got to hustle to keep even with us,
and it’s very seldom I hear say of the girls use slang. Well, I must go and get
ready for the matinée, so, over the river.
The joke, of course, is that the poor vulgar girl doesn’t realize how
much slang she’s using, and this is a criticism still frequently made, on
both sides of the Atlantic, of any American who professes to dislike
slang. In this case, the offences against propriety include the use of
American colloquialisms like come off “to desist” (1711-1958, now
more usually come off it (1920—)), no sir “certainly not” (1863—),
and elocute “to practise elocution” (1884—). The Chicago girl also
uses informal language that originated in Britain, such as with the best
of them “as well as anyone” (1748—), hustle “to move quickly”
(1821—), and ivory “the keys of a piano” (1818—). Warb is a slangy
clipping of warble “to modulate the voice in singing” (1530—), which
had been jocular since the mid nineteenth century with the sense “to
sing”. Keep even with “to keep up with” is neither distinctively
American nor slang, but perhaps it should be understood with
reference to get even with “to take revenge on” (1846—, originally
US). Also, although they aren’t slang, her use of paw “to touch”, I can
tell you, hear say of, go and, and get ready were all too informal to be
properly ladylike, as was over the river, a jocular representation of au
revoir. Similarly regrettable is the final revelation that the young
woman works in the theatre, presumably as a chorus girl.
A personification of vulgar pretension, her dubious moral status is
revealed by the way she speaks.
Although British readers could bolster their self-esteem by sneer-
ing at American slang in this period, some Americans did value it, up
to a point:
There is no especial harm in boys using boys’ slang and girls using girls’
slang because it is American. But when the girl uses the boys’ slang it
becomes coarse, and when a boy says a thing is “perfectly lovely” or “simply
sweet” you at once set him down as effeminate. As for boys, you may as
well let them have it out, for it is a kind of fever; but slang is not so essential
to a girl, and fortunately she sooner outgrows it.
Following WWI and the Depression, the United States became

increasingly isolationist, and patriotic approval of American styles
of speech grew. Qualities that would once have been used to discredit
slang terms began to count in their favour: they were American, they
were novel, they were witty and irreverent, and they didn’t originate
with social elites.
African American slang

It’s necessary to stop here and take a step backwards in time. I’ve
omitted to mention the one group that has influenced contemporary
American (and international English) slang more than any other:
African Americans. It would be impossible to discuss the development
of American slang without reference to race, in the same way that the
history of British slang is infused with issues of class. Educated middle-
class youths wanting to sound knowing and cool, have long imitated
17 African American slang: Mark Parisi, ‘House Cat Who Thinks He Has Alley Cred’.
the language of those living on the margins: in Britain, the urban

working classes; in the US, urban African Americans.
It’s impossible to generalize about African American Vernacular
English (AAVE) at any single point in history, let alone across the
centuries, but there’s a long tradition of representing African Americans
with a distinctive speech style. Here, for example, Huckleberry Finn
and Jim, an escaping slave, discuss King Solomon’s approach to
mediation:
“I doan k’yer what de widder say, he warn’t no wise man, nuther. He had
some er de dad-fetchedes’ ways I ever see. Does you know ’bout dat chile
dat he ’uz gwyne to chop in two?”
“Yes, the widow told me all about it.”
“Well, den! Warn’ dat de beatenes’ notion in de worl’? You jes’ take en
look at it a minute. Dah’s de stump, dah—dat’s one er de women; heah’s
you—dat’s de yuther one; I’s Sollermun; en dish-yer dollar bill’s de chile.
Bofe un you claims it. What does I do? Does I shin aroun’ mongs’ de
neighbours en fine out which un you de bill do b’long to, en han’ it over to
de right one, all safe en soun’, de way dat anybody dat had any gumption
would? No—I take en whack de bill in two, en give half un it to you, en de
yuther half to de yuther woman.”
There are no prizes for guessing which one’s Jim. This representation
of AAVE was written by a white man who chose to characterize
Jim with numerous non-standard linguistic features: pronunciation
(doan k’yer, de, dat), double negatives (he warn’t no wise man), non-
standard verb forms and tenses (I ever see, does you know), and
euphemistic swearing (dad-fetchedes’). There’s no way of knowing
how accurate Twain’s representation was because we don’t have any
objective evidence about how slaves spoke, and even if we did, we
couldn’t treat it as representative of all slaves. What reliable evidence
there is, in recordings of ex-slaves, comes from long after abolition,
and it suggests that slaves and their descendants spoke with local
dialects not unlike those of their white neighbours. Many linguists no
longer subscribe to the idea that AAVE is an African creole created by
necessity among speakers of different languages, arguing instead that
contemporary AAVE grew out of the concentration of southern
dialect forms in black zones in northern cities. Wolfram and Torbert
remark that it ‘has become a transregional variety that is more
ethnically distinct today than it was a century ago’.
Many features of AAVE tended to be categorized as slang until the
growth of black radicalism in the 1970s and the Ebonics debates of
the late 1990s, but in our terms Jim isn’t using much slang. Shin “to
move quickly” (1838—) and gumption “common sense” (1719—)
were both colloquial, and beatenest “most excellent” (1860—) was
dialect. Only whack “to share” (1812—), apparently adopted from the
language of criminals, may have been slang here. Twain’s representa-
tion of AAVE fifty years before his own time is driven more by
pronunciation and grammar than by a distinctive choice of words.
Although white writers often represented African Americans as
illiterate, African Americans generally wrote in formal Standard
English, even when they were representing speech. When they did
represent AAVE, it was often to emphasize the difference between
educated and/or emancipated African Americans and their illiterate
and/or enslaved counterparts, rather than to group them together by
skin colour. Here Booker T. Washington presents a conversation in
which an elderly slave asks a favour of his young master:
the young man, not having much faith in the ability of the slave to master
the guitar at his age, sought to discourage him by telling him: “Uncle Jake,
I will give you guitar lessons; but, Jake, I will have to charge you three dollars
for the first lesson, two dollars for the second lesson, and one dollar for the
third lesson. But I will charge you only twenty-five cents for the last lesson.”
Uncle Jake answered: “All right, boss, I hires you on dem terms. But, boss!
I wants yer to be sure an’ give me dat las’ lesson first.”
Jake’s language isn’t signalling that he’s black: it’s signalling that he’s a
slave who’s been denied the opportunity of an education. If he were
educated, like Washington, he would speak and write in Standard
American English. The stereotype was used for comic effect by black-
faced white (and black) stage-performers and, later on, by Hollywood.
After the abolition of slavery, many African Americans moved
from the south to the north in search of a better life. There they
were corralled into poor quality housing and low-paid work, gener-
ally coming into contact with white America only in subservient roles.
If you look back to the favourable conditions for slang development
listed in Chapter 3, you’ll see that the situation of emancipated
African Americans in northern cities fulfilled them almost perfectly.
In the 1920s and 1930s, scholars began publishing articles about
‘negro language’, with a particular interest in recent developments
in the north. One commentator, Van Patten, remarked that:
For seventy-five years, we have been gaining a false impression as to the

speech of the Negro in America. Hundreds of novels and countless short
stories have been written by authors with no first-hand knowledge of how
a Negro speaks . . .
He sought to rectify this situation by drawing upon recent publications

by African American writers, concentrating particularly on works
emanating from the ‘Harlem Renaissance’, listing a number of contem-
porary slang terms, such as ofay “a white person” (1899—), bull dyke(r)
“a (masculine) lesbian” (1906—), snow “cocaine” (1913—), copacetic
“excellent” (1919—), happy dust “heroin; cocaine” (1919—), hoof “to
dance” (1922—), faggoty “homosexual; effeminate” (1927—), and
sweetman “a pimp” (1928—). Although Van Patten was modern
enough to be interested in urban language, he was still relying on
literary representations, apparently believing that the language of a
small group of writers could be taken as typical.
By the 1930s, it was felt that African American students were using
a style of speech that was not only distinct from the language of white
American students, but also distinct from the language of other
African Americans. Their slang included hellacious “outstanding”
(1847—), man “a policeman; anyone in authority” (1918—), psyche
“to probe someone’s motivations; to outwit” (1929—), satchel mouth
“someone with a large mouth” (1934—, now generally referring to
Louis Armstrong), and biff(er) “an unattractive woman” (1934-1980).
Musicians were another group of African Americans who were
also using distinctive slang, and some early studies noted their use of
the following terms:
number “a recorded track” (used with jive “misleading or dishonest speech”

reference to items in a musical (1926—)
programme 1865—) corny “outdated; unsophisticated;
cut it “to succeed; to do something well” sentimental” (1932—)
(1900—) jitterbug “a jazz or swing enthusiast”
canary “a female vocalist” (1901—) (1934—, now usually historical)
jam “to improvise” (1935—)
These terms, along with others discussed in Chapter 4, could easily

have solidified into musicians’ jargon, and remained unknown to all
but the most enthusiastic fans if it hadn’t been for the development of
commercial radio, which brought jazz and its language to those white
Americans who weren’t brave or independent enough to experience it
in the flesh.
From black slang to youth slang

In the middle years of the twentieth century, a number of factors
came together to create the beginnings of a more or less national
youth slang in the United States. Jazz music, and then swing (and
later blues, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, soul, disco, and hip
hop) brought the slang used by African American musicians to the
attention of white youths, sometimes through the mediating influ-
ence of white musicians and DJs. This offered a potent form of
rebellion, particularly under segregation, causing parents to worry
that their pure white daughters would be seduced into a drug-
induced frenzy while dancing to hypnotic beats. As long as segre-
gation was still in place, some white music stations refused to play
records by black artists, and many southern states imposed racial
restrictions on live performances. In the face of these obstacles, a
white youth using the latest African American slang acquired an
enviable worldly-wise glamour. From the 1940s, we begin to see
terms originating in African American slang, particularly in the
slang of musicians, being depicted as general youth slang. But this
isn’t the whole story. This could have been a passing fad if it hadn’t
been for WWII.
WWI military slang was used by a large number of Americans for
a short period; WWII military slang was used much more influen-
tially, by a much larger number of Americans, and for longer. The
greater mobilization of the population, women as well as men,
clearly played a role in the greater influence of WWII military
slang during and after the war, but it was also popularized in films
and in morale-boosting journalism. Depictions and descriptions of
the young men who were risking their lives for their country
brought a mixture of general American and African American
slang to wider attention. Entertaining and educational films empha-
sized the camaraderie that developed among (unrealistically) ethni-
cally mixed servicemen from a wide range of geographical, social,
and educational backgrounds. Special Services, the entertainment
branch, wasn’t segregated, and entertainments organized for mili-
tary personnel brought live jazz and swing to young men and
women who might never have experienced it if they had stayed in
their parents’ homes. Even if the young people who served during
WWII had stopped using these slang terms when they got home,
and settled down into proper jobs, it’s likely that their younger
brothers and sisters would have picked them up from films and
records.
But many veterans didn’t settle down into proper jobs straight after
the war. The G.I. Bill funded college education for many of these
slightly older men whose dangerous and exotic experiences gave them
a well-founded disrespect for authority, particularly for toothless
civilian officials. They must have been irresistibly attractive to female
students and to younger males looking for role models. Tertiary
education expanded dramatically in the post-war years, and ex-
servicemen contributed to a significant change in the nature of
university experience in the United States. Veterans of the Korean
and Vietnam wars also found their way on to university campuses,
and because young men were still subject to the draft, there was a
constant interchange of people and slang between these two groups.
Moral supervision of students’ social lives became a thing of the past,
and students’ energies became more involved with the social trends
and political issues of the world off campus. During the 1960s, an
informal journal called Current Slang documented their use of terms
such as:
dude “a man” (1883—, used earlier with ride shotgun “to sit in the seat next to
more specific senses) the driver of a vehicle” (1963—)
roach “the butt of a cigarette or joint” all-nighter “an activity that lasts all
(1938—) night” (1964—)
prang “a crash” (1944—) moon “to bare one’s buttocks” (1965—)
honky “a Caucasian” (1946—) mega “extremely” (1966—)
bash “an attempt” (1948—)
As we’ve seen before, the people given credit for creating new slang
don’t always deserve it. Among these examples, bash appears to have
originated in military slang, prang in the RAF, honky among African
Americans, all-nighter in the entertainment business, and roach
among drug-users. Ride shotgun and dude seem to have been in
reasonably wide use by the late 1960s, but it isn’t possible to identify
their earliest users with any certainty. Mega and moon may be student
coinages from around this period.
There’s one final reason why American black/youth slang be-
came so influential and innovative during and after WWII, and
that’s the growth in consumerism. In constantly striving for the
latest new thing, the music and film industries, along with com-
mercial radio and television, advertisers and promoters, did much
to promulgate the slang that was already in use, and also some-
times created their own slang in an attempt to appeal to the youth
market. Slang can make products seem modern, novel, amusing,
intriguing, aspirational, and rebellious, all at once, but it’s necessary
to renew this appeal to the youth market with great regularity, and
this has contributed to a rapid turnover of slang terms in the post-
war period. Since WWII, advertisers and the media have used black
slang to imbue their products with coolness, and the commerciali-
zation of existing slang necessitates the creation of new terms to re-
establish the rejection of white values, with these new terms and
trends often being commercialized in their turn. Just as fashion-
designers have adapted street wear and the music industry has
promoted African American musical forms, advertisers have co-
opted contemporary African American slang, sometimes operating

differently for black and white consumers, to give their products an
aura of coolness, modernity, rebellion, and humour. There’s more
on the influence of the media on slang in Chapter 10.
Other influences on American slang

American English has adopted terms from the many languages spo-
ken by immigrants, including French (e.g. chowder, prairie), Dutch
(e.g. boss, coleslaw), German (e.g. pretzel, sauerkraut), and Italian (e.g.
barista, macchiato). Many of these terms became standard in Ameri-
can English and have been exported to other parts of the English-
speaking world. Some American slang has also been borrowed from
languages other than English, particularly the languages of later and
poorer immigrants. Yiddish provided, among other terms, nebbish “a
nobody; a loser” (1890—) and “innocuous; ineffectual” (1941—), potch
“to slap; to smack” (1892—), boychick “a boy; a young man” (1921—),
schlump “a slob; a fool” (1941—), tsatske “a trinket; a pretty girl”
(1964—), and schlong “the penis; a despised person” (1967/8—). It
tends to be names from Irish that turn up in American slang, including
mulligan (stew) “a stew made from whatever is available” (1895—),
Kelly for a type of hat (1908-1972), paddy wagon “a police van or car”
(1909—), the life of Riley “a luxurious or carefree existence” (1911—),
and Murphy, referring to a confidence trick (1954-1990).5 Slang from
Spanish, largely Mexican Spanish, includes bunco “a swindle” (1872—),
loco “insane” (1887—), Tico “Costa Rican” (1905—), hoosegow
“prison” (1908—), and mootah “marijuana” (1926—).
5
Daniel Cassidy’s How the Irish Invented Slang (Oakland, CA: CounterPunch,
2007) suggests Irish etymologies for lots of slang terms whose origins remain
obscure (and some that don’t). More detailed research is necessary to verify them.
Conclusions
Early commentators who sought to raise the status of American
English tended to ignore or disown slang terms. Towards the end of
the nineteenth century, and especially in the early twentieth century,
writers began to argue in favour of American slang, and a greater
openness to linguistic innovation developed, with slang sometimes
becoming a symbol of national identity. The driving forces in the
development of American slang in the twentieth century were urban-
ization, segregation and continued inequality after the civil rights era,
the expansion of higher education, the G.I. bill, and the development
of mass media and advertising. American slang has undoubtedly been
nurtured by inequality and consumerism, but it has also functioned as
a voice of protest against establishment values. Although linguistic
prescriptivism remains a powerful force in the United States, Ameri-
can slang is often held up as an emblem of the creativity and vigour of
its users. As we shall see in the remaining chapters, American influ-
ence was to be central to the development of English slang around the
world in the post-war period.
Endnotes
Figure 16 was constructed by taking the earliest citation for the first full entry on
each odd-numbered page in HDAS, producing a sample size of 699, with the
decrease in the 1990s reflecting the dictionary’s publication dates. First citations
marked with an asterisk are represented in black. The graph doesn’t tell us
anything about frequency of use and it may reveal more about the documenta-
tion than the use of slang.
The first quotation is from Gunnel Tottie, An Introduction to American
English (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 103, who describes slang as ‘an important
phenomenon’, but devotes only two pages to it. The development of American
dialects is discussed in Walt Wolfram and Ben Ward (eds.), American Voices:
How Dialects Differ from Coast to Coast (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006). Walt
Wolfram and Benjamin Torbert are quoted from their chapter in this book,
‘When Linguistic Worlds Collide (African American English)’, 225–32 (231).
The origins of AAVE remains a contentious subject, but both sides of the
argument are represented in Sonja L. Lanehart (ed.), Sociocultural and Historical
Contexts of African American English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001).
The lists of criminal and tramps’ language mentioned were A Narrative of the
Life, Adventures, Travels and Sufferings of Henry Tufts (Dover, NH: Samuel
Bragg, 1807), Glossary, Matsell’s Vocabulum, Josiah Flynt Willard’s Tramping
with Tramps (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1899) and The World of Graft (London/
New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1901), and Henry Leverage’s ‘Flynn’s
Dictionary of the Underworld’, Flynn’s 3–6 (3 Jan.–2 May 1925), Vol. 3: 690–3,
874–7, 1056–7; Vol. 4: 118–19, 488–9, 664–5, 868–9, 1150–1; Vol. 5: 191–2,
280–1, 511–12, 660–1, 818–19, 968–9; Vol. 6: 116–17, 211–12, 426–7.
Extracts in this chapter are from Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of
the English Language, 2 vols. (New York: S. Converse, 1828), ‘Introduction’;
Charles Dickens, American Notes (London: Chapman & Hall, 1842), Ch. 10;
and Laurence Oliphant, Piccadilly (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1870),
Part I, ‘Love’, first published in Blackwood’s Magazine in 1865. Whitman’s ‘Slang
in America’ is from his Complete Prose Works (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2004),
445–9. Also quoted is Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets (New York:
Appleton, 1896), 46–7, first published in 1893. James Maitland’s American Slang
Dictionary was privately printed in Chicago (1891). The review of the New
Century Dictionary is from ‘American Slang’, The Weekly Standard and Express,
19 Aug. 1899, 3, and the comparison between British and American slang from
‘Slang’, The Star, 3 Apr. 1875, n.p. The same article appeared in The Morning Post
(3 Apr.), Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post (14 Apr.), The Dundee Courier and Argus
(26 Apr.), and The Times (30 May), demonstrating the appeal of slang to journal-
ists under pressure to fill a column. Sherman Malcolm bemoans the use of slang
in The American Slangist (Blenheim, Ont.: n.p., 1888), 5–6, and its lack of dignity
is remarked upon in ‘A Study in Current Slanguage’, The San Francisco Call, 31
Oct. 1897, 23. Also quoted are George Ade’s Fables in Slang (Chicago & New
York: Stone, 1899), 27–30, and its evaluation by The Dial from Lisa Woolley,
American Voices of the Chicago Renaissance (Dekalb: Northern Illinois Univer-
sity Press, 2000), 30.
Other sources were ‘Restaurant Slang’, Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated
Times, 10 Oct. 1908, 234; ‘What They Say about Slang’, University Missourian 80,
17 Dec. 1913, 2 (three quotations); ‘A Society for the Suppression of Slang’, The
Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated Times, 22 Feb. 1873, 115; ‘A Chicago
Girl’s Slang’, Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, 7 Nov. 1885, 1; and
‘Slang in Women’s Colleges’, New York Tribune, 19 Jan. 1901, 7. Other extracts
are from H. L. Mencken’s The American Language (New York: Knopf, 1919),
308; Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women (Boston: Roberts, 1868), Ch. 1 (quoted
first in Adams, Slang, 78–9); Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (New
York: Century, 1884), Ch. 14; and Booker T. Washington’s Up From Slavery
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1901), Ch. 6. Recordings of ex-slaves are
available at the Library of Congress: Voices from the Days of Slavery <http://
memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/voices>. This chapter also quotes from
Nathan Van Patten’s ‘The Vocabulary of the American Negro as Set Forth in
Contemporary Literature’, American Speech 7 (1931), 24–31 (24), and cites terms
from Hugh Sebastian’s ‘Negro Slang in Lincoln University’, American Speech 9
(1934), 287–90 (290); Russel B. Nye’s ‘A Musician’s Word-List’, American Speech
12 (1937), 45–8; and H. Brook Webb’s ‘The Slang of Jazz’, American Speech 12
(1937), 179–84. Adams, Slang, 55–78, offers an interesting account of the current
use of African American slang. Student slang is from Stephen H. Dill and Clyde
Burkholder’s Current Slang: A Biennial Cumulation (Vermillion: University of
South Dakota, Department of English, 1969), with a second biennial collection
edited by Dill and Donald Bebeau in 1970.
9 Bludgers, Sooks,
and Moffies:
English Slang
around the World
As we’ve seen in the last chapter, before there was a clear sense of
what Standard American English was, it was difficult to determine the
status of informal American terms. This distinction can be harder
still with reference to other national forms of English, particularly
where there’s still no codified national variety to act as a standard of
correctness. The competing authority of British and American
English complicate the picture still further.
Australian cant and slang

Speakers of various dialects of British English were transported to
Australia between 1788 and 1868. Others went voluntarily to control
the prisoners, and governors were appointed to oversee the develop-
ment of these new colonies. Along with these varied roles, the values
and social structure of Britain were transported to the other side of
the world, complicated by the fact that people’s new roles didn’t
always correspond with their relative status back home. Some free
migrants considered themselves better than convicts and the descen-
dants of convicts. Some of those who were Australian-born consid-
ered themselves better than migrants who’d just arrived. Words such
Bludgers, Sooks, and Moffies: English Slang around the World 207
as walkabout “a journey on foot in the bush” (1897—) and currawong

[a type of bird] (1911—) were adopted by necessity from pidgin
English and aboriginal languages, and some existing words were
redefined, such as run “to graze (cattle, sheep, etc.)” (1795—), sterling
“an individual born in Britain” (1825—, historical in later use), and
currency “a native-born white Australian” (1824—, historical in later
use). As in the United States, new and unfamiliar terms were often
considered to be slang merely because they weren’t part of standard
British English, but new arrivals were expected to adapt to established
patterns of behaviour, and the acquisition of Australianisms was to
become a conspicuous symbol of the acceptance of Australian values
of egalitarianism, irreverence, and informality.
Early commentators remarked on the purity of Australian English,
as the varied dialects and accents of the first generation were levelled
out in the second. A distinctive Australian accent was first remarked
upon in the early nineteenth century, but it wasn’t until the end of the
century that vigorous attempts were made to promote Received
Pronunciation in Australia, with a corresponding decline in the status
of Australian accents. In 1892, a newspaper commented that ‘it will
come to many Australians as a surprise to find that they have a
distinct accent of their own’, which ‘like all peculiarities of pronunci-
ation, has little to recommend it’. Linguists now divide Australian
accents into cultivated, general, and broad, representing a continuum
from Received Pronunciation to the strongest Australian accents. The
second half of the twentieth century saw a significant shift away from
the cultivated to the general accent, but it took several more decades
before distinctively Australian accents and words again became a
source of pride rather than an embarrassing indication of low social
status and lack of education.
Some of the earliest dictionaries of non-standard language in
Australia concentrated on the language of criminals in a pattern
we’ve seen before, in both Britain and America, but we might expect
the language of criminals to be particularly prominent in a penal
colony. James Hardy Vaux’s Memoirs (written in 1812, published in
1819) suggest that, in the early years, British-born convicts continued

to use the cant they had learnt before transportation. Vaux lists:
AWAKE, an expression used on many occasions; as a thief will say to his

accomplice, on perceiving the person they are about to rob is aware of
their intention, and upon his guard, stow it, the cove’s awake. To be awake
to any scheme, deception, or design, means, generally, to see through or
comprehend it.
NAIL, to nail a person, is to over-reach, or take advantage of him in the
course of trade or traffic; also, to rob, or steal; as, I nail’d him for (or of) his
reader, I robbed him of his pocket-book; I nail’d the swell’s montra in the
push, I picked the gentleman’s pocket of his watch in the crowd, &c.
A person of an over-reaching, imposing disposition, is called a nail, a
dead nail, a nailing rascal, a rank needle, or a needle pointer.
Much of this language is familiar from the British publications cited

in earlier chapters. Awake “alert”, cove “a man”, nail “to steal”, swell
“a fashionably or stylishly dressed person”, reader “a pocket book”,
and push “a crowd” were all derived from British slang or cant of the
period. Needle (1790+1821) and nail (1819-1823), both meaning “a
cheat; a cheating gamester”, are also recorded in British cant. We
could hardly expect that British criminals would stop using terms
they were familiar with just because a judge had seen fit to send them
to the other side of the world, particularly when the trip was likely to
bring them into close contact with other users of the same terms.
Vaux’s Memoirs describe his return to England and transportation
twice more, indicating that transported felons weren’t as isolated
from current British speech as the geographical distance might sug-
gest. Vaux’s glossary tells us as much about the speech of criminals in
London as Australia, but some of his terms hadn’t been recorded
before in the way he defines them, and these may indicate changes
that had taken place in or on the way to Australia. For example, stow
“to stop talking” (1567—) is recorded in Harman’s Caveat, but Vaux
provides the first citation for the broader sense “to stop”. Montra “a
watch” is recorded only by Vaux and later dictionaries.
The play Life in Sydney (1843) was written in response to the

success of Egan’s Life in London. Newly arrived Jerry, who is ‘up to
the knowing ones at home, but sadly out of order here’, has only just
learnt that twig means “to understand” (a.1790—) when he hears
another unfamiliar term:
Jerry: I say Tom what does he mean by office?

Tom: Why you see Jerry, this is Dan’s private friend’s room, and as the big-
wigs are so devilish moral here, a game of cards is almost equal to high
treason. In short, Bill’s station is to give us the wink if any of the traps
should walk in.
Jerry: I twig, a wink’s as good as a nod to a blind horse. . . .
Twig, office “a warning; a signal” (1759—, from sporting slang), big-

wig “a person of high standing” (1703—), devilish “excessively”
(1612—), the wink “a surreptitious (glance or movement of the eye
as a) signal” (1757—), and trap “a thief-taker; a policeman” (1705—,
historical in later use) were all well established in the language of
British criminals. Their wider use in Australian English was an
inevitable product of the penal settlements, but they wouldn’t have
been amusing in this play if they were acceptable in all Australian
contexts.
The gold rushes of the 1850s brought new waves of settlers,
particularly from the United States. Many miners who’d given up
on the Californian goldfields decided to try their luck, and by the time
Cornelius Crowe documented Australian criminals’ language in 1895,
they appear to have been using several terms that originated in the
United States:
LYNCH LAW, the American manner of quickly getting rid of evil-doers (1811—)
ABSQUATULATE, to disappear; to decamp (1830—)
BUNKUM, talking nonsense (“tall talk; humbug”, 1847—)
However, Crowe also included a flash letter, which could easily have
been written by a contemporary British thief:
Church Bill,
Meet me at net to darkman in blooming slum near the old padding ken to
dispose of the swag. I know a lavender-cove and a swag chovey bloke that
will take some of the white yacks. We must get a thimble faker to christen
and church the redge yacks. I gave a shickster’s red thimble and slang and a
cat to my mollishe[r] for stalling while we cracked the faker’s chovey . . .
We’ve already seen darkman(s) “night”, swag “stolen property”, bloke

“a man”, yack “a watch”, shickster “a promiscuous woman”, slang “a
watch chain”, and mollisher “a woman; a girlfriend; a prostitute”.
We’ve observed criminals cracking houses, churching watches, and
stalling for their associates. Other terms also found in British sources
include:
blooming [in swearing] (c.1850—) thimble “a watch” (1795-1901)

slum “a narrow alley surrounded by squalid faker “one who creates fakes or
housing” (1845—) forgeries” (c.1845—)
padding-ken “a lodging house” (1839—, christen “to re-engrave a stolen
now historical) watch” (1753-1901)
chovey “a shop” (1791-1882) cat “a muff” (1839)
Redge “silver” appears to have arisen by confusion between wedge

“silver” and ridge “gold”, both of which we’ve seen in eighteenth-
century English cant. Ridge developed the sense “genuine” in Australia
(1938—), and was later expanded to ridgy-didge (1953—), with the
same meaning. Red had referred to gold and white to silver since the
Old English period, but they both appear to have been restricted to cant
by this date. There’s no independent evidence for church “dear”, net
“ten” (from back slang), or lavender-cove “a pawnbroker”. Whether or
not we believe Crowe’s letter is a genuine example of Australian
criminals’ language, there’s little evidence of distinctively Australian
cant from this period.
Thomas Browne (1826-1915), who wrote under the pseudonym
‘Rolf Boldrewood’, was born in London and moved to Sydney as a
child. His Robbery Under Arms makes careful use of non-standard
language to characterize an individual living a less than respectable

life. It begins:
My name’s Dick Marston, Sydney-side native. I’m twenty-nine years old, six
feet in my stocking soles, and thirteen stone weight. Pretty strong and active
with it, so they say. I don’t want to blow — not here, any road — but it takes
a good man to put me on my back, or stand up to me with the gloves, or
the naked mauleys. I can ride anything — anything that ever was lapped in
horsehide — swim like a musk-duck, and track like a Myall black-fellow.
Most things that a man can do I’m up to, and that’s all about it. As I lift
myself now I can feel the muscle swell on my arm like a cricket ball, in spite
of the — well, in spite of everything.
Colloquial phrases like with it, so they say, up to “capable of ” (1785—),

and any road “anyway” (1896—) suggest that Marston hasn’t been
taught to write in a formal style, creating a sense of unvarnished
revelation and intimacy. Boldrewood doesn’t represent non-standard
features of grammar or pronunciation, but he characterizes Marston
as Australian by what he says as well as by how he says it. Blow “to
boast” (c.1420—), blackfellow “an Australian aboriginal” (1738—),
native “a white person born in Australia” (1806—), and Sydney-side
“the Sydney area” (1888—) were all restricted to Australia and New
Zealand at this time, though blow and blackfellow had once been
more widely used.
Although it was necessary for English to develop to express new
conditions in Australia, many Australians were starting to be embar-
rassed by deviations from Standard British English. A letter published
in The Sydney Morning Herald in 1894 distinguished between linguis-
tic developments that were ‘lawful and reasonable’ responses to
differences in climate and geography, and those developments that
arose from an unreasoning fondness for innovation:
Democracy . . . like childhood, is eager for novelty. There is great joy to a
child in repeating an oath which he has heard by chance; the more so that
in his desperately wicked little soul he feels it to be naughty. Fresh termi-
nology, that of the music-hall and the market, is full of charm for those
who, feeling no responsibility in their precious inheritance of speech,

delight to flout the old and reverend.
Objectionable terms included:
township “a prospective town; a village” rouseabout “an (unskilled) employee on

(1790—) a sheep station” (1861—)
bush “uncultivated open countryside” (old) identity “a person who is a long
(1803—) resident or well known in a place” (1862—)
new chum “a newly arrived convict; a push “a gang of hooligans or criminals”
recent immigrant” (1819—) (1866—, originally American)
down “a grudge” (1828—) larrikin “a hooligan” (1868—)
spell “a rest period” (1831—) jackaroo “an inexperienced colonist
bail up “to rob (on the highway)” working on a sheep station to gain
(1838—) experience” (1870—)
stick up “to rob (on the highway)” give (someone) best “to concede defeat”
(1843—) (1888—)
The objections are largely on the grounds of etymology, sense, and utility,
though the consistency with which the writer picks out Australian terms
suggests that it’s really national innovations that offend him. Length of
use didn’t qualify these terms for approval: although most had been in
use for many decades, this writer still considered them illegitimate.
Following an exchange in The Argus (Melbourne), in which par-
ents and teachers objected to children being asked to correct exam-
ples of idiomatic Australian English lest they be contaminated by it,
The Western Australian (Perth) published an exchange on the subject
of grown men using slang:
To listen to these up-to-date men one would suppose that they had
graduated in Whitechapel, London, or the High-street of Edinburgh,
instead of having spent their lives in a great many instances in the Austra-
lian bush. True, in years gone by, the boy had a language of his own mostly
confined to the playground, but which he gave up as he did the playing of
marbles and top-spinning, as something too childish for one coming to
years of discretion. Such, however, is not the case now, as you may daily
hear middle-aged men speaking about “chucking” their job, or being “out
of collar”. It is pitiful and almost painful to hear expressions such as these
used by hard-working well-meaning men, and the only wonder is that a
habit so silly should not be more frequently and vigorously protested
against.
This writer objects to vulgarisms newly imported from Britain,

including jude (1887—) for judy (1819—) “a woman”, peg out “to
die” (1852—), screw “salary; wages” (1858—), collar “regular employ-
ment” (1862—), chuck (out/up/over) “to dismiss; to discharge; to
resign” (1869—), and trot (out) “to escort (a woman)” (1888—). As
in the last extract, the writer has an accurate sense of which terms are
Australian.
A greater pride in informal Australianisms developed with the
growth of nationalistic feelings during and after WWI. In 1915,
C. J. Dennis published a book of verses that had previously appeared
in the Sydney Bulletin, called Songs of a Sentimental Bloke. Dennis
wrote of the trials and tribulations of a young working man who falls
in love, marries, and, in a later volume, serves in the war. Written in
colloquial Australian English, Sentimental Bloke was a huge success.
In this extract, Dennis’s narrator bemoans the uncertainty of love:
THE world ’as got me snouted jist a treat;

Crool Forchin’s dirty left ’as smote me soul;
An’ all them joys o’ life I ’eld so sweet
Is up the pole.
Fer, as the poit sez, me ’eart ’as got
The pip wie yearnin’ fer—I dunno wot.
I’m crook; me name is Mud; I’ve done me dash;

Me flamin’ spirit’s got the flamin’ ’ump!
I’m longin’ to let loose on somethin’ rash . . .
Aw, I’m a chump!
I know it; but this blimed ole Springtime craze
Fair outs me, on these dilly, silly days.
Unlike Boldrewood, Dennis used non-standard spellings to represent

non-standard pronunciation. The sentimental bloke speaks broad
Australian: he drops ‘h’s (’as, ’eld, ’eart), simplifies final consonant
clusters (an’, yearnin’, flamin’), and pronounces blamed “blasted”
(1838—) as <blimed>. Dennis could have indicated broad pronun-
ciations for more words, but only at the cost of making his verses
harder to read.
There are also a few non-standard grammatical features: me (for
my), smote (for smitten), them (for those), and the use of is following a
plural subject. The OED labels a treat “extremely well” (1898—) as
colloquial. Left (1898—) abbreviates the boxing term left hook “a
punch with the left arm bent” (1898—), and out “to knock out”
(1896-1951) was also boxing slang. Up the/a pole has been used
with various senses since its first appearance in military slang: “in
favour” (1890), “in confusion; in trouble” (1896—), “teetotal” (1899/
1900-1944), “drunk” (1897-1922), “crazy” (1904—), and “pregnant”
(1918—). Here it appears to mean “destroyed” or “lost”. Get the pip
“to become depressed, unwell, or irritated” (1837/8—) comes from
the name of a poultry ailment, now more commonly found in give the
pip “to annoy or irritate” (1896—). Terms also used in Britain include
the hump “a fit of ill humour” (1727—), his/her (etc.) name is mud
(1823—), and others already discussed. None of this is specifically or
even characteristically Australian, though these terms all contribute
to the creation of a character who’s down to earth and unspoilt by
education.
Specifically or usually Australian terms in this verse include dilly
“silly” (1873—), flaming [in swearing] (1885—), crook “out of sorts;
unwell; angry” (1906—), snout “to treat with disfavour” (1913-1981),
and do one’s dash “to fall in love” (1915-1919), related to the more
frequent have a dash “to make an attempt” (1843—). Fair had been
used adverbially with the sense “completely” since c.1330, but had
been non-standard in Britain since the mid nineteenth century. The
Director of Education in Victoria asked Dennis where he learnt all
this slang:
‘Four-fifths of the people of Victoria talk it and seven-eighths of the children

in your schools.’ He was surprised. I think he did not like what I said. You
see he had moved amongst people who talked correctly. But . . . some
months afterwards he came to me and said, ‘I believe you are nearly right.’
Newspaper coverage of slang in Australia changed during WWI. No

longer was slang merely a sign of vulgarity: it came to represent
vitality, virility, and defiantly high morale in the face of unimaginable
danger. As Australia’s sons died for the Empire, particularly in the
disastrous Gallipoli campaign, loyalties began to shift and a more
positive sense of national identity developed. This article quotes a
report from London’s Pall Mall Gazette:
The Australians are not very rich in slang . . . but the following conversation
I caught the other day might prove mystifying to the uninitiated.
“Hullo, —chum! I’ve just heard some bonza news.”
“What! Another furfie?” “No, dinkum oil this time; the boys have imshied
the Turks on the right, and got fifty prisoners, who say they have had
mafeesh tucker for two days.” . . .
Hullo and chum might both have been used in this way by a speaker
of British English, and a British soldier might have learnt both imshi
“to hurry (someone) along” (1915-1918, more usually “to hurry; to go
away” (1815—)) and mafeesh “finished; none; good for nothing”
(1855-1931, usually as a free-standing interjection) from Arabic.
However, tucker “food” (1858—), bonzer “good” (1904—), dinkum
oil “true information” (1915—), and furphy “a (false) rumour”
(1915—, from Furphy water carts) were all distinctively Australian
slang. Far from being a source of shame, this slang provided a bond
between Australian troops and became emblematic of their stoicism
and sacrifice.
There are several glossaries of the slang used by Australian soldiers
in WWI, including one compiled after the war at the Australian War
Museum (now Memorial). Distinctively Australasian terms in this list
include:
shivoo “a celebration; a disturbance” fair go “fair treatment; a fair chance”

(1844—) (1899—)
cow “an objectionable person, thing, or banjo “a shovel” (1900/10—)
situation” ([1864]+1891—) put the acid on “to exert pressure on”
dag “a tough, eccentric, or amusing (1906—)
individual” (1875—) give it a burl “to have a go” (1917—)
(fair) dinkum “good; genuine; honest” gutzer “a heavy fall” (1918—)
(1894—) put the hard word on “to ask for an
cliner “a girl; a sweetheart” (1895—) unlikely favour” (1918—)
inked “drunk” (1898-1969) chop “a share” (1919—)
Although Australian cities, and particularly Sydney, were clearly

seeing the beginnings of Australian slang, WWI played a major role
in its spread, development, and documentation, as well as in the
developing belief that Australian English was, and ought to be,
distinctive.
In the interwar period, Australian newspapers focused on the
undesirable influence of American slang on Australian speech. Pro-
fessor Stable, chair of English literature at the University of Queens-
land, argued that the use of Americanisms was a ‘passing phase’:
He had no objection to the use of “native” slang with discrimination and

moderation. In distinction from foreign words that entered into the com-
mon speech, without a local or apt application, it might express the
thoughts and feelings of the people within their own conditions and
environment. In the development of the language, words might be
incorporated which expressed an accepted meaning, and in time ceased
to be slang.
Stable felt that parents who spoke incorrectly were the main
obstacle that teachers faced in improving the speech of their
pupils. Standard British English was still the ideal being taught,
despite an incipient grass-roots consensus that Australian English
was actually better: more down to earth, more practical, and more
masculine.
18 Australian and New Zealand slang: Park Kendall, Dictionary of Service Slang
(New York: Mill, 1944), n.p.
The tendency to consider national forms as slang persisted later in

Australia than in the US. Sidney J. Baker presented a broad and
contradictory definition of slang to justify the contents of his Popular
Dictionary:
Slang is too small a word to describe the evolution of a new way of

speaking, of a national idiom. But it is a flexible term, and for the purpose
of this brief dictionary it must be taken to include many Australian expres-
sions that have long since ceased to be slang in the strict sense of that word
and have become “standard.” It even includes a few of those many indige-
nous terms which probably never were slang, but which became part of
our speech without any probationary period. And it includes also some
still-born expressions which flourished ephemerally. They are included to
show that Australia has something to say for herself that extends a good
deal past the limitations of a few sickly colloquialisms of the bonzer-
dinkum-strike-me-up-a-gum-tree brand.
In order to compile even a small dictionary of Australian slang at this

period, then, it was necessary to include obsolete words and words
that, although Australian, were no longer slang or never had been. In
fact, Baker cut out various terms in later editions when he realized
they weren’t distinctively Australian. Why, if there was so little
genuine Australian slang to document, did Baker bother compiling
a dictionary of it? And why did it sell well enough to go through
several editions? Part of the answer must lie in Churchill’s failure to
defend Australia against a feared Japanese invasion: although Austra-
lian troops were fighting for the Empire, once again, in Europe, the
defence of Australia wasn’t considered a strategic priority. Just as
Australia was breaking its emotional ties with Britain, American
troops flooded in. As in Britain, the Americans were greeted with a
mixture of gratitude and resentment: some Australians enthusiasti-
cally adopting American slang, others standing firm against it. Brit-
ain’s entry into the European Economic Community gave a further
boost to Australian nationalism. These shifting and conflicting affi-
nities changed the balance between different forms of English in
Australia and, as speakers with cultured accents were gradually out-
numbered by those with general accents, distinctive Australian terms
and American slang also came to be more widely used.
This has led to a curious dichotomy in discussions of Australian
English. Scholars often avoid using slang altogether, arguing that
Australian English is, by its nature, so informal that it’s impossible
to distinguish meaningfully between slang and colloquialisms, while
popular writers often label all distinctively Australian words (and
sometimes also pronunciations and grammatical features) as slang:
Australians don’t seem to evolve their own language. For example, from the
highly scientific standpoint of observing my wife, I’ve noticed the Australian
slang and idioms (from the Latin “idiom”, meaning “drinking beer and
talking a lot”) she uses are identical to those her parents used. Nothing
new developed over a generation.
It’s certainly true that Australian English tends towards greater infor-
mality than British English, and probably also American English, but
no matter how informal a term is, if everyone knows and uses it, it’s
colloquial rather than slang. Nevertheless, traditional Australian

terms are endowed with the values normally associated with slang:
Young city people rarely greet each other in the time-honoured Australian
way: “G’day mate.’’ These days it is likely to be: “Hi guys’’ or “Hey dude’’,
grating imports from the United States. . . . How often, these days, do we
hear words like . . . bludger, drongo, . . . sheila, . . . jiffy, strewth, . . . arvo and
Buckley’s? Most people in the older generations know what they mean, but
already they are lost among the young. How sad.
This writer blames the dominance of American film and television

and the underfunding of the Australian media for the decline in
traditional Australianisms, but he also identifies multiculturalism as
a cause of this decline. Terms like jiffy “a moment” (1785—, originally
UK), sheila “a girl; a young woman” (1839—, originally Irish), strewth
“God’s truth” (1883—, originally UK), Buckley’s (hope/chance) “a
forlorn hope” (1895—), bludger “a hanger-on; a sponger” (1900—),
arvo (1927—), and drongo “a fool” (1941—) have come to be sym-
bolic of a particular version of Australian national identity, and
Australian teenagers who want to seem modern or to rebel against
their parents can do so most effectively by using other slang terms.
Since neither British nor American slang is pure of external influ-
ence, there’s no reason to think that Australian slang should (or
could) be. A recently updated glossary of ‘Australian slang’ on a
website called Koala Net is designed to help the tourist ‘feel at home
on your first day Down Under’. Of its almost 500 words, many are
derived from British dialects, including:
whinge “to complain” (a.1150—) chook (also chookie, chucky) “a chicken”

wag (off) “to play truant” (1848—) (1855—)
fossick “to hunt about (for)” (1853—) lolly “any piece of confectionary; a sweet;
spiffy “smart; excellent” (1853—) a candy” (1864—)
boozer “a pub” (1895—)
Plenty of others originated in the United States, including:
knock “to criticize” (1860—) moolah “money” (1939—)

cream “to kill; to defeat decisively” veg (out) “to relax or do nothing”
(1929—) (1967/8—)
dog “an unattractive woman” (1937—) boogie board “a small surfboard”
(1976—)
The American terms are generally later than the British ones, and
most have also spread to Britain. It may well be that the compilers of
the list weren’t aware that these terms originated outside Australia,
but they may have taken the view that if a term is slang and it’s used in
Australia then it’s Australian slang no matter where it was coined.
Omitting terms that originated outside Australia from this list would
be doing a disservice to tourists who were unfamiliar with British or
American slang.
Conversely, many of the Australian terms in the list have been
exported to other parts of the English-speaking world. I’ve heard all of
these Australian slang terms used unselfconsciously by speakers of
British English:
knockback “a disappointment; a refusal” earbash “to talk too much (to)”

(1898—) (1944—)
uni “university” (1898—) no-hoper “a born failure” (1944—)
Aussie “an Australian” (1917—) perv “a pervert” (1948—)
too right “certainly; definitely” (1918—) in the nuddy “in the nude” (1953—)
plonk “cheap wine” (1933—) rubbish “to criticize or denigrate” (1953—)
perv “to look (at) lecherously” (1941—) dob on/in “to inform against” (1954—)
no worries “no problem” (1967—)
The Koala Net list also reveals the difficulty of distinguishing between
levels of use in Australia. Colloquial and standard terms in the list
include brumby “a wild horse” (1880—), wowser “a strait-laced per-
son; a spoilsport; a teetotaller” (1899—), and outback “the interior
of Australia” (1904—). Several are now restricted to historical and
self-consciously Australianized use. These include jumbuck “a sheep”

(1824—), Matilda “a sleeping roll carried by an itinerant worker”
(1892—), and come the raw prawn “to attempt to deceive” (1940—).
Dinky-di “genuine” (1916—) is now more often used with the sense
“unconvincingly or self-seekingly Australian”.
A striking feature in this list is the number of abbreviations ending
with -ie or -y, which is often identified as a distinctive feature of
Australian slang (or colloquialism). These include:
bushie “a dweller in the outback” (1885—) kindy “kindergarten” (1959—)

possie “a position” (1915—) surfie “a surfer” (1962—)
blowey “a blowfly” (1916—) pokie “a poker machine; a slot
coldie “a cold beer” (1953—) machine” (1965—)
esky (generic use of a brand name) “a cool Chrissy “Christmas” (1966—)
box” (1953—) greenie “an environmentalist” (1973—)
truckie “a truck-driver” (1958—) sunnies “sunglasses” (1981—)
Some have spread to British English, including:

footy “(Australian rules) football” sickie “a sick day taken dishonestly”
(1906—) (1953—)
mozzie “a mosquito” (1917—) lippy “lipstick” (1955—)
chewie “chewing gum” (1924—) u-ey “a u-turn” (1967/8—)
cozzie “a swimming costume” (1926—)
hottie “a hot water bottle” (1947—)
The Koala Net list also includes a few -ie abbreviations that originated
in Britain, including:
brekkie “breakfast” (1904—) prezzie “a present” (1933—)
choccy “chocolate” (1918—) veggy “a vegetable” (1955—)
rellie “a relative” (1921—) trackie(s) “a tracksuit” (1986—)
bikkie “biscuit” (1930—)
In British usage these are usually childish forms, though occupational

names with the same ending belong in general colloquial language
rather than in the nursery, including postie “a postman” (1871—) and
brickie “a bricklayer” (1873—). In this list, only polly “a politician”
(1932—) appears to have originated in the United States, presumably

by clipping. These British and American terms may have merged with
the Australian stream in Australia or been reinvented there.
A smaller group of abbreviated terms in the Koala Net list end in
-o, another distinctively Australian form:
smoko “a (smoke) break” (1865—) reffo “refugee” (1941—)

Salvo “(a member of) the Salvation Army” garbo “a garbage-collector” (1953—)
(1891—) nasho “national service; a person
bottle-o “a collector of empty bottles” doing national service” (1962—)
(1898—), now more usually “a shop derro “a derelict: a tramp” (1963—)
selling alcohol” (1997—) rego “registration (of a vehicle)”
milko “a milkman” (1905—) (1967—)
kero “kerosene” (1930—) bizzo “business” (1969—)
metho “methylated spirits” (1933—) rello “a relative” (1982—)
compo “compensation” (1938—) servo “a service station” (1985—)
Only troppo “mentally ill (through spending too long in the tropics)”
(1941—) and journo “journalist” (1967—), from this list, have spread
to British usage. That this is still an active combining form is indi-
cated by examples in The Australian newspaper of ambo “ambulance;
ambulance driver”, doco “documentary”, fisho “a fishmonger; a fish-
erman”, and vego “vegetarian”, none of which is listed in the OED or
AND. Having decided, understandably, that all nouns ending in -o are
Australian, the Koala Net glossary also lists yobbo “an uncouth
person” (1922—, originally UK). Related words from the rest of the
English-speaking world include alive (alive) oh [a cry used by fish-
sellers] (c.1709—, now chiefly Molly Malone), beano “a bean feast; a
festivity” (1888—), righto “ok” (1893—), cheerio, and daddy-o, both
mentioned earlier. In the rest of the world, -o is usually added to a
complete word, while in Australia it’s used with clipped forms, but the
distinction isn’t foolproof.
Another feature of Australian slang in this list and others like it is
the profusion of colourful idioms. Some of these are also attested in
The Australian newspaper and elsewhere online, including busy as a

cat burying shit, cross as a frog in a sock, cunning as a dunny rat, dry as
a dead dingo’s donger (or a nun’s nasty or a pommy’s towel), fit as a
Mallee bull, mad as a cut snake, and mean as cat’s piss. It doesn’t
matter whether you know what a nun’s nasty and a Mallee bull are: it’s
entirely possible to understand these phrases from the adjective. The
remaining words convey attitude and affiliation rather than meaning.
Based on Internet evidence, many of these phrases are talked about
and included in glossaries more than they’re actually used: like the
traditional slang, some of these phrases have become emblems rather
than examples of Australian English.
The history of Australian English sees a gradual narrowing in the
groups of words for which ‘Australian slang’ seems an appropriate
label. For some commentators, it has narrowed so far that only
traditional Australianisms are worthy of the label, but in truth Aus-
tralian slang remains both creative in its own right and receptive to
slang from other English-speaking nations.
New Zealand slang

Although speakers of English arrived in New Zealand from 1792
onwards, large-scale settlement didn’t begin until after the Treaty of
Waitangi in 1840. Many of the early settlers spoke Australian English,
which was already a mixture of various British and American dialects,
but they also picked up some distinctive New Zealand terms from the
Maori language, such as Pakeha “a European” (1817—), haka “a
ceremonial dance” (1832—), and goorie “a (mongrel) dog” (1937-
1970). By about 1900, the development of a New Zealand accent had
been identified as a cause for concern and a threat to the maintenance
of Standard British English in New Zealand, but a century later
commentators were troubled that American English was influencing
New Zealand pronunciation and vocabulary. Sidney Baker published
a book called New Zealand Slang in 1940, but we’ve already seen that
he understood slang to include everything non-standard and/or
national, and many of the terms and phrases he lists were normal
features of colloquial New Zealand English. General dictionaries had
sometimes included New Zealand supplements since as early as 1914,
but it wasn’t until 1979 that a comprehensive dictionary of New
Zealand English was published. Its author later co-edited a New
Zealand Slang Dictionary, including a great deal of colloquial lan-
guage as well as slang.
A website aimed at new and potential immigrants to New Zealand
provides a list of about 180 slang terms to ‘give you a better under-
standing of what your Kiwi mates are really trying to tell ya!’ A great
many of the terms listed are also found in Australian English, includ-
ing ropeable “very angry” (1874—), sook “a softy; a wimp” (1933—),
scroggin “a high energy snack eaten by walkers” (1949—), and pav “a
pavlova (a type of dessert)” (1966—). Of the terms that are also used
in Britain, several are colloquial, like dole “unemployment benefit”
(1362—) and cardy “cardigan” (1968—), or even standard, like petrol
“gasoline” (1895—). This suggests that the compilers of the list are
taking American rather than British usage as the standard against
which to identify slang terms. Terms in the list that did originate in
New Zealand include bach or batch “a makeshift house; a holiday
home” (1927—), jandal “a flip-flop; a sandal”, from a proprietary
name (1950—), and fizzboat “a motorboat” (1977—). Greasies “fish
and chips”, scarfie “a student”, and wop-wops “a far away and insig-
nificant place” aren’t listed in the OED, but other evidence of their use
in New Zealand supports their inclusion in this list.
New Zealand English shares the informality of Australian English,
creating the same difficulty in distinguishing between slang and
colloquialisms. It can also be difficult to determine whether individual
terms originated in Australia or New Zealand. The competing cur-
rents of slang from Britain and the United States add to the challenge
of distinguishing a body of ‘New Zealand slang’, but if we focus on
usage rather than origins, it will be clear that there are slang terms
available to play the same social functions in New Zealand as they do
in the rest of the English-speaking world. Like Australian English,
New Zealand English can be both slangy and distinctively national,

but the two don’t necessarily coincide.
Canadian slang
Canada was settled by European speakers of English and French from
the seventeenth century. Canadian English developed from the dialect of
the north-eastern United States, but political loyalties and later immi-
gration superimposed a British influence on its pan-American forms. In
the first half of the twentieth century, however, Canadian newspapers
were focusing on the influence of American slang on Canadian English,
apparently believing that Canadian English would be ‘pure’ without this
contamination. For example, in 1906, an unnamed politician was criti-
cized for using American terms such as slick “excellent” (1833—), dough
“money” (1848—), get out and dust “to leave” (dust had been used with
the same sense since 1860—), and deliver the goods “to fulfil a promise;
to bring a task to successful completion” (1879—). Despite this resis-
tance to American slang, it was regularly introduced into Canadian
newspaper articles in the early twentieth century to make points more
forcefully, though writers often took care to indicate that they both
recognized and regretted their own use of slang.
In 1932, an article in a student newspaper criticized Canadian
students for adopting slang terms:
Why shouldn’t these young Canadians, here in the University, take a

genuine pride, not in aping cheap American slang, but in keeping them-
selves free from it? Why can’t they get the silly notion out of their heads that
a student who speaks good English is any the less a ‘good sport’?
Various slang terms used by Canadian students are listed in the

article, including cut “to skip; to miss” (1791—, originally UK), the
interjection say (used on its own since 1830, but I say had been used
with the same function since 1611), low-down “inside information”
(1908—), and uh-huh “yes” (1924—), all of which either originated or
were current in the United States. However, at least one of the
objectionable terms mentioned appears to be derived from British

school and college slang: tuck, apparently meaning “a café” or “a
dining hall”. Wet “unappealing (of a course)” could be related to
the American all wet “mistaken; completely wrong” (1923—), or
British wet “spineless; ineffectual” (1916—). In objecting to American
slang, this writer assumes that all slang is American.
By 1939, a female Canadian student might have dismissed an
unappealing admirer as a droopy drawers “an untidy, sloppy person;
a slow-witted person” (1932—, originally UK), dimwit “a stupid,
slow-witted person” (1922—, originally US), or screwball “an eccen-
tric; a fool” (1933—, chiefly US). Female students apparently also
employed the interjection fluff! to express disgust without trespassing
against decency, which may be related to fluff “to make a mistake”
(1884—, originally UK theatrical).
In 1973, a Canadian MA student called Donald Wesley Preston set
out ‘to determine if there is such an entity as Canadian English slang’.
He worked on material collected for, but not included in, Avis’s
Dictionary of Canadianisms, comparing it with dictionaries of slang
from Britain and America (but not Australia or New Zealand).
Preston concluded that over half of the slang terms used in Canada
were of Canadian origin, but his reference works weren’t very up to
date and some of the terms he considered to be Canadian slang
weren’t in the slang dictionaries he used because they were colloquial
or dialectal elsewhere. The proportion of slang terms used in Canada
that originated in Canada is certainly lower than Preston’s figure.
Modern Internet sources for Canadian slang tend to repeat a hoary
list of national and colloquial terms that are equivalent to totemic
Australian ‘slang’, such as Canuck “a Canadian, specifically a French
Canadian” (1825—, originally US), tuque “a knitted winter hat”
(1871—), chesterfield “a sofa” (1900—), Newfie “a Newfoundlander”
(1942—), poutine “a dish of chips topped with cheese curds and
gravy” (1982—), and loonie “a Canadian dollar” (1987—). Slang
terms that appear to have originated in Canada, some of which are
now used more widely, include:
dogan “an Irish Roman Catholic” (1854 zombie “a man conscripted for home
+1933) defence” (1943—, historical in later use)
muffin “a man’s female companion at stubble-jumper “a prairie farmer” (1946—)
social engagements” (1854-1965) mud-pup “an English student of
jawbone “credit” (1862-1971) agriculture” (1955-1994)
bindle “a bundle” (1897—) suckhole “to curry favour” (1961—)
stakey “flush; having plenty of money” suck “a worthless person” (1965—)
(1919-1973)
Many Canadian slang terms are specific to Canada in meaning if not
use, including:
pea-soup “a French Canadian” (1866- spud-islander “an inhabitant of Prince

1912) Edward Island” (1957—)
herring-choker “an inhabitant of the Joe “a French Canadian”
Maritime Provinces” (1899—) (1963+1966)
pea-souper “a French Canadian” (1930—) pepsi “a French Canadian” (1978-1996)
hoser “a loutish Canadian” (1981—)
It’s possible that terms promoting a regional sense of what it means to

be Canadian are less likely to be embraced as national colloquialisms,
and thus more likely to remain stigmatized as slang.
Caribbean slang
Distinctive slang terms are also found in the Caribbean, where the
development of English has been influenced by pidgins and creoles
used among slaves who didn’t share a common language. Although
the local patois is a source of pride for some speakers, it co exists with
a higher-status local standard form. Terms used in the patois are not
slang in that context, but they may function as slang when they’re
introduced into what is otherwise standard or colloquial English.
Slang terms originating in Jamaican patios include:
rass (also raas) “arse: nonsense; a rassclaat “a despicable person” (1969—)

despicable individual” (1790—) mash it up “to liven up (a musical
politricks “politics” (1908—) performance)” (1979—)
facety “impudent; arrogant” (1927—) selector “a DJ’s assistant; a DJ”
facey “bold; impertinent” (1929—) (1980—)
rass “to make a fool of; to insult” (1952—) posse “a criminal gang” (1986—)
criss “attractive; smart; fashionable” rassclaat [used as an intensifier]
(1954—) (1993—)
The OED labels niggergram “a scandalous rumour” (1957—) as

chiefly Trinidadian and conch “a black West Indian” (1833-1875) as
‘Bahamas slang’. Terms used more widely in the Caribbean include:
batty “the bottom; buttocks” (1935—) massive “a group or gang of young

pick up a nail “to catch venereal disease” people defined by their shared
(1938-1994) interests or place of origin” (1989—)
battyman “a male homosexual” (1967—) batty-riders “a pair of tight (women’s)
pum-pum “the female genitals; women” shorts” (1992—)
(1983—) big up “to praise” (1992—)
punani “the female genitals; women”
(1987—)
Many of these have been carried into American and particularly

British usage by immigration and the influence of reggae and ska.
In British hip hop, they’re used alongside African American terms.
Indian slang
British influence in India began with traders in the sixteenth century.
In 1858, the British government took over direct control from the
East India Company, but native English-speakers were always in a
small minority. The earliest Anglo-Indian terms were used by British
officers and officials in India, and some reached wider use, particu-
larly through military slang (see Chapter 7). These include poggle “a
crazy person” (1783-1989), griffin “a newcomer to India” (1793-

1883), tiffin “a light midday meal” (1800-1906), oont “a camel”
(1815—), soor “a pig”, used as a term of abuse for a person (1848-
1936), puckerow “to seize; to lay hold of” (1864-1943),1 sub-cheese
“the lot; everything” ([1864]+1874-1992), ek dum “at once; immedi-
ately” (1895-1977), and poggle “mad” (1925-1989).
English remains an official language in India, and the model for
educated Indians is British English, but many informal usages have
developed in speech and writing. The OED lists:
telephone “a telephone call” (1935+1979) masala “pep; vigour” (1986—)

phut-phut “a motorized vehicle” history-sheeter “a person with a
(1951—) criminal record” (1988—)
tribal “a member of a tribal community” matrimonial “a classified advertisement
(1958—) for a potential spouse” (1989—)
airdash “to make a quick journey by air” kitty party “a lunch at which the guests
(1968—) contribute money towards the cost of
military hotel “a restaurant serving meat” hosting the next gathering” (1991—)
(1979+1990) skin show “exposure of the skin” (1999—)
cabin “an office; a cubicle” (1979—)
Whether these qualify as slang would depend on which standard

they’re being compared to: if the standard is British English, they’re
all slang; but if the standard is Indian English, we first have to
determine what Standard Indian English is, and that task has yet to
be undertaken. Speakers in multilingual contexts regularly switch
from one language to another within a single sentence, so it can be
hard to decide whether an informal term should be considered to be
part of English. Newspaper articles have identified the following
examples as Indian slang from the past decade: champu “a loser”,
chewing gum “an irritating person”, and dadda-baaji “basketball”
1
This isn’t related to the New Zealand slang puckeroo “to break; to destroy”
(1840—).
(from 2002); Bunty “a rich Punjabi kid from Delhi”, fatta “bullshit”,
and jhakkas “perfect” (from 2004); bombat “excellent”, chope “to
snub”, and gubbal “idiot” (from 2005). Because there are no authori-
tative dictionaries of Standard Indian English or of Indian slang, only
a native speaker could hope to determine how frequently or widely
these terms are used.
South African slang

South African English has been influenced by indigenous languages
as well as by Afrikaans, as spoken by the Dutch settlers who began to
arrive in the seventeenth century. Britain’s political interest in the
Cape dates from the end of the eighteenth century, and British settlers
began to arrive during the early decades of the nineteenth. Originally
or chiefly South African slang terms include some derived from
English, such as blerry “bloody” (1920—), mailer “a supplier of illegal
alcohol” (1950-1986), rugger bugger “a boorish (young) man who is
fanatical about rugby or other sports” (1959—), rock spider “an
Afrikaner” (1973—), and motherless “drunk” (1988—). Slang terms
from Afrikaans include stompie “a cigarette butt; a partially smoked
cigarette” (1947—), moffie “effeminate; homosexual” (1954—) or “a
male homosexual” (1959—), and min dae “the last few weeks of one’s
(compulsory) military service” (1971—). Majita “a (young black)
man” (1963-1990) and okapi “a single-bladed knife” (1974—, from
a trade name) are from African languages. Military and civilian
movement between different parts of the British Empire may account
for terms ultimately from Arabic, which include kaffir “bad; unreliable”
(1934-1961, from the sense “African” 1854—, derogatory) and majat
“poor quality marijuana” (1956-1990).
In South Africa, English is an ethnic heritage as well as an interna-
tional language. The use of national forms of English expresses local
affiliations. For this reason, not only is South African English better
documented than Indian English, by Rhodes University’s Dictionary
Unit for South African English, but its non-standard forms have also
received more attention. Ken Cage’s Gayle: The Language of Kinks

and Queens (2003) is ‘a history and dictionary of gay language in
South Africa’, which places particular emphasis on the freedoms
offered to white gay men by life as an air steward. Among the terms
Cage lists are baby-batter “semen”, harry “a hangover”, ina “to iron”,
nongolozi “a (Zulu) gay man”, optert “to dress up; to make oneself
presentable” (from tart up (1947—, originally UK), with the same
sense), reeva “revolting”, and skesana “a (Zulu) passive partner in
anal sex”. A number of terms found in early British gay slang and
Polari (see Chapter 10) are also found in Cage’s dictionary, including
bona “good; pleasant” (1846—), varda “to look at” (1859—), lally “a
leg” (1962—), and zhoosh (up) “to make more exciting or stylish”
(1977—).
British slang?
Some regions that formed part of the British Empire are still entirely
or partially governed by it. There never has been a body of language
that could meaningfully be described as ‘British slang’. There are
different non-standard forms of English in Wales, Scotland, Northern
Ireland, England, and in their various regions. Books and films, such
as Trainspotting, The Commitments, and The Full Monty, have
brought greater exposure to some of these local terms which some-
times function as slang when they’re more widely adopted, even if
they originated in dialect or colloquialisms.
The last few years have seen the production of several dictionaries
of Irish and Scottish slang, which tend to include colloquialisms
alongside words, phrases, pronunciations, and grammatical construc-
tions characteristic of local or national dialect, in the same way that
early dictionaries of Australian slang did. Most focus on the slang
terms of a single city rather than attempting to present a national
slang, and with that caution in mind, slang terms originating or
chiefly used in Ireland include:
mazard “the head (of a coin)” (1802) snapper “an (unborn) infant” (1959—)
oil “alcohol” (1833-1998) gobdaw “a foolish or pretentious
cod “to kid; to fool” (1859—) person” (a.1966—)
gas “fun; a joke” (1914—) act the maggot “to play the fool; to
stocious “drunk” (1937—) behave stupidly” (1972—)
banjax “to destroy; to wreck” (1939—) nut “to kill” (1974-1992)
culchie “a rustic; a yokel” (1958—)
Slang originating or chiefly used in Scotland includes:

(Glasgow) magistrate “a herring” (1833- Tim “a Roman Catholic; a supporter of
1950) Glasgow Celtic football club” (1958—)
raw “neat whisky” (1844-1967) chib “to stab” (1962—)
scuffer “a policeman” (1860—) lumber “sexual caressing; a casual sexual
ned “a layabout; a hooligan” (1910—) partner” (1966-1987)
chib “a knife used as a weapon” (1929—) minging “stinking; very drunk” (1970—)
buroo “the Labour Exchange” (1933—, malky “a bladed weapon; a razor used
also Ulster) as a weapon” (1973—), “to wound (with
sucky “sore (of a wound)” (1934—) a razor)” (1973—)
lumber “to pick up; to have sex with” numpty “an idiot” (1988—)
(1938-1991) jakey “a homeless drunkard; a wino”
(1988—)
Slang terms originating or chiefly used in Wales include tidy as an

expression of approval (1805—), cutch “a cuddle” (1992—), butt
“mate” (2001, abbreviation of northern English butty, with the same
sense (1837—)), baddy “a minor wound”, badgered “drunk”, and
chopsy “talkative”.
Conclusions
For many English-speaking nations, the standard form remained
(and in some cases remains) Standard British English, though the
influence of American English has grown since WWII. Commenta-
tors on developing national forms often dismiss anything distinc-
tively national as slang, and in reaction against this, lexicographers of
international Englishes are now sometimes reluctant to stigmatize

any distinctively national forms as slang. Other writers, particularly in
Australia, embrace the concept of slang as an act of rebellion against
the standard, and continue to celebrate everything national as slang as
well as to claim everything non-standard as national, even where it’s
more widely used. The picture is further complicated by the tendency
to distinguish between the pure national form (good) and terms
imported from American English (slang). Greater informality, par-
ticularly in Australian English, can make it difficult to draw a line
between slang and colloquial language.
There are important differences between national forms of English
throughout the world, but these don’t necessarily reside primarily in
their slang. The spread of English throughout the world has been a
story of recurring and interrelated influences. We’ve seen that terms
originating in each of these countries have spread to others, but the
idea of national slang remains powerful in people’s minds. If you’re
willing to identify only words that originated in and are restricted to
New Zealand (for example) as ‘New Zealand slang’, you’ll be left with
a relatively small selection of examples. If you applied the same
criteria to British or American slang, you’d be left with similarly
diminished lists. A dictionary of ‘New Zealand slang’ that included
words imported from other parts of the world would be considerably
larger, and more useful for anyone attempting to keep up with
conversational English in New Zealand. The origins and distribution
of slang terms are a secondary consideration for most users of slang
dictionaries.
The influences of national forms upon one another were felt even
when they were dependent upon the movement of people and
printed books, but many of the slang terms found in international
usage are more modern. The remaining chapters will explore the
effect of the media and the Internet on the development and
movement of English slang around the world in the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries.
Endnotes
This chapter had to present rather sweeping accounts of the linguistic situation in
each country, largely based on Robert Burchfield (ed.), The Cambridge History of
the English Language, Vol. 5: English in Britain and Overseas (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1994), though this book offers little information about
slang. The account of Australian English is based on George W. Turner’s chapter
and on Bruce Moore’s Speaking Our Language: The Story of Australian English
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). K. S. D. commented on the distinc-
tiveness of Australian accents in ‘Slang and Accent’, The West Australian, 12
Sept. 1892, 3. Other newspaper articles cited are, in order of appearance: E. E. D.,
‘Of Some Australian Slang’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Oct. 1894, 5; ‘Slang
Teaching in State Schools’, The Argus (Melbourne), by ‘Indignant’ (20 Mar. 1896,
3), ‘A Parent’ (23 Mar. 1896, 6), and ‘Teacher’ (27 Mar. 1896, 6); ‘Bushman’, ‘The
Prevalence of Slang’, The West Australian, 21 Aug. 1897, 6; ‘The Sentimental
Bloke’, The Advertiser (Adelaide), 10 Apr. 1918, 7; ‘Anzac Slang’, The Argus
(Melbourne), 25 Dec. 1915, 4; ‘May Use Native Slang But Professor Bans Amer-
icanisms’, The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), 13 Dec. 1933, 12; P. Ruehl, ‘Dinkum
Slang gets the Gong’, Sunday Herald Sun, 9 Apr. 1995, News, 6; and Rex Jory,
‘Aussie Slang is on the Endangered List Like Animals and Plants Facing Extinc-
tion’, The Advertiser, 10 Aug. 2009, Opinion, 18 (from which I omitted terms I’d
already discussed). The online Australian Slang Dictionary is at Koala Net
<http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html>. Also quoted are James
Hardy Vaux, Memoirs of James Hardy Vaux (London: W. Clowes, 1819) and
H. C. O’Flaherty, Life in Sydney, ed. Richard Fotheringham, Australian Plays for
the Colonial Stage 1834-1899 (Queensland: University of Queensland Press,
2006), I. iii (located through Moore’s book and modernized here). Cornelius
Crowe, Australian Slang Dictionary: Containing the Words and Phrases of the
Thieving Fraternity, Together with the Unauthorised, though Popular Expressions
Now in Vogue with All Classes in Australia (Fitzroy: Barr, 1895), 99; Rolf
Bolderwood [sic], Robbery Under Arms (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1889), Ch. 1;
C. J. Dennis, The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke, reprinted edn (Sydney: Angus &
Robertson, 1915), ‘A Spring Song’; and Sidney J. Baker, A Popular Dictionary of
Australian Slang (Melbourne: Robertson & Mullens, 1941), ‘Foreword’, were also
cited. A. G. Pretty’s Glossary of A.I.F. Slang (typescript, Australian War Memo-
rial) is available online as Amanda Laugesen (ed.), Glossary of Slang and Peculiar
Terms in Use in the A.I.F. 1921–1924 <http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/
aif-slang>.
The section on the development of New Zealand English summarizes infor-
mation from Laurie Bauer’s chapter in Burchfield’s Cambridge History and Donn
Bayard’s ‘New Zealand English: Origins, Relationships, and Prospects’, Moderna
Språk 94/1 (2000), 8–14. New Zealand dictionaries mentioned here are Sidney
J. Baker’s New Zealand Slang: A Dictionary of Colloquialisms (Christchurch:
Whitcombe & Tombs, 1941), H. W. Orsman’s Heinemann New Zealand Dic-

tionary (Auckland: Heinemann, 1979), and H. W. Orsman and Des Hurley’s New
Zealand Slang Dictionary (Auckland: Reed, 1992). The website for potential
New Zealanders is Danny De Hek, New Zealand’s Information Pack <http://
www.nz-immigration.co.nz/lifestyle/slang-words.html>, and most of the exam-
ples quoted in this section are from that site, with additional information from
my main dictionary sources.
Newspaper articles on Canadian slang are, in order of appearance, ‘Editorial
Notes’, Red Deer News, 3 Apr. 1906, 4; E. K. Broadus, ‘Campus English’, The
Gateway, 12 Feb. 1932, 5; and ‘College Colloquialisms are a Mystery’, The
Gateway, 7 Nov. 1939, 2. Also cited in the section on Canadian English are
Donald Wesley Preston, A Survey of Canadian English Slang (University of
Victoria: MA thesis, 1973), i, and Walter S. Avis, A Dictionary of Canadianisms
on Historical Principles (Toronto: Gage, 1967), which is currently being revised.
The sections on other international Englishes are reliant on chapters by Braj
B. Kachru, William Branford, John A. Holm, J. Derrick McClure, Alan
R. Thomas, and Jeffrey L. Kallen in Burchfield’s Cambridge History. Indian
slang terms were located using the Times of India website <http://timesofindia
.indiatimes.com>. The South African Dictionary Unit website is at <http://
www.ru.ac.za/dsae>. Also mentioned are Ken Cage’s Gayle: The Language of
Kinks and Queens (Houghton, SA: Jacana Media, 2003), Roddy Doyle’s The
Commitments (London: King Farouk, 1987), and Irving Welsh’s Trainspotting
(London: Secker & Warburg, 1993). Regional slang was given greater exposure in
films such as Alan Parker’s The Commitments (Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox,
1991), Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting (London: PolyGram, 1996), and Peter Cat-
taneo’s The Full Monty (Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, 1997). Welsh slang terms
are from the Leicester Online Slang Glossary by Lindy Bannon. She found that
many of her terms had their origins in Lancashire dialect, and it is probable that
some of these are also used elsewhere.
10 Top Bananas and
Bunny-boilers:
The Media and
Entertainment
Age
Slang developed in relative isolation in different parts of the
English-speaking world until the end of the nineteenth century, but
we’ve already seen that the isolation was never total. A trickle (and
sometimes a flood) of migrants carried new developments from one
English-speaking country or continent to another, with the tide largely
flowing from the British Isles outwards, at least to begin with. Sailors
and some wealthy travellers went back and forth often, but for most
people exposure to new slang from other parts of the world could only
ever be sporadic. No matter how determined they were to return, for
example, few convicts on board the First Fleet to Botany Bay could have
hoped to raise the money for the eight-month return trip once they’d
completed their sentence. Because travel was time-consuming, expen-
sive, and dangerous, the interchange of national linguistic developments
was limited. By the end of the nineteenth century, ocean-going steam-
ships had shortened long sea journeys, making them safer and cheaper,
and by 1880 the crossing between New York and Liverpool took only 6
days and cost considerably less than it had fifty years before.
Top Bananas and Bunny-boilers 237
For those who looked to Europe for their cultural standards, the
latest British slang term may have seemed smart and fashionable.
However, where new national forms of English began to be valued in
their own right, British slang terms lost this status. In Britain, on the
other hand, colonial terms were quaint curiosities necessitated by
extraordinary conditions or lack of education, seeming ridiculous or
vulgar in a British context. Only among those who valued novelty
over tradition could other nations’ slang make any inroads into
British usage, but these potential slang-adopters would still need to
have been exposed to it in some way.
It’s possible for new words to be transmitted in print, but this
works better for technical or educated language. Slang learnt from
printed sources is likely to remain in an individual’s passive vocabu-
lary (that is, they’ll understand it when they see it, but not use it
themselves) unless a group of people begin to employ it as an allusion
to their shared reading experience. This happens a lot with fancy
literary allusions, which prove how well read and clever we are,
but much less often with non-standard language. Only a very
small number of informal terms derived from popular books entered
conversational usage during this period, even within the United
Kingdom, including gamp “an (untidily tied) umbrella” (1864—),
from Mrs Gamp in Dickens’s Martin Chuzzlewit (1843/4) and Kim’s
game “a memory-testing game” (1908—), from Kipling’s Kim (1901).
If informal terms from such well-read British authors are in short
supply, we shouldn’t expect to see slang terms from other parts of
the English-speaking world being disseminated via the printed
word. It would have been hard work to introduce an American
slang term into everyday speech in nineteenth-century London
when other people didn’t recognize, understand, or feel the need
for it. The adoption of slang terms is promoted by repeated expo-
sure, and this can only be delivered in everyday conversation or by
the mass media.
The press
Newspapers were available long before the twentieth century, and
cheaply too, but they remained relatively formal, with slang generally
used only in the sporting pages and occasionally in court reports.
However, we’ve seen in the last three chapters that anecdotal accounts
of slang usage began to make occasional appearances in newspapers
and magazines in the 1850s, becoming considerably more frequent by
the end of the century. We’ve also seen that prominent individuals’
pronouncements on linguistic progress or decay were reported to
drum up controversy, even when they weren’t actually saying any-
thing particularly original: it would be far more newsworthy if a day
went by during which no one complained about the way young
people talk (though harder to write about).
Articles listing current slang are both controversial and new, and
although this type of exposure to slang might sometimes have played
a part in its wider spread, it’s unlikely that many newspaper readers
adopted new slang from second-hand commentary. We’ve already
seen that the flappers of the 1920s received considerable media
attention, but the successful transmission of flapper slang in print
could only have taken place within tightly knit groups with shared
aspirations: it’s possible that would-be flappers tentatively tried out
the slang they read in newspapers, and just about possible that these
terms found a receptive audience among like-minded friends who’d
read the same article, but the slang of such impressionable confor-
mists could only ever be transient. It’s more usual for writers to mine
articles like these for a convenient shorthand in depicting a stereo-
type. Real flappers would have learnt their slang socially, and it is
unlikely that the slang listed in the papers was used nationally.
Articles like these really just demonstrate that journalists were inter-
ested in language variation, particularly in novelty, and that they
thought their readers would be too. Publishers still cash in on this
19 Slang in comic strips: Richard Felton Outcault, ‘The Yellow Kid Takes a Hand at
Golf ’, New York Journal, 24 Oct. 1897, 8.
interest by filling press releases with new words to be found in the

latest edition of their dictionary.1
Newspapers did include some more promising vehicles for slang,
however. With their colourful depictions of exaggeratedly everyday
characters, comic strips included slang terms from their earliest incep-
tion in the last decade of the nineteenth century. These terms had a
much greater chance of entering daily use than those discussed in
articles: not only were they more immediate, but they were often
used repeatedly. This meant that they could function as in-jokes: as
ways of signalling and testing a shared sense of humour. Some comic
strips were syndicated in newspapers throughout the United States and
further afield, ensuring wide recognition of the terms they included.
For example, Mutt and Jeff “a comically mismatched pair” (1917—),
1
While I was putting the finishing touches to this book, the OED issued a press
release about new additions, including FYI “for your information” (1941—, originally
US), muffin top “a roll of flesh above a waistband” (2003—), LOL, and OMG. The
discussion that trended on Twitter expressed the following attitudes: a) about time
too, b) now students can’t be criticized for using them in their essays, and c) this is
the end of the world. The list of words falsely alleged to have been added is growing
before my eyes.
“a good cop/bad cop team” (1940—), or “deaf” (a.1945—, rhyming

slang) first featured in a comic strip of the same name by Harry Conway
(‘Bud’) Fisher in 1907. Ham Fisher’s Joe Palooka strip, appearing in
newspapers from 1930, depicted an inept prizefighter of that name.
Palooka was already established with the meaning “a clumsy or stupid
person” (1920—), but the term’s reach was undoubtedly extended by
its daily exposure, and it came to refer specifically to a clumsy fighter.
Popeye appeared first in E. C. Segar’s Thimble Theatre in 1929, and
terms associated with him were reinforced by their use in cartoons for
cinema and television, and by later incarnations in film and computer
games. These included arf arf as a representation of laughter (1931—)
and jeep “a small four-wheeled vehicle, as used in the army” (1941—).
Although Segar didn’t originate wimp “a weakling; an indecisive per-
son” (1911—), Wellington Wimpey contributed to its spread, also
inspiring Wimpy “(a proprietary name for) a hamburger” (1935—)
and “a Wellington bomber plane” (1942—, historical in later use). Al
Capp (Alfred Caplin)’s Li’l Abner strip was syndicated in hundreds of
American and Canadian newspapers from the 1930s, introducing terms
such as Sadie Hawkins Day “a day on which gender roles are reversed”
(1938—), Dogpatch “an unsophisticated rural community” (1951—),
and skunk works “(the location of) a group working on a secret project”
(1962—). Capp was also responsible for introducing (double) whammy
“an evil influence or hex; an intense look; something effective, upsetting,
etc.” (1939—).2 Other comic strips introduced malarkey “humbug,
nonsense; a racket; a palaver” (1924—), milquetoast “a timid
or ineffectual person” (1932—), sad sack “an inept or foolish person; a
social misfit” (1943—), dragon lady “a domineering or powerful
woman” (1949—), and security blanket “a blanket or other object
2
This is a current favourite among British politicians and journalists, with the
sense “a misfortune; a setback; a disadvantage”. The triple whammy is now common-
place, and newspaper searches also threw up a few examples of the quadruple or
quintuple whammy. Further inflation may be countered by the attention span
required to encompass lumbering multiple whammies (this non-specific plural also
occurs in British newspapers).
providing comfort through familiarity” (1971—). For some users, these

terms may still function as in-jokes, but many others will be entirely
unaware of their origins. These terms became living slang by frequent
reuse, and some have passed into general usage.
From newspaper comic strips grew comic books, dominated by
action heroes, and from these it was often the names of characters
that reached wider allusive use. For example, brainiac meaning “very
intelligent” (1976—) or “a very intelligent person” (1982—) origi-
nated in the name of Superman’s extraterrestrial enemy, though it
was also (and earlier) the name of a self-assembly computer kit. Not
yet listed in the OED are wonder woman “a successful woman,
especially one who multitasks effectively” (since at least 1951—)
and kryptonite “an Achilles’ heel; a thing or person causing aversion”
(since at least 1968—). With endearing hyperbole, my sons call any
child with whom they have a minor disagreement at school their
arch-enemy “a rival; a threat” (since at least 1975—).3
Parodies of the speech of ethnic groups were found in newspapers
on both sides of the Atlantic. For example, Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr
Dooley, an Irish-American bartender, commented on current affairs
in the Chicago Evening Post from 1893 to 1926. In this extract, he
compares the Prime Minister of Spain to a card sharp:
“I’ll explain it to ye,” said Mr. Dooley. “ ’ Tis this way. Ye see, this here Sagasta
is a boonco steerer like Canada Bill, an’ th’ likes iv him. A smart man is this
Sagasta, an’ wan that can put a crimp in th’ ca-ards that ye cudden’t take out
with a washerwoman’s wringer. He’s been through many a ha-ard game.
Talk about th’ County Dimocracy picnic, where a three ca-ard man goes in
debt ivry time he hurls th’ broads, ’tis nawthin’ to what this here Spanish
onion has been against an’ beat.”
Representations of non-standard pronunciation and grammar aside,

we do see some informal terms in this brief extract: bunco-steerer “a
3
These dates are from Nexis newspaper searches. There are probably earlier
examples elsewhere.
confidence man” (1875—, US slang), put a crimp in “to interfere

with” (1889—, US colloq), three card man “a card sharp” (1854—,
originally US), and broads “playing cards” (1753-1962, originally
UK). Hurl “to play cards” may be related to throw “to discard a
card” (1879—).
Newspapers gradually began to use more informal language during
the course of the twentieth century, particularly in short stories and in
sports, lifestyle, and opinion columns. O. Henry, Damon Runyon,
and Ring Lardner were some of the earliest American journalists to
develop their own distinctively slangy idioms in the early decades of
the twentieth century. In the meantime, newspaper workers were
developing their own professional slang, some of which they trans-
mitted to their readers. For example, American newspapers gave rise
to dogwatch “(the staff on) the night shift” (1901—), POTUS “the
President of the United States” (1903—), Fortean “relating to para-
normal phenomena” (1932—, from Charles Fort, journalist of the
paranormal), Dorothy Dix “a question designed to elicit a prepared
answer” (1941—, Australian, from an American question-and-
answer columnist), funnies “comic strips” (1852—), sob sister “a
female sentimental journalist” (1912—), and deadline “the time by
which something (originally text for publication) has to be ready”
(1920—). British journalists are responsible for hatches, matches,
and dispatches “births, marriages, and deaths” (1878—), abominable
snowman “yeti” (1921—), lonely heart “a single person seeking love”
(1931—), and bonk-buster “a best-selling sexually explicit book”
(1988—). Maffick “to celebrate uproariously” (1900—) is a humorous
journalistic back-formation from Mafeking (now Mafikeng), a British
garrison relieved from besiegement during the Boer War.
Amateur newspapers also documented slang usage in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, usually for the benefit of
slang-users. During WWI, with looser censorship than in WWII,
British soldiers ran off numerous issues of what are now known as
trench journals. They commented on many aspects of their daily
lives, and sometimes provided glossaries of current slang terms,

which included:
gubbins “an explosive shell” (OED: “fish parings; swing the lead “to malinger;
anything of little value; a gadget; cables” (1553—)) to fake illness” (1917—)
joyride “a pleasure trip (in a stolen car)” (1908—) zoom “to fly fast” (1917—)
joystick “the control lever of an aeroplane or wangle “to acquire by
computer game” (1910—) dubious means” (1918—)
gasper “a cigarette” (1914—) salvage “to acquire by
spikebozzle “to destroy completely” (1915-1962) dubious means” (1918—)
buckshee “free” (1916—)
Student newspapers also began to comment on current slang usage at

about this time. Articles published in the Columbia Jester largely gave
comic definitions, such as naughty “but nice”, nightgown “hey! hey!”,
loan “a gift”, and neckerchief “what the boys cried when they found
the chief of police in Lonesome Lill’s cell”, but a few slang terms are
defined, and others are implied, including:
juice “alcohol” (1387—, slang in later use) frosh “a college freshman; a first-year
kick-off “a beginning” (1875—, in sport student” (1915—)
since 1857) heavy “intense (of a date or
keen “good” (1914—, now dated) relationship)” (1928—)
In these publications by soldiers and students, the writers and

intended readers belonged to the same group. The slang they listed
would have been reinforced in daily conversation, but the printed
explanations might well have contributed to their spread.
The music hall, vaudeville, and the theatre

At the end of the nineteenth century, London’s masses were being
entertained in grandly decorated music halls, where they saw variety
performances that reflected their way of life and commented on
current affairs. The music-hall experience was infused with rebellious
frisson: men dressed as women, women wore revealing clothes or

dressed as men, and performers satirized the behaviour of the gov-
ernment, the upper classes, and the police. Audiences participated by
shouting out catchphrases and singing along with choruses. Music-
hall circuits throughout the country ensured that acts were known
nationally, and informal terms derived from music-hall songs include
cure “an eccentric person” (1856–1971, popularized by a music-hall
song with the chorus ‘The cure, the cure, the perfect cure’), jingoism
“unthinking and belligerent patriotism” (1878—, from a patriotic
chorus including the words by jingo “by Jove” (1694—)), and possibly
hooligan “a street rough” (1898—, from a music-hall song depicting a
rowdy Irish family of that name). Tich (now often <titch>) “a small
person” (1934—) is derived from a stage name of the diminutive
performer Harry Relph.4 Harry Tate “characterized by disorganiza-
tion; late (by rhyming slang)” (1925-1935) is from R. M. Hutchison’s
comedic persona. Fred Karno’s Army was the name of a troupe of
British slapstick comedians (including Charlie Chaplain and Stan
Laurel), used with the sense “a group of disorganized or incompetent
people” (1933—).
Music-hall workers largely adopted existing theatrical slang in their
own usage, and they undoubtedly helped some of these terms to enter
into wider currency. Terms that originated as theatrical or music-hall
slang include star “a popular performer” (1824—), prop “an article
used on stage” (1841—), make-up “a disguise; costume and cosmetics
adopted for a performance” (1852—), pro “a professional (performer)”
(1856—), wheeze “an impromptu joke” (1864—), barnstorm “to tour
4
The name implied that he was another ludicrous claimant of the Tichborne title
and fortune. Roger Tichborne, son of the 9th Baronet, was lost at sea in 1854. His
heart-broken mother refused to accept that he was dead, and in response to her
repeated requests for further information, a London-born Australian butcher named
Arthur Orton presented himself as the missing man. Lady Tichborne accepted the
imposter as her son but Roger’s nephew, who had inherited the title, was less willing to
be convinced. After a civil and then a criminal case, Orton was sentenced to fourteen
years hard labour in 1874.
rural districts with performances designed to appeal to unsophisti-

cated audiences” (1883—), and wing (it) “to undertake a performance,
or any other activity, without the necessary preparation” (1885—).
At about the same period, vaudeville shows were fulfilling similar
functions in the United States. In what was still a more rural
economy, vaudevillians would have reached a smaller proportion
of the population than British music-hall stars, but their appeal was
broader, in that comedians, singers, acrobats, dancers, and actors
combined to present shows that were intended to be suitable for
reasonably respectable families. Circuits across various cities
increased the stars’ exposure and kept audiences entertained with
ever-changing novelty. General theatrical slang was also used by
these performers, but new vaudevillian terms included flop “a fail-
ure; a person or enterprise that is a failure” (1893—), headliner “the
first and most popular act listed in a bill” (1896—), jazzbo “slap-
stick” (1914—), mammy song “a sentimental song” (1923—),
straight man “a comedian’s stooge” (1923—), and single act “a
solo performance or performer” (1952—). Some vaudevillian slang
leaked into more general usage, often in figurative meanings,
including:
hamfatter “a bad actor” (1880-1966) small-timer “an insignificant person”

ham “a bad actor” (1882—) (1931—), with reference to a second-
song and dance “a rigmarole; a fuss” rate vaudeville theatre or act since
(1895—), with literal reference to an act 1910
since 1872 stooge “a subordinate; a lackey”
can “to put a stop to” (1906—) (1934—), with reference to an on-stage
grand “a thousand dollars (or pounds)” subordinate since 1913
(1909—) top banana “the leader in any field”
hokum “nonsense” (1926—), with (1974—), with reference to the highest-
reference to onstage nonsense since ranking comedian in an act or troupe
1908 since 1953
Many music-hall and vaudeville acts used local speech to create vivid
and amusing characters, exposing national audiences to restricted or
local slang. By 1910 it seems that rhyming slang owed as much to
music halls as to working-class usage, and the Penny Illustrated Paper
depicted an actor travelling between engagements:
He may then partake of two hard-boiled “borrows” (“borrow and beg” –

egg), explaining to his fellow-travellers that he had no breakfast, as the
“New York Nippers” were burnt up to a “Bertha Winder”, and that the
“treacle” (“treacle toffee” – coffee) was stone “Harry” (“Harry Gold” – cold).
The limit is perhaps reached when he orders a cup of tea during the
journey. “Cup of Harrigan”, he says. “Harrigan?” asks the barmaid; “what’s
Harrigan?” “Why, Harrigan—that’s me.”
Although several of these unusual rhyming slang terms are found in

dictionaries, I haven’t been able to find any examples of genuine use.
The identities of the original Bertha Winder and Harry Gold remain
unclear, if any such originals existed.5 Like Harrigan (me) as a rhyme
for tea, these terms were probably rarely (if ever) used. Their purpose
in this context, as in many stage renditions of slang, is to amuse by
exaggerating a stereotype.
Audiences in the United States were also enjoying performances
involving parodies of local or ethnic speech styles. Bert Little (d.1933),
for example, enjoyed great success as Hogan, a bartender from New
York’s disreputable Bowery area. A newspaper interview includes a
boxed section entitled ‘Bert Translates Himself ’, in which he de-
scribes his first encounter with the Hyde theatre ‘speciality company’.
The Standard English version is headed straight “straightforward;
honest” (1894—, colloquial) or “the truth” (1866—, US); Bert’s own
language is headed dope “(inside) information” (1899—):
Straight: That was something which, of course, I must see. They opened at a
matinee and the place was the Olympic theatre. I didn’t dare to tell the family of my
5
The jazz saxophonist and the Soviet spy called Harry Gold were both born too
late to have inspired this term.
plans, but on the morning of the eventful day I took my lunch as usual in my little
basket and started ostensibly for the shop, but in reality for the water front, where
I idled the forenoon away in anticipation of the afternoon treat that was coming.
Dope: Then the bug fever stole softly to me brain patch and de merry ticker
of de grand old heart worked overtime and when I stole softly from me
pillows in de morning de Mountebanks arrived I began to oil up me thinking
cogs and saying boldly to de party of de first part “I will not go forth on de
long path that leads to de print shop. Nay! nay! bold foreman. I must hike to
de Hyde Speciality company where me favrites will hold visiting day that we
must pay for catching them at their stunts.” I started for work at 6 o’clock in de
top end of de day with my lunch pinned securely under me arm.
As in the representations of non-standard speech we’ve already seen,

the indications of pronunciation (de for the; favrites for favourites)
and non-standard grammatical features (me for my) outnumber the
slang terms. Nevertheless, the dope does employ terms that were slang
at the time, including stunt “a dangerous feat; a gimmick” (1878—)
and catch “to watch; to listen to” (1906—). Bug fever, which isn’t in
the OED, can be understood as a combination of bug “an enthusiast;
an enthusiasm” (1841—, originally US) and fever “a state of nervous
excitement” (1586—). Hike “to go for a long walk (in the country-
side)” (1809—, colloquial, originally dialect and US) may have
seemed slangy in this context. The interviewer remarked, with some
surprise, that Little was well dressed and well educated in real life:
He says his gift of slang is due to imagination. He thinks it out carefully and
then “springs” it as though it were spontaneous.
The extract uses a number of vivid metaphors that aren’t documented

in dictionaries. Little may, therefore, have invented brain patch
“brain” (not found elsewhere with this sense), (thinking) cogs
“(the workings of) the brain” (1910—), and top end of the day “first
thing in the morning” (1910—), or it may be that he was reflecting
spoken usage. Perhaps he should also be given credit for coining
ticker “the heartbeat; a heart”, because this example antedates the
OED’s (1930—) first citation by twenty years.
Formal theatre also played a role in the dissemination of slang in

this period, particularly among wealthier people, and it’s likely that
playwrights reworked one another’s slang in depicting similar types.
Improvements in transatlantic travel meant that audiences began to
be exposed to modern plays by travelling companies from the oppo-
site side of the pond “the Atlantic; any ocean” (1612—). In these
countries divided by a common language, minor differences have
long occupied a borderland between fascination and irritation. In
1900, Lillie Langtry starred in an American tour of a British play
called The Degenerates. Her talent had ‘never been a matter of much
moment’, but audiences flocked to see the erstwhile mistress of the
Prince of Wales in the flesh. The Chicago Daily Tribune promoted the
play by publishing a glossary of fashionable London slang lifted from
a British newspaper, including nightie “a nightgown” (1871—, now
colloquial), deevy “divine; charming” (1900-1942), frillikies “frills”
(frillies has been used with reference to women’s clothing, and partic-
ularly underwear, 1900—), mackie “mackintosh: a waterproof coat”
(mac has been used with the same sense, 1901—), twee “sweet;
dainty” (1905—), and pyjies “pyjamas” (this spelling is still sometimes
used, but PJs (1930—) is now more common). In 1909, two plays in
New York gave a theatre critic an opportunity to compare the slang of
London and New York, with satisfying patriotically results:
American wins in this case as she did at Bunker Hill . . . American slang is
metaphor. London slang is artificially contrived and based on rhyme . . .
‘American slang is much more picturesque, I think, and is developed out of
the imagination of the unlettered. They are hidden poets, these fellows who
invent slang.’ [quoting Dallas Welford, a Scottish actor]
Commentators comparing British and American slang in this period,

whatever their origins, often observed that while American slang
enabled clear and vivid expression, British slang (particularly rhym-
ing slang) obscured meaning.
Newspapers reported in 1928 that British audiences of the

American comedy Is Zat So? were given glossaries of slang to help
them understand it. Terms listed included:
ride “to tease; to criticize” (1891—) wisecrack “a witty remark; a joke” (1911—)
hooch “poor quality whisky” (1897—) broad “a woman” (1913—)
aces “perfect” (1901—) stall “to loiter; to kill time” (1916—)
goof “a fool” (1902—) apple sauce “nonsense” (1925—, now
wise up “to learn; to inform” (1905—) dated)
Other terms in the glossary were also in use in Britain, but perhaps
not in the circles frequented by London’s theatre-goers, including mill
“a prize fight” (1812-1996, boxing slang) and shut-eye “sleep” (1899—,
originally army slang).
The cinema
The cinema was also to have a dramatic effect on the development
and dissemination of slang. Film-makers adopted and adapted terms
to describe aspects of their new industry, and many of these acquired
extended meanings in slang and colloquial usage, including fade out
“departure; death” (1933—), from the sense “the gradual disappear-
ance of a picture” (1918—), pan “to scan with the eyes” (1968—),
from the sense “to take a panoramic shot (of)” (1913—), and big
picture “a broad overview” (1935—), from the sense “the main film in
a programme; a major film” (1913—). A few informal terms origi-
nated in specific films, such as the usual suspects “people habitually
suspected of having committed a crime” (1942—) from Casablanca
(1942), and gaslight “to manipulate someone into believing they are
insane” (1969—) from the 1944 film of the same name. In more
general slang, the cinema is responsible for valentino “a gigolo”
(1927–1974, with reference to the screen idol Rudolph Valentino),
It girl “a glamorous female celebrity” (1927—, originally referring to
Clara Bow, star of the 1927 film It, revived in Britain in the 1990s),
and bogart “to take more than one’s share of a joint” (1967—, with
reference to Humphrey Bogart’s deep drags upon more conventional
cigarettes). Film characters featuring in slang include Keystone (cops)
“slapstick; comically incompetent” (1913—, from the bumbling
policemen featuring in Keystone productions since only the previous
year) and Mickey Mouse “ineffectual; insignificant; second-rate; easy”
(1931—, relatively soon after his 1928 debut). The Wizard of Oz
(1939) acquired recognition in friend of Dorothy “a homosexual
man” (1972—) and munchkin “a small and endearing person, espe-
cially a child” (1976—). The Watergate informant, Deep Throat,
took his code name from the title of a pornographic film of 1972,
and deep throat has come to mean “a provider of inside information”
more generally (1974—). Rambo “a tough and aggressive man”
(1985—) is from the Vietnam vet played by Sylvester Stallone
in First Blood (1982), and three sequels so far. Glenn Close was
the original bunny-boiler “a woman obsessed with a lover who
has spurned her” (1990—, British slang), in Fatal Attraction (1987).
The Austen Powers films originated shagadelic “sexy; excellent”
(1997—) and popularized mini-me “a smaller version of oneself,
specifically one’s child” (1996—) as well as revitalizing some genuine
1960s slang.
Slang terms with cinematic origins are relatively few in number,
but cinema has played a central role in disseminating slang already in
use. Slang used in films received considerable journalistic attention
even when it was restricted to the written captions of silent movies
(see p. 5). In 1913, the Boston Daily Globe reported that a British
newspaper had provided a list of American slang to aid cinema-goers.
These included mutt “a fool” (1900—), boob “a fool” (1909—, derived
from British dialect and colloquial booby, used with the same sense
since 1599), and junk “worthless goods or possessions” (1842—, from
a nautical term meaning “an old or inferior cable”, first recorded in
1485). In the same year, The Daily Mail complained that American
slang heard in the cinema was encouraging British youths towards
‘mental indiscipline’ in their choice of vocabulary. A journalist in
the Melbourne Argus (1918) identified two-fisted “ambidextrous;

aggressive (of a fighter)” (1878—), tenderloin “a red-light district”
(1887—), and highball “a drink of whisky and soda” (1898—) as
examples of American slang encountered by uncomprehending Aus-
tralian audiences. In 1932, an article in The Sydney Morning Herald
remarked that:
Perhaps, the most distressing feature of this invasion of Australia by

American slang is the deleterious effect it is producing upon not only the
speech, but also upon the morals of the younger generation. The mind
of a child is a singularly receptive organ, and constant repetition is not
needed for it to assimilate quickly these American vulgarisms
This writer objected to Australians using ok to express agreement

(1839—), oh yeah to express incredulity (1927—), I’ll be seeing you
(1937—), and the terms of address baby (1898—), kid (1917—), and
big boy (1918—).
Because films usually represent unusual situations (real life being
rather dull in comparison), and because characterization often relies
on stereotype, cinema contributed towards a sense that there were
clear differences between national slangs. In 1929, Film Daily
provided a glossary of terms used in an early talkie called Fast Life,
starring Douglas Fairbanks Junior. The glossary was compiled from
an earlier American dictionary, and included many terms originating
in the United States:
jug “a bank” (1845—, from the earlier con “a convict” (1893—)

sense “a jail”, first recorded in 1815) gat “a gun” (1904—)
heeled “armed” (1852—, now historical) hijacker “one who commandeers a
con “one who talks fluently and vehicle (carrying bootleg liquor)”
dishonestly; dishonest talk” (1889—) (1923—)
It also included several terms from British criminal slang: uncle

“a pawnbroker” (1756—), benjamin “an overcoat” (1781–1909), turnip
“a gold watch” (1823-1970), and grease “money given as a bribe;
protection money” (1823—). British audiences who’d never had to
grease an uncle must have assumed that these were all American
innovations.
The dominance of American cinema soon meant that reviewers and
audiences around the world became familiar enough with American
slang that it no longer seemed worthy of comment, while slang from
other parts of the English-speaking world remained unacceptable
to American audiences. For example, the American distributors of
Crocodile Dundee (1986) cut out Australian terms such as the collo-
quial stickybeak “an inquisitive person” (1920—) and standard billa-
bong “a backwater or stagnant pool” (1865—), after negative feedback
from test screenings in the United States. As we’ve already seen, the
1990s saw an interesting turnaround, when films such as The Full
Monty and Trainspotting employed contemporary slang in their reve-
lations of a grittier side of British life. One journalist commented:
Trouble is, don’t you know, Brits are just so good with words. Even their
slang sounds so bloody refined. See! See how insidious it is!
British slang terms noted in this article include knock up “to wake up
(by knocking)” (1603—),6 shag “to have sex (with)” (1786—), and
telly “television” (1942—, now colloquial). I haven’t found many
examples of bell (up) “to telephone” (2005—), though give someone
a bell “to telephone” (1933—) is common. At a loss for other exam-
ples of British slang, this writer falls back on rhyming slang terms like
skyrocket “pocket” (1879—) and whistle and flute “suit” (1930—),
along with nicknames like Chalky White and Dusty Miller in use in
the armed forces during (and perhaps also before) WWI.
Slang and realism

Popular magazines offered the promise of easy money for writers of
fiction in the early twentieth century, and enterprising publishers put
6
The sense “to make a woman pregnant; to have sex with a woman” (1813—)
originated in the United States, but is also current in Britain.
together lists of slang terms used in particular settings and profes-

sions, promising that these would help aspiring writers to create a
sense of authority and authenticity not provided by their own life
experiences. National differences in slang created particular problems
for writers trying to represent the speech of other nationalities. In
1929, Variety published a glossary of British slang, including tar “a
sailor” (1676—, now historical), rag “to tease” (1749—), clear out “to
go away” (1823—), bad egg “a person or plan destined to disappoint”
(1855—), bad hat “a scoundrel” (1876—), and tec “a detective”
(1879—). Like similar articles published today, this one assumes
that a term used by one British speaker is used by all, and conflates
various types of slang that are unlikely to have been used by the same
individual. Variety’s glossary of ‘English Underworld Slang’ (1931)
was probably intended as an aid to scriptwriters attempting to repre-
sent British villainy. It included many long-established terms, includ-
ing spark “a diamond” (1599–1924), poof “an effeminate man; a
homosexual” (1833—), and drum “a house; a residence; a drinking
den; a brothel” (1846—). Names for various sums of money were also
explained, including pony “£25” (1797—), monkey “£500” (1827—),
tenner “£10; a ten-pound note” (1845—), and nicker “a pound (note)”
(1871—). Screenplays based on this list might have convinced Amer-
ican audiences or upper- and middle-class British audiences, but they
would be unlikely to have represented realistic speech.
Aspiring writers were also offered help with specialized American
slang. In 1916, The Editor magazine offered writers a list of ‘Tramp
Jargon’, including:
scoff “to eat” (1798—, originally British) bull “a uniformed policeman” (1893—)
moniker “a (false) name” (1851—, soup “nitroglycerine” (1902–1970)
originally British or Australian) flop “to sleep” (1907—)
kettle “a watch” (1865-1981, originally flop “sleep” (1916–1925), now more
British) usually “a place to sleep” (1910—)
punk “bread” (1891-1991)
Presumably this glossary was a hit with The Editor’s readers, because
in 1917 a further list of terms used by America’s homeless was
published, by Patrick Casey. It too lists terms originating in Britain,
including office “a warning; a signal”, which we’ve already seen, and
screw “a turnkey; a prison officer” (1812—). Terms originating in the
United States include:
slope “to leave; to run away” (1830—) prushun “a boy travelling with a
squeal “to inform” (1846—) tramp” (1893—, now historical)
stool “an informer” (1859—) bughouse “crazy” (1895—)
crook “a professional criminal” (1879—) mug “to photograph for the
yap “a fool; an unsophisticated person” purpose of identification”
(1890–1977) (1899–1990)
jocker “an older tramp who travels with a dick “a detective” (1908—)
boy; a predatory homosexual” (1893—)
Randolph Jordan offered a similar service to aspiring writers in

an article in Writer’s Monthly magazine in 1925. He suggested
that depictions of hobo life should be sprinkled with terms like
oiled “drunk” (1701—), fall guy “a scapegoat” (1983—), jack
“money” (1890—), ice “diamonds” (1896—), Mary Ann “marijuana”
(1916-1971), frame “to implicate in a crime” (1919—), and needle
artist “an injecting drug-user” (1925+1990).
In 1932, aspiring writers who read The Editor were offered
an opportunity to add ‘underworld lingo’ to their repertoire. This
glossary included plenty of terms that were well established in use,
such as:
on the make “seeking personal gain” (1863—) apple-knocker “a baseball player; a

hood “hoodlum: a petty gangster” (1880—) yokel; a fool” (1902—)
lam “to flee” (1886—) rap “an accusation; a criminal
lug “a big stupid man; a hanger-on” (1887—) charge” (1903—)
rock “a diamond” (1888—) cluck “a fool” (1904—)
glom “to steal” (1897—) cannon “a pickpocket” (1910—)
chisel(l)er “a petty thief” (1918—)
Newer terms in the list include bug “a burglar alarm” (1925–1955),

pay-off “protection money; a bribe” (1928—), scram “to depart quickly”
(1928—), finger “to accuse; to inform against” (1930—), and in the
doghouse “in trouble; out of favour” (1931—). Some of these lists may
have been compiled from crime stories and films, further perpetuating
stereotypes.
In part through their prominence in films, American gangsters
also received a great deal of attention in newspapers. In 1930, the
American Mercury published a glossary of the slang used by racke-
teers, including plant “a hiding place for stolen or illegal goods”
(1785—, originally British), roscoe “a handgun” (1914—, later, and
less frequently, John Roscoe), and heat “pressure; police attention”
(1925—). Tommy “a machine gun” (1931—) is short for Tommy gun
(1929—), derived from the name of the general after whom it was
originally named a Thompson (1920—). McCoy “genuine” (1928-
1996) is also listed, from the more common phrase the real McCoy
“the genuine article” (1856—), whose etymology is still much
debated. In 1931, the Saturday Review of Literature included a glos-
sary of ‘New Words’ used by racketeers, including college “jail” (1620-
1990, originally British), yen “a desire for anything” (1906—, from the
earlier sense “a craving for opium” (1876-1974), probably from
Cantonese), and creep joint “a gambling joint that moves nightly;
any disreputable establishment” (1921—). The Associated Press
issued a ‘Dispatch from Chicago’ in 1932, listing the latest terms
used by gunmen in the city, which included troops “a criminal
gang” (1932—), gunsel “a stupid or untrustworthy person” (1932—,
derived from the sense “a naive youth; a homosexual” (1912—)), and
(big) wheel “a big shot; the leader of a criminal gang” (1932—). Cross-
fertilization between the various accounts and representations of
criminal language from the media and entertainment industries
probably also influenced the development of criminal language itself,
in that many of those who aspired to a life of crime would, initially at
least, have copied the language used by their fictional heroes.
The radio
When radio broadcasting began in earnest after WWI, it need hardly
be said that the BBC used Standard English, but within a few decades
light entertainment was beginning to expose listeners to various types
of non-standard language, and entertainers’ catchphrases began to be
repeated in the same way that music-hall performers’ catchphrases
had been: to signal a shared sense of humour and create group
identity. Tommy Handley’s show It’s That Man Again (later ITMA)
began broadcasting topical entertainment shortly before the outbreak
of WWII, alluding in its title both to the German Chancellor, who
seemed to be constantly in the news, and to the burgeoning use of
acronyms and initialisms. Catchphrases like I don’t mind if I do, ta-ta
for now, and Can I do you now, sir? enabled listeners to bond with one
another by signalling their enjoyment of the programme’s irreverent
humour. Variety shows, such as Workers’ Playtime and Variety
Bandbox, brought numerous other music-hall catchphrases to the
public’s attention, such as how’s your father and Can you hear me
mother?, to a considerably wider audience. The Goon Show intro-
duced (or popularized) the fictitious diseases the dreaded lurgy
(1947—) and the nadger plague or nadgers (1956—), from which
the sense “a testicle” (1967—) developed.
British radio also preserved one form of slang that might otherwise
have fallen from use altogether. Polari, a semi-secret language used by
travelling entertainers and actors, borrowed words from Romany,
Italian, Spanish, and back slang. While homosexuality was illegal in
Britain, and particularly during the post-war period when laws were
enforced with particular rigour, Polari was used among gay men as a
way of signalling and cementing their gay self-image. In the 1960s, a
radio programme called Round the Horne combined Polari with
innuendo and a camp style of delivery to deliver deliberately ambigu-
ous comedy. In ‘Body Bona’, a sketch based in a gym, Julian (Hugh
Paddick) describes his physical transformation to Kenneth Horne
(who plays himself), prompted by Sandy (Kenneth Williams), using

varda “to look” and lally “leg”, which we’ve already seen:
J: I used to be a puny little omi. I had lallies like a flamingo – and narrow
shoulders.
S: Yes. He had to cross his braces to keep his trousers up.
J: And a little pale eek, and lifeless riah.
S: He was like a wallflower Mr Horne.
KH: That wasn’t the flower that came to mind.
S: A wallflower he was. Now he’s a hardy annual aren’t you Jule?
J: Thanks to Sand and his method. He showed me his dynamic tension and
overnight I became the great butch omi you vada now.
omee “a man; a landlord” (1859—, pansy “a homosexual or effeminate

Polari) man” (1926—) [implied]
eek or ecaf “a face” (1962—, back slang) butch “overtly masculine” (1941—)
riah “hair” (1962—, back slang)
Listeners’ understanding of these sketches would have varied dramat-

ically depending on their ability to pick up on the subtext. Julian and
Sandy are described as out-of-work actors, and their extravagant
speech and camp intonation might have sound merely theatrical to
less alert members of the audience. Others, perhaps in the same room,
would have understood and relished the coded humour. Round the
Horne also offers the earliest OED citation for naff “unfashionable;
vulgar; lacking in style” (1966—). The origins of rumpo “sexual
intercourse” (1986—) may lie in Round the Horne’s Rambling Syd
Rumpo, a singer of nonsensical innuendo.
With less regulation of the airwaves in the United States, commer-
cial stations were freer to make use of non-standard language
where it helped listener figures. By the 1950s, individual DJs
were developing distinctive speech styles to attract specific target
audiences. In 1956, Hy Lit’s Rock ’en Roll Kingdom show would
begin something like this:
Calling all my beats, beards, Buddhist cats, big time spenders, money
lenders, tea totallers [sic], elbow benders, hog callers, home run hitters,
finger poppin’ daddy’s [sic], and cool baby sitters. For all my carrot tops,
lollipops, and extremely delicate gum drops. It’s Hyski ’O Roonie McVouti
’O Zoot calling, up town, down town, cross town. Here there, everywhere.
Your man with the plan, on the scene with the record machine.
The immediacy, informality, and intimacy of radio, and its appeal to

tightly defined groups made it an extremely effective medium for the
transmission of slang. Its role was largely one of dissemination rather
than creation, however. Lit shows himself to be up to date and in the
know (for a white man), by using Vout,7 playful rhyme, and slang,
including some terms discussed above:
beat “a beatnik” (1955—) daddy “a man” (1926—)

beard “a person with a beard” (1928—) or babysitter “a childminder” (1937—)
possibly “a betting go-between” (1953—) carrot top “a red-haired person”
big time “notable; famous” (1913—) (1889—)
elbow-bender “a heavy drinker” (1942—) lollipop ?”an attractive woman” (1860-
hog-caller “a person who shouts or 1985)
complains loudly” (1889—) gumdrop ?”a sweetheart” (1896+1901),
finger-popping “finger-snapping (in time but its real purpose is the rhyme
with music)” (1955—) -ski [as a suffix] (1902—)
Although Lit’s listeners were at many removes from the origins of

these terms, they could also acquire coolness by copying his slang.
British pirate radio stations and (from 1967) Radio One played a
similar role in disseminating youth slang within and around the
records they played. Radio continued to have a disproportionate
influence on the language of young people as long as televisions
were restricted to living rooms and viewing remained a family activ-
ity. With the advent of cheap and portable transistor radios in the
7
Vout is a form of wordplay invented by Slim Gaillard, a jazz musician and singer.
Lit adopts its characteristic addition of -oroonee (though Gaillard seems to have
preferred -oreenee) and -vouti.
1960s, young people could listen to programmes targeting their own

age group wherever they were. Crucially, listening to the radio could
be a social activity, overlapping with and feeding into everyday
conversation. These circumstances were particularly favourable to
the adoption of new slang.
Television
The 1930s saw the establishment of television broadcasting on
a limited basis, with domestic sets becoming more affordable
in the decades after WWII. By the end of the 1960s, homes without
a television set were in a minority in both Britain and the United
States. Words introduced by American television shows include
cowabunga “yippee” (1954—, from the Howdy Doody show, but
further popularized by The Simpsons), bippy “buttocks” (1968—,
from Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In), gomer “a difficult elderly patient”
(1972—, from The Andy Griffith Show), muppet “an idiot” (1989—),
dibble “a policeman; the police” (1989—, from Top Cat), and scooby
(-doo) “a clue” (1993—, by rhyming slang). The last three, although
originating in American programmes, are originally and chiefly
British. American programmes also popularized not! to highlight
the sarcasm of a previous statement (1888—, Saturday Night Live
and Wayne’s World), doh in recognition of one’s own stupidity
(1945—, The Simpsons), and noogie(s) “a poke or grind with the
knuckles” (1968—, Saturday Night Live).
Informal terms from British television shows include nudge nudge
(wink wink) used to imply sexual innuendo (1969—, from Monty
Python’s Flying Circus), plonker “an idiot” (1966—, popularized by
Only Fools and Horses), tardis “anything apparently bigger on the
inside than the outside” (1985—, from Doctor Who), lovely jubbly
“excellent” (1989—, from Only Fools and Horses), wibble “to talk
nonsense” (1994—, from Blackadder), and spam “unsolicited mass
emails” (1994—, inspired by a Monty Python sketch). The last two
both appear to have arisen among computer users, who we’ll return to
20 Slang on television: Robertson Royston, ‘EastEnders Canteen’.
in the next chapter. Terms like these often function as in-jokes to

begin with, but if they last for long enough and pass into wider use,
they can become slang.
Television provided an unprecedented opportunity for the spread
of slang, and this has increased as production companies have
become more alert to the profits offered by international markets.
Australian soaps like Neighbours and Home and Away have been held
responsible for British pensioners’ inability to understand their
grandchildren, but linguistic difference has also been a selling point.
When the BBC exported Eastenders to the United States, they drew
attention to its unfamiliar language as a mark of its authenticity:
Unfortunately for American viewers, a fair amount of the dialogue is in

British slang — “legless” for drunk, “naff off” for get lost, “short of the readies”
for broke. And the inhabitants of Albert Square are prone to break into the
less comprehensible Cockney rhyming slang, in which “dog and bone”
equals telephone. . . . Not to worry. The British Broadcasting Corp. will try to
make it clear for you. Saturday night’s introductory program . . . includes a

glossary of the slang, and viewers will be able to write and get a phrase
book to help understand the lingo.
Legless “drunk” (1976—, abbreviated from legless drunk (1926—)) is

common in British slang, as is readies, which we’ve already seen. Naff
off “get lost” (1959—) originated as a euphemistic substitution, largely
used on stage and television, where censorship didn’t permit fuck off.
Dog and bone “telephone” (1961—) is among the most frequently
cited of rhyming slang terms. Although this article refers to slang, the
phrase book largely listed British colloquialisms. Hearing spoken
English from around the world doesn’t enable viewers to make fine
distinctions between different levels of language.
Popular culture
Intertwined with the development of cinema, radio, and television is the
music industry. Record promoters relied on radio presenters for airtime;
radio presenters needed records that would deliver listeners for their
advertisers. Musicians made films; actors made records. The entertain-
ment industry was able to spread slang around a country and even
around the world. Radio, the record industry, television, and film, were
essential components in the development of various strands of youth
culture and the slang that goes with them. Because all of these industries
rely on novelty and innovation, they’ve fed into and fed on a faster
turnover of slang terms. This has exacerbated communication problems
between teenagers and their parents, leading some parents to suspect
that their children were using slang to conceal illicit activities.
Let’s return, finally, to the issue of the dissemination of slang in the
media, using a number of key cultural terms from the late nineteenth
to the twenty-first century, all of which began as slang but entered
into general usage, often giving rise to derived forms that were never
slang. Ragtime described a style of popular African American music
in the 1890s. Its earliest documented use with this sense is from 1896.
By 1901, it was being used in the mainstream press in the United

States, giving rise to derived forms such as ragtimer (1901), to ragtime
(1908), and ragtiming (1912). The first use I’ve been able to find in the
British mainstream press is from 1913, giving a transatlantic trans-
mission period of seventeen years.
Jazz is first recorded with reference to music in 1915, appearing in
the mainstream press in the United States in the same year, along
with to jazz (1915), jazzy (1916), jazzer (1917), jazzman (1919),
jazzist (1921), jazzification (1924), and jazzophile (1926).8 With a
first citation from the British press in 1919, the transmission period
had come down to four years, a reduction probably attributable as
much to the movement of people during WWI as to early develop-
ments in recording technology. The interwar period saw a further
reduction in transmission time: swing is first recorded with reference
to a musical style in 1936, giving rise to the adjective swinging (1955)
and predated by the noun swinger (1934). It’s found in the British
mainstream press by 1938: a transmission time of only two years.
Similarly, funk, first documented with reference to music in 1959,
reached the British press in 1961. However, an explosion of derived
forms, including funky (1972), funk oriented (1977), jazz funk (1977),
funk rock (1977), funk out (1978), funkadelic (1978), punk funk
(1979), funk fushion (1979), funkless (1979), neo-funky (1980), neo-
funk (1982), funkiness (1983), and funkify (1989), suggest that funk
remained a specialist interest for at least a decade.9 Its later spread is
connected with disco, abbreviated from French discothèque. Disco was
first documented in 1964, giving rise to disco beat (1965), but it took a
while to reach the mainstream press in the United States (1974),
making the transition to the British press in 1975. Later derived
terms include disco mania (1977), to disco (1979), ex-disco (1981),
and neo-disco (1983). By this time, the combination of improved
8
Cassidy, How the Irish Invented Slang, 59–73, offers an Irish etymology for jazz.
You can take part in the debate on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jazz>.
9
The neo- forms demonstrate that fashion quickly moved on.
technology and marketing had ensured that mainstream American

trends reached the British mainstream within a year or two, although
sometimes it took longer for the American mainstream to embrace
and exploit new African American musical developments.
Let’s see whether this rate of transmission has changed in more
recent years. Bling (bling) “ostentatious jewellery or other displays of
wealth”, also used as an adjective “ostentatious; flashy” (1999—),
appeared in the title and chorus of a song on B.G.’s rap album Chopper
City in the Ghetto (released in April 1999). It was used in a similar way
in the chorus of ‘Ice on my Wrist’ by Magic and Master P in August of
the same year and its appearance in some online versions of the lyrics
of Tupac’s ‘Fuck Friendz’ (recorded 1995–6) suggests that this and
similar sounds may have been in circulation in the hip hop community
before the written form became fixed. By November 1999, American
newspapers were using bling bling with jocular reference to B.G.’s
wealth and with reference to African American sportsmen with similar
taste in jewellery by January 2000. In November 2000 it was used with
reference to chunky gold jewellery in the fashion pages of Australian
and British newspapers, reaching Canada by December of the same
year. Having quickly become an international term, bling was also
highly productive, giving rise to several frequently used derivatives,
including (bling-)blinging (March 2000), (bling-)blinger (June 2001), to
bling (July 2001), (bling-)blinged (October 2001), (bling-)blingy (June
2002), blinged out (August 2002), and blinged up (July 2003). Although
bling retained its association with African American street fashion, it
became a journalistic buzzword, and writers all around the world felt
able to create new derivatives, including anti-bling(-bling) (August
2000), non-bling (September 2002), non-blinger (October 2002), de-
blingification and euro-bling (both June 2003), (bling-)bling master
(July 2003), (bling-)blingify (January 2004), eco-bling (July 2005),
cyber-bling (July 2006), blingification (September 2006), blingee (May
2007), non-blingy and blingette (both June 2007), blinginess (July
2007), blingily (November 2007), and unbling (January 2008). The
difference between bling and the earlier terms lies not so much in the
speed of transmission, although that has continued to shorten: it lies in

the rate of naturalization. This was enhanced by the combined powers
of the music and fashion industries, as well as the early development of
the Internet, which is the subject of the next chapter.
Conclusions
What we see in newspapers, on television, and in films isn’t slang.
With the possible exception of ‘reality’ television, what we see in the
media are representations of slang. Like frogs in the media, some are
carefully observed and true to life, while others (fairy-tale frogs,
Kermit, Crazy Frog) behave in predictably endearing or annoying
ways. The media and entertainment industries have raised the profile
of slang, allowing us to pick up slang from around the world and to
learn about other people’s attitudes towards it, but studying repre-
sentations of slang can be misleading.
These industries may have been the first to realise that slang could
help to sell their products, but other industries soon caught on, and
slang (genuine or manufactured) has become a staple feature of
advertising (see p. 64). The forces of individualism and commerce
are now inextricably linked in the development and spread of slang.
The mass media has also shaped and expressed changing attitudes
towards slang. Those who object to slang remain convinced that it
devalues its users by making them seem both unattractive and uncul-
tured, and that it contaminates whoever comes into contact with it,
particularly the young. We’ve also seen, from around the English-
speaking world, a growing sense that American slang has encroached
not only on the territory of national slangs, but also on to ground that
ought to be preserved for Standard English.
Endnotes
An example of the coverage of a recent newspaper slang controversy is provided
by Max Davidson’s ‘Emma Thompson’s Attack on Slang: the Pedants’ Battle may
be Lost’, Telegraph 29 Sept. 2010, n.p., available online at <http://www.telegraph
.co.uk>. Also quoted in this chapter are Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley in Peace
and War (Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1898, repr. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 2001), ‘Mr. Dooley on Diplomacy’, 1–5 (1), and J. R. McReynolds
Banks’s ‘An Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary’, Columbia Jester 27 (Dec. 1927),
10; (Jan. 1928), 19; (Feb. 1928), 14; (Mar. 1928), 12. ‘The Tichborne Case’, The
Times, 25 Jun. 1880, 4, provides information about Orton’s deception and trial.
Harrigan orders tea in ‘Rhyming Slang’, Penny Illustrated Paper, 20 Aug. 1910,
248, and two extracts were provided from Walter Anthony’s interview with Bert
Little: ‘Leslie on English as she is Spoke’, The San Francisco Call, 20 Feb. 1910, 63.
Anthony is also quoted celebrating America’s slang victory in ‘Our Cousin’s
Slang’, The San Francisco Call, 21 Nov. 1909, 27. The review of The Degenerates is
from ‘Mrs Langtry at the Prince’s Theatre’, The Times, 21 Jan. 1885, 5. The glossary
was published in ‘Society Slang’, Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, 20 Nov. 1899,
n.p., and ‘Degenerates’ Slang Glossary’, Chicago Daily Tribune, 8 Mar. 1900, 7.
Other newspaper articles cited are ‘Translated for English Use’, Boston Daily Globe,
17 Aug. 1913, 45; ‘American Slang’, The Argus (Melbourne), 21 Mar. 1918, 5;
‘Australian Speech and American Slang’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Jun.
1932, 9; and Stephanie Schorow, ‘Brit-slang Invasion; Blimey!’, The Boston Herald,
11 Jun. 1999, Arts & Life, 63. I haven’t been able to trace the Daily Mail article
about ‘mental indiscipline’, but it’s cited in ‘Yankee Slang Increasing’, The Argus
(Melbourne), 19 Jul. 1913, 8. The Fast Life glossary is from ‘Use This Dictionary of
Slang in Exploitation’, Film Daily 49, 22 Aug. 1929, 15, based on James J. Finerty’s
Criminalese: a Dictionary of the Slang Talk of the Criminal (Washington, DC: [self-
published], 1926), itself not an entirely original compilation.
Peter Faiman’s Crocodile Dundee (Hollywood: Paramount, 1986) was followed
by sequels in 1988 and 2001. The extract from Round the Horne is from series 3,
programme 20, first broadcast on 25 Jun. 1967, from Barry Took and Marty
Feldman’s Round the Horne (London: Woburn Press, 1974), 145. Hy Lit’s style is
based on a later representation quoted on his web site <http://www.hylitradio
.com/index.php?page=6>, though he also produced Hy Lit’s Unbelievable Dic-
tionary of Hip Words for Groovy People (Philadelphia: Hyski, 1968). Vout is best
exemplified by Slim Gaillard’s Vout-O-Reenee Dictionary ([?Hollywood: Atomic
Records], 1946). The influence of Neighbours on British speech is discussed in
Tracey Harrison’s ‘It’s True. Kids Don’t Talk the Same Language; Slang Takes
Over From English’, Daily Record, 29 Jul. 1999, 26, and Larry Thorson promotes
the introduction of EastEnders to American audiences in ‘Cockney Soap Opera
on the Telly in United States’, Associated Press, 8 Jan. 1988. American viewers
were encouraged to refer to How to Speak EastEnders: A Brief Glossary of Cockney
Expressions (n.p.: Lionheart, 1988).
11 Leet to Lols:
The Digital Age
Building on the technological advances discussed in

Chapter 10, developments in computer technology have, once
again, revolutionized the way we communicate. Until only a few
decades ago, emigrants kept in touch with family and friends back
home with letters sent by ship or air, and then anxiously counted the
days until a reply could be expected. Expensive phone calls were
reserved for really bad news. Now we learn about daily routines
alongside newsworthy world events from the people experiencing
them and (crucially for our purposes) in their own words. Even
people who still rely on newspaper and television for their news are
exposed to extracts from blogs and tweets. News of the latest celebrity
gossip or stage-managed media event is available within the hour,
sometimes instantaneously, rather than in magazines weeks later. We
engage with and participate in products and events created by the
media online, and we can reveal and observe changes taking place in
slang around the world. Connections between media types increase
our exposure to new slang: interrelated blogs, books, films, games,
podcasts, apps (and so on) reinforce new terms which sometimes feed
Leet to Lols: The Digital Age 267
into our face-to-face conversations. But we’re not passive consumers:

amateur reviewers now lambast lazy slang stereotypes within hours of
a film’s release. Books and articles on contentious topics (like slang)
receive immediate scrutiny online (see p. 239 n).
Scholarly accounts of computer-mediated communication tend to
have little to say about the use of slang. They may have found (and it’s
my impression too), that slang used in many contexts online is pretty
similar to the slang used in speech. For people with a primary interest
in online communication, slang isn’t particularly interesting; but for
those of us with a primary interest in slang, online communication is
very interesting indeed.
The Internet builds connections between people, and these connec-
tions generate new networks of slang. Spending time online isn’t a
substitute or alternative to ‘real life’: it is an integral part of it, often
interwoven with face-to-face social contact. Computer users who come
across unfamiliar slang terms may start to use them both online and in
speech if they’re exposed to them often enough. In this chapter, I’m
going to look at three interrelated topics: the influence of computers and
the Internet in disseminating slang, the increased availability of infor-
mation about slang, and developments in the nature of slang itself.
What is slang?
Definitions of slang that emphasize its use in spoken language are now
outdated. Conversations between the same two individuals can take
place in person, by phone, using text messages or email, in blogs, by
instant messaging, or via webcams. Friends who use slang terms in
writing will probably also use at least some of the same slang in their
conversations (and vice versa), so the line between terms used in writing
and those used in speech is now more uncertain than ever. Online
communication is a hybrid between speech and writing. It’s much more
speech-like than formal written English and provides representations of
non-verbal features of face-to-face communication, such as facial ex-
pressions and laughter. It can also be speech-like in signalling group
21 Crossed wires II: Clive Goddard, ‘It Helps Him Realise I’m Being Serious’.
membership and attitude: functions we’ve identified as belonging to

slang in speech. Of course, nobody speaks exactly as they would type,
but the barrier between written and spoken English has become more
permeable: it no longer represents a reliable basis for deciding what is
or isn’t slang.
Hackers and gamers

I’ll begin by considering the development of computer slang chrono-
logically. Hackers “computer enthusiasts (who gain unauthorized
access to files or networks)” (1976—) were originally concentrated
in research institutions and universities, where mainframe computers
were sometimes available without too many questions being asked, as
long as amateur users didn’t interfere with the access required for
serious research. Hackers tended to congregate in university comput-
ing rooms in the evenings and at weekends, so their virtual commu-
nication was supplemental to face-to-face conversation. It’s likely that
individuals with such a specialized and esoteric interest would’ve
found one another on campus in any case (nerds of a feather, and
all that), but being able to communicate online will have facilitated
their social connections. Links between mainframes became possible
during the late 1960s, but the first substantial attempt to document
the slang of computer users was the Jargon File, compiled collabora-
tively at Stanford University from 1975, with later input from other
universities. The earliest version includes plenty of terms that didn’t
originate in this context, including:
diddle “to work ineffectually; to mess glitch “a temporary malfunction”

about” (1826—), but probably influenced (1962—, originally astronauts)
by diddle “to masturbate” (1934—, US) grungy “extremely dirty” (1964—,
zero “to set to zero” (1949—, originally originally students)
engineers) moby “large; complicated; exciting”
spaz “to behave erratically; to make a (1965—, originally students)
serious mistake” (1957—) tweak “to adjust slightly” (1966—,
originally engineers)
vanilla “ordinary” (1972—,
originally gay)
Computer programmers had come up with some of their own terms

too, including some that were already quite well established by this
date, such as klu(d)ge “a makeshift system or repair” (1962—), down
“out of action” (1965—), number-cruncher “a computer; an unimagi-
native human analyser of data” (1968—), flame “to rant” (1968—),
now usually “to send an abusive message about or to someone”
(1983—), and bells and whistles “appealing but unnecessary features”
(1975—).
As well as documenting the use of new words and senses, the

Jargon File also explores the creation of words from among the
existing resources of English, such as bogosity “the state or quality
of being bogus”, mumblage “indistinct or unclear speech or informa-
tion”, softwarily “in a manner appropriate to software”, and winni-
tude “the quality of winning”, none of which is listed in the OED
although all are still current. Even the compilers of this list felt it
necessary to advise against the use of some computing slang, and
three usages are labelled as ‘silly’: aos “to increase; to turn up”, cdr “to
trace”, and What’s the state of the world-p? “What’s going on?”
From the late 1970s, computer users were able to engage in real-time
competitive or collaborative play in games that came to be known as
MUDs (multi-user dungeon(s), 1983—). Because of the speed of play
and the relatively limited range of likely topics, acronyms and initial-
isms became commonplace, including MMG “massively multiplayer
game” and RTS “real-time strategy game”. Some of the vocabulary used
by computer gamers was borrowed from military slang, such as the
Vietnam-era frag “to kill (a superior officer) (with a fragmentation
grenade)” (1970—). The language of table-based role-playing games
contributed jargon like player character and non-player character, and
probably also a tendency towards hyperbole and the use of archaic
vocabulary, such as sirrah, my lady, and methinks.
Alongside these changes, a new way of representing the spoken
language developed among computer gamers. Called leetspeak or
leet,1 it involves the replacement of letters with numbers or other
characters that resemble them. For example, <l> can be represented
by <1>, <e> by <3>, and <t> by <7>, so that leet can be spelt
<1337>. Letters are sometimes replaced by approximate representa-
tions: <j-j> for <h>, <j\j> for <n>, and <j3> for <b>, and so on.
Letters and other symbols also began to be substituted for sounds:
<l8> for late, <sux> for sucks, <c#> for cash, and <c@> for cat.
1
Leet is derived from elite, a status on bulletin boards and games that gave various
privileges, including editing access to file folders.
Plurals are commonly formed with <z> rather than <s>, as in

<d00dz> for dudes. These disguised spellings are sometimes found
alongside deliberate typos such as teh (the), pr0n (porn), and pwned
(owned), as well as initialisms like HPB “high-ping bastard: a player
with a bad connection”, BFG “big fucking gun”, and NPC “a non-
player character”. Leetspeak isn’t just about weird spelling and ab-
breviations, though: there are also grammatical features, largely
involving simplification. For instance, object pronouns can be used
as subjects and present tenses predominate:
Me g0 gr4b s0Me k0ph33

I am going to grab some coffee
Leetspeak is also characterized by distinctive patterns of word forma-

tion, particularly the addition of <-or> to verbs, creating forms like
suxor and roxor for all forms of suck “to be contemptible, disgusting,
or boring” (1971—) and rock “to be excellent” (1969—). Nouns, like
cuntor “despicable person”, are also found, alongside continued use of
the hacker suffix <-age> to create nouns like ownage “ownership;
domination” (since at least 2000—).
Leetspeak provided users with a way to evade text filters and
discuss outlawed topics, but it was probably more useful as a method
for signalling their position in the hierarchy. Only experienced ga-
mers would be fluent, which enabled them to exclude, tease, or
confuse new users by using terms such as n00b “a novice” (since at
least 2000—) or llama “a novice” (since at least 2004—) and w00t
“hurray” (since at least 2000—). However, by the late 1990s, these
conventions had become so widely used that they no longer func-
tioned as a signal of elite knowledge, and serious computer enthu-
siasts began to avoid them.
The decline of leetspeak hasn’t meant that computer gamers now
type in Standard English. Here, for example, is an exchange from a
World of Warcraft forum from April 2010, with the subject ‘tiny
abom vs reg wfs’, containing very little evidence of leetspeak:
Bilbo939: tiny abom vs reg whispering fanged? mut spec.. other trink is
war token so i dont think i wana lose that to use both :P
Storkchild: Tiny Abom = win.
Unless they’ve nerfed it recently and I haven’t read about it.
But from info I know from a month or two ago it went
H Tiny Abom > War Token > H Whisper > Reg Tiny Abom
Kopik: My Combat spreadsheet has it below both Heroic DV/DC and
WFS (normal).
Depressing, because it looks like a fun trinket.
Unb3table: Cept he asked about mut, failboat.
The chances are that this exchange either makes perfect sense to you
or very little. I belong to the second camp, but some familiar abbre-
viations include don’t for do not (1670—), cept for except (1851—), vs
for versus (1889—), wana (more usually wanna) for want to (1896—),
info for information (1907—), and spec. for specification (1956—).
From the context, I worked out that trink was short for trinket and reg
for regular. Abom is short for abomination and H for heroic, both
words used with specific reference to features of the game. :P is a
tongue-in-cheek emoticon. The World of Warcraft glossary tells me
that nerf means “to downgrade”, which may be related to the propri-
etary name of a foam rubber used in making children’s play equip-
ment (1970—) which could, in its turn, be related to drag-racing,
where nerf means “to bump (another car)” (1952—) and a nerf bar
(1955—) or nerfing-bar (1949—) protects from minor bumps. Urban
Dictionary helped me with failboat, which originally meant “a boat
doomed to failure” (since at least 2004—), but can also refer to people.
Many of the abbreviations are found in general speech or informal
writing, with those that are specific to the game being jargon rather
than slang. Evidence from elsewhere suggests that nerf and failboat
are more widely used as slang.
Understanding the words isn’t the same as understanding what
they’re talking about, though: what I would need to do is invest 20
hours (or more) in playing World of Warcraft so that I could learn the
words in a meaningful context. But why is that necessary? Why

can’t players talk about the game in Standard English? After all,
there are players from around the world, and they aren’t all native
speakers of English. Wouldn’t it make sense to write in a more
accessible way?
There are a number of reasons why this mixture of slang
and jargon is preferable in specialized online contexts. First, these
terms are often quicker to type, which is particularly important in
the middle of a battle, where superfluous key strokes could be a
matter of virtual life and death. Second, there aren’t Standard English
synonyms for all of these terms. The ones that refer to specific
features of World of Warcraft are likely to remain as jargon rather
than spreading to more general slang usage. Third, these words often
play a social as well as a communicative function: they allow users to
demonstrate their knowledge to other game-players, either to gain
approval from those with more experience, or to inspire admiration
and imitation from those with less. Finally, as we’ve already observed,
the individual who fails to use or understand these terms correctly is
quickly identified as a failboat. The slang and jargon act as a kind of
initiation rite: anyone who’s serious about playing the game is going
to have to show willing by learning to talk (ok, write) appropriately.
One of the reasons for using slang and jargon in this context is
precisely that they don’t make sense to those outside the group.
They (or possibly you) don’t want us (or maybe it’s only me) to
understand. This type of jargon shades into cant when narrowly
defined and fixed meanings are used to prevent rather than to facili-
tate understanding.
The Internet, the Web, social networking, and blogging

By the late 1980s, individuals at geographically separate institutions
were able to exchange emails and other files using the Internet. The
cost of home computing was also dropping to affordable levels for the
mass market. The World Wide Web was developed as a tool for
navigating the Internet in the early 1990s, and it was at this point
that the mainstream press began to comment on the effect of com-
puting on the English language, noting the use of slang derived from
the earlier university-based hackers, as well as some newer terms:
log on “to access one’s computer cyberpunk “a person who gains

(account)” (1963—) unauthorized access to computer files
phone-phreaker “a person who or networks” (1989—)
fraudulently accesses a telephone line” FAQ “frequently asked questions”
(1977—) (1991—)
chiphead “a computer enthusiast” (since bio-break “a toilet break” (since at least
at least 1982—) 1994—)
cyberspace “the virtual environment in net-surfer “a casually inquisitive user of
which online communication takes the Internet” (since at least 1994—)
place” (1982—) thumb-candy “a computer game that
netiquette “accepted standards of isn’t intellectually challenging” (since at
behaviour online” (1982—) least 1994—)
lurker “a person who reads bulletin mouse potato “a habitual Internet-user”
boards but doesn’t contribute” (1984—) (1994—)
nethead “a habitual Internet-user” betamax “to supersede a superior
(1984—) technology; to defeat a superior
opponent” (since at least 1997—)
Terms like these began as the professional slang of computing,

but some would now pass unnoticed in formal writing, offering a
powerful demonstration of the expansion and influence of online
communication.
Blogs fulfil the functions of product- or self-promotion, personal
journal, group therapy, confessional, journalism (and many others),
and allow individuals to express their thoughts and record their
language use online. Many blogs use standard or colloquial English,
with more or less standard punctuation and spelling, even those
addressing specialized groups like online gamers, Star Trek fans,
and sports enthusiasts. This may be because many bloggers either
are or aspire to be professional writers, and using unconventional

typography and slang would undermine their credibility. However,
some bloggers do make use of slang, perhaps deliberately, to signal
their connection with the realities of the life they represent. A blog-
ger’s slang isn’t necessarily a reflection of their own (or anyone’s)
spoken usage, but where we see slang terms reoccurring in blogs and
other contexts, they provide useful supplementary evidence. This
extract, written by ‘prison journalist and gangster chronicler’ Seth
Ferranti, is from an American blog called Gorilla Convict:
Fray’s attitude toward outsiders, especially the dudes from New York, was
to lean on them. He put his muscle game down and dared the New Yorkers
to make a move. Fray felt secure in his city and he put his mentality in
effect. When Alpo came into town flossing and fronting that gangster shit,
Fray called his bluff, got shit off him and didn’t even pay him. He treated
Alpo like a sucker. He was leaning on the New Yorker and saw him as a
coward even before he started snitching. Fray had the 411 on Alpo from
the jump, before he knew him he saw the snake for what he was. In
retrospect Fray played Alpo for the buster he was.
lean on “to put pressure on” (1955—) shit “drugs” (1950—)

put down “to perform; to do; to say” sucker “a gullible fool” (1831—)
(1943—, originally African American) snitch “to turn informer” (1718—,
mentality “mental ability; intelligence” originally British)
(1856—, slang in later use) 411 “information” (1985—)
floss “to flirt; to show off; to flaunt one’s the jump “the start” (1831—)
wealth or possessions” (1938—, snake “a treacherous person” (1593—)
originally African American) play for (a fool, sucker, or, as in this case,
front “to show off; to pretend to be buster) “to deceive; make a fool of;
something one is not” (1971—, cheat” (1869—)
originally African American) buster “a loser; a failure; a coward”
shit “rubbish; nonsense” (1927—) (1991—) or “an informer” (1994—), both
call someone’s bluff “to accept a originally African American
challenge or invite a showdown”
(1876—, originally poker)
For the slang lexicographer, what’s really interesting about blogs is

that, unlike conventional publishing, they don’t marginalize the
everyday language of normal (or unusual) people. Bloggers think
about their audience, of course, and they might modify their language
to create particular effects, but we do that when we speak as well: if we
didn’t, there wouldn’t be any slang. Bock the Robber has blogged
from Limerick in Ireland since March 2006, when he began with a
complaint about political correctness. His entertainingly ranty blog is
written with an international audience in mind, and is colloquial in
tone rather than being packed with slang like the last extract. Never-
theless, slang terms do occur:
guff “lies; nonsense” (1880—) give a rat’s arse “to be indifferent”

bollocks “a stupid or contemptible person” (1953—), usually <ass>
(1916—), often <bollix> or <bollox> shitload “a lot” (1962—)
half-assed “ineffectual; inadequate” (1932—) slag (off) “to criticize” (1965—)
gobshite “an idiot; a disliked person” skobe (from skobie) “a scumbag” (2000—)
(1946—) skanger “a (Dublin) scumbag” (2000—)
This blog proves not only that these terms are in current use in Limerick
but also that Limerick slang includes terms originating in the US (guff,
half-assed, give a rat’s ass, shitload) and the UK (slag (off)), alongside
distinctively Irish ones (bollocks, gobshite, skobe, skanger). In the past,
slang lexicographers have been content to label words as ‘originally US’
or to cover their backs with ‘originally and chiefly US’, but now we can
test these gut feelings. Electronic searches of other blogs confirm that
these uses of bollocks, skobe, and skanger appear to be restricted to Irish
English. Although skanger used to be restricted to Dublin, it has
achieved wider recognition through a parody of MTV’s Pimp My
Ride, called Skanger Me Banger. Gobshite is used on the UK mainland
but, along with slag (off), appears not to have spread much further afield.
Rat’s posteriors, variously spelt, are withheld in every first-language
English-speaking country I could think of, and half-assed (or -arsed),
guff, and shitload are also widely used. If skanger does spread into wider
usage, we’ll be able to track when and perhaps even how this happened.
Social-networking sites began to appear in 1994, but by the end of

the decade they tended to build on existing real-world relationships
(which would tend to involve slang) rather than creating new links
based on common interests (which would tend to involve jargon).
After a few false starts, Facebook was launched in 2004. Originally
based at Harvard, it enabled students to find out about and contact
each another. Though it’s far from being the only social-networking
site, it’s widely used among English speakers and now has hundreds
of millions of registered users around the world. Users will be familiar
with terms such as unfriend “to remove someone from one’s ‘friend’
list” (since at least 2001— with reference to other social-networking
applications and also to real life), facebook “to log into, be on, or
check someone’s profile on Facebook” (2004—), and facebook stalk
“to monitor someone on Facebook surreptitiously, and with an
unhealthy level of interest” (2004—). Facebook is referred to infor-
mally as FB (2004—), Fbook (since at least 2005—), Fuckbook (since
at least 2005—), Facey B (since at least 2006—), Facey (since at least
2007—), and Facefuck (since at least 2007—). Many well-established
terms have also acquired senses specific to Facebook and similar sites,
including poke, post, like, friend, status, news, tag, and profile.
My Facebook friends tend to post in more or less Standard
English, though they sometimes use colloquialisms and slang. They
generally employ conventional spellings, though they occasionally
take liberties with the usual rules for capitalization and punctuation.
This is probably because most of my friends are around my own age
(i.e. they’re no spring chickens (1910—, originally US, now collo-
quial)). However, comments recently posted on Facebook sites
belonging to the University of Leicester Students’ Union and Frater-
nity & Sorority Life at Indiana State University both regularly
included the following features, which are evidently transatlantic:
messages entirely in lower case

block capitals for emphasis
omission of apostrophes, e.g. Im (more usually im)
exclamation marks in place of full stops

duplication of exclamation marks for emphasis, e.g. !!!!
combinations of punctuation, e.g. ?!, ??!!
typographical expressions of emotion and attitude, e.g. :) :D ;P lol, haha
duplication of letters for emphasis or to express enthusiasm,
e.g. yooooou, soooo, urrghhh, easyyy
abbreviations, e.g. u for you, 4 for four, pic for picture, tix for tickets.
These typographical features are unlikely to cross over to spoken

English, although a few of the abbreviations can be represented in
speech. The slang terms found in the students’ comments tend to be
the ones they would use in face-to-face conversation, so there are
differences between how British and American students expressed
themselves. In this small sample, Indiana State students used awesome
and sweet (1821—, originally British criminals) to express approval,
alongside dork “fool” (1967/8—) and bump dat! “forget it” (since at
least 1989). Leicester students used prick “a stupid or contemptible
person”, roomie “a room-mate” (1911—, originally US), yo to express
approval (1918—, originally US; also used to attract attention since at
least 1958), dreamy “attractive” (1941—, originally US, also used ironi-
cally), classic to express approval (1944—), rocking “excellent” (1953—,
originally US), holy shit to express surprise (1966—, originally US), and
hanging “hung-over” (1971—, originally US). There are overlaps in
slang usage, but national differences remain.
However, these students didn’t always post their comments using
slang and unconventional typography. In debates about increasing
student fees and about the rules of fraternity and sorority member-
ship, student posters on Facebook tended to use Standard English,
and to spell and punctuate in a much more formal style than when
they were discussing social events. As in speech, context is all.
Slang dissemination in the IT age

Many social-networking sites include microblogs in the form of status
updates, whereby users can post brief observations about their current
feelings and activities. The best known microblogging site is Twitter

(launched in 2006). Users now post almost a hundred million tweets of
up to 140 characters every day. Users can follow one another by
arranging for tweets by particular individuals or organizations to be
sent to them. Posts can be sent publicly or privately, and many
organizations and individuals who tweet do so using Standard English.
However, because of the limited characters available, microblogging is
characterized by much more compressed language use than blogging,
including all the typographical features found on Facebook. Slang and
colloquial terms in posts on trending topics on 5 November 2010,
included scrub “to cancel” (1828—, originally British), peeps “people:
close friends” (1847—), freaking “utterly” (1928—), top dollar “a high
price” (1970—), holy crap [to express surprise] (since at least 2000—),
and pimp “to customize in an ostentatious style” (2000—, originally
US), all of which originated in and are frequently used in speech.
Individual posters do indicate their location, but it isn’t possible to
verify this or use it as the basis for searching. Twitter provides a general
impression of slang usage, but isn’t much help with distribution. The
international intimacy promoted by tweeting may lead to increased
awareness of national differences in slang, but it’s very unlikely to spell
the end of national or regional difference in use.
Even where the same words are used around the world, there are
differences in how they’re used and how often. Like earlier social and
technical innovations that we’ve already seen, Twitter has introduced
its own terms, and Nexis newspaper searches allow us to track trends in
their use. Even people who aren’t Twitter-users will probably be
familiar with tweet “a message posted on Twitter”, voted the American
Dialect Society Word of the Year in 2009, and twitter “to post a
message on Twitter”. Although neither is yet included in the OED,
they’re commonly used in the press, along with various related forms.
Figures 22 and 23 trace the use of twitter and tweet in The San
Francisco Chronicle, from Twitter’s home city, The New York Times,
The Guardian (London), and The Australian. There was a background
level of use with reference to birds, singers, and sound systems, but the
San Francisco Chronicle began to use these words with reference to

Twitter in 2006, an increase that’s barely visible here. The main
increase, in San Francisco and elsewhere, was during 2009.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
NYT Guardian Australian SFC
22 Newspaper articles including twitter, and related forms.2
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
NYT Guardian Australian SFC
3
23 Newspaper articles including tweet, and related forms.
2
twittered, twitters, twitterer, twitterers, twittering, twittersphere, twitterholic, twit-
terholics, twitterati.
3
tweets, tweeted, tweeter, tweeters, tweeting.
Twitter’s official guide to terminology recognizes tweet as a noun and

verb, and Twitter only as a trade name and in the form twitterer.4 The
newspapers don’t follow these guidelines, with the New York Times
developing a marked preference for twitter, while the Guardian and
(perhaps) the San Francisco Chronicle appear to be moving towards a
preference for tweet.
Newspaper searches for less frequent Twitter terms provide more
varied results, shown in Figure 24. Before Twitter was launched, trend
(top left) was already being used as a verb in the American and
Australian newspapers, usually with reference to economic develop-
ments. In 2008, the Guardian began to use it in the same way, and
then led the way with its increasing use with the sense “to be popular
on Twitter”, in 2009. The Guardian and New York Times made
steadily increasing use of hashtag “the # symbol, used to mark key-
words in a message” from 2009 (top right), with the Australian racing
to catch up in 2010, at which point the San Francisco Chronicle’s use
declined. Retweet “to resend someone else’s tweet” (bottom left) sees a
steady increase from 2009 in all the newspapers, except for the New
York Times, where there’s a marked decrease in 2010. This decrease is
matched by that of unfollow “to cancel a request to see messages from
a particular twitterer” (bottom right) in both the New York Times and
the San Francisco Chronicle, though its use in the Guardian and the
Australian continues to rise. British journalists’ fascination with
Twitter is fed by the activities of high-profile political and celebrity
tweeters. On a larger scale, American journalists may be over-
whelmed by the quantity of material available.
A by-product of these developments has been the increasing use of
twit “a fool”. Although used at a very low rate in all of these news-
papers, the Guardian saw an increase from 25 to 59 instances
(136%) between 2008 and 2009, and the Australian saw an increase
4
Both Twitter and Tweet are trademarked, and although the company ask that
they be capitalized to emphasize this, most newspapers use lower case. In an attempt
to maintain clarity, I’m using upper case for references to the company and lower case
for lexical items.
80 35
70 30
60 25
50
20
40
15
30
10
20
10 5
0 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
NYT Guardian Australian SFC NYT Guardian Australian SFC
25 8
7
20
6
15 5
4
10 3
2
5
1
0 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
NYT Guardian Australian SFC NYT Guardian Australian SFC
24 Newspaper articles including trend (top left), hashtag (top right), retweet
(bottom left), unfollow (bottom right), and related forms.5
from 25 to 41 instances (64%) between 2009 and 2010, in each case

corresponding with the increase in Twitter terms. Twit may
be coming to mean “an opinionated or garrulous fool” as a result
of its association with Twitter. In the American newspapers, where
twit was less frequently used in any case, there was no change in
frequency.
These Twitter terms began as jargon, with a fixed, precise, and
narrowly constrained meaning. If Twitter is superseded by another
technology with its own terminology, the wider use of Twitter terms
may be short-lived and future lexicographers will probably consider
them to have been slang. Perhaps in twenty or thirty years’ time these
Twitter terms and conventions will have become a fond memory, like
5
unfollow, unfollowed, unfollowing; retweet, retweets, retweeted, retweeting; hash-
tag, hashtagged; trended, trending. The agent nouns (unfollower, etc.) didn’t occur.
Trend was already so common as a noun that the inclusion of trend and trends would
have obscured developments in the verb.
the terms now used only by a restricted number of Citizens’ Band

radio enthusiasts, such as ten-four “message received; ok; excellent”
(1962—), breaker “one who interrupts a CB radio conversation; any
CB radio user” (1963—), smokey (bear) “a state policeman” (1974—),
and ears “a CB radio or antenna” (1976—). However, if Twitter terms
continue in their current use over a longer period, they might come to
be viewed as colloquial or even standard, and perhaps they already are
in some circles. If Twitter terms extend in reference to other micro-
blogging or social-networking sites, or to conversations taking place
in the real world, those usages will each follow their own path into
slang, colloquial, or standard usage.
Twitter terms offer unusually high-profile examples of the
spread of new words and new usages through technological means.
However, because many computer professionals start out as com-
puter enthusiasts, there’s a fluid line between amateur and profes-
sional. Computer users adopt and adapt manufacturers’ jargon, and
slang developed by computer users is often adopted by the com-
mercial organizations catering to them. There have been computer
applications since 1959, for example, but computer enthusiasts have
used app since at least 1984. Voted American Dialect Society Word of
100
80
60
40
20
0
J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
New York Times Guardian The Australian
25 Articles including app(s), by month.6
6
Peaks before 2008 are caused by individuals whose last names are App or Apps,
but the IT sense is used, at a low level, throughout this period.
the Year in 2010, app was used at a relatively low rate in mainstream
newspaper coverage until July 2008, when Apple launched their App
Store (see Figure 25). The time lag in the international adoption of
commercialized slang in the mainstream press is now a matter of
months rather than years, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be
more or less instantaneous among the keenest purchasers of new
technology. The movement from specialized slang to the mainstream
can take rather longer.
Developments in the documentation of slang

When Partridge compiled his slang dictionary, his only evidence for
Irish slang or the slang of American prisoners was its appearance in
fiction, a small number of glossaries, and letters sent to him by
correspondents. As you’ve seen throughout this book, the digitization
of books and newspapers allows much easier access to historical
evidence of slang usage and of attitudes towards it. Social-networking
sites, chat rooms, games, and blogs can also be harvested for evidence
of contemporary slang usage—often conveniently dated and some-
times accompanied by all kinds of personal information about the
writer, providing a whole new challenge to university ethics commit-
tees. Lexicographers of slang now have far more and far better evidence
available to them, but it can feel like looking for a noodle in a haystack.
If you google (2000—) a slang term now, you might find thousands
of hits, but then the work of ploughing through them begins.
We’ve also seen that early computer users found innovative ways
to document their slang collaboratively. Although early computer
users sat at terminals operating from university mainframes, bulletin
boards “systems giving computer users access to text and files con-
tributed collectively and stored centrally” (1979—) enabled them to
form groups and discuss specialist interests using telephone lines, but
connection charges tended to ensure that these remained relatively
local. The Jargon File, discussed above, existed first as a text file that
26 Talking the talk: Chris Madden, ‘Internet Nerd’.
could be edited by anyone who had access to it at Stanford and, later,

at MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), where a backup
was stored. These variant versions, with separate updates by multiple
contributors, were periodically combined to produce a new master
document, which is now numbered 4.4.8 and updated by a single
editor. Numerous updated versions of the Jargon File are preserved as
html and text files in various online locations and several book-
editions have been published.
Bulletin boards were superseded by newsgroups, which performed
much the same function. In the early 1990s, users of a newsgroup
called alt.rap found themselves having regular and increasingly repeti-
tive discussions about the meaning of terms heard in rap music, and
a glossary was compiled and updated by Patrick Atoon and (later)
Niels Janssen. The Rap Dictionary became accessible to many more
people when it migrated to the Web in 1994, and has been user-edited
since it became a wiki in 2004. It’s now possible to trace changes made
to an entry, and to undo changes made by other people. For example,
in July 2004 one user posted the following definition for the verb
front:
Pretend to be that which you are not; act tough. “You can’t front on that” –
Beastie Boys (So what’cha want [1992]).
In January 2005, another user added a query:

What about how Ghostface’s usage of the term in Theodore Unit’s song
“Wicked With Lead”? “In those Coca-Coal rugbys, 2 bitches with a front in
my mouth” What does ‘front’ mean in this context?
This was quickly moved to the ‘Discussion’ section, where it still

languishes unanswered, but over the next few years three additional
senses were added, numbered 2–4 in the current version:
2. To bluff or to be a coward. [added March 2006]
3. To pretend to not be interested; as in “why you frontin’ on my boy
for?” [added April 2006]
4. To give something away for a certin amount of time, and get paid
back later. (Yo, front me a dime bag..) [added April 2007]
The Rap Dictionary now has almost 5000 content pages, each of
which defines a slang term or provides information about rap music
and artists. As in all wikis, the quality is variable, but the dictionary is
still overseen by Atoon, and other users edit one another’s entries and
reinstate earlier versions where necessary. Worth an estimated
$11,607, it receives approximately 4500 page views per day.
Other online slang dictionaries originated in the Internet era, and
always existed as web pages. Some are entirely static and text-based;
others are updated by an editor or editorial term. Chris Lewis’s Online
Dictionary of Playground Slang allowed its users to contribute slang
terms by email, and these were mediated by its editor before they
went online, although they weren’t heavily edited or carefully
checked. For example, wicked appears in the following definitions:
bostin’ n. Wicked, brilliant, good, favourable, best. Source: UK (NW)

cushty num. Nice. Appropriate for needs. Cool or ‘wicked’. Made popular
by David Jason playing Derek Trotter in the famous TV series “Only Fools
and Horses”. Cockney’s assume this is one of ‘their’ words, but in fact it
derives from Romany! . . . Source: circa 1980’s +, UK
nang adj. Means ‘wicked’, ‘good’. Used as “Cor, that’s nang.” or, more
phonetically, (cor, dass nang). Heard spoken by a white child, but
possibly influenced by Black London English. Source: circa current,
UK (S)
oudish adj. Very good, excellant, top hole, spiffing. Basically wicked good!
Source: circa 1990’s, UK
sed adj. (1) Great, magic, wicked good. Used as (That MP3 was sed!” . . .
Source: circa 1990’s, USA (Minn)
Although some of the additional information is correct (cushty is

from Romany), grammatical labelling is erratic. Without further
information, it’s hard to know what to make of the dates, but
n(y)ang (1922—), cushty (1929—), and bosting (1974—) are well
established with this sense, though oudish (2001—) is less common
in unambiguous contexts. I haven’t found any evidence for sed at all.
Users’ submissions eventually grew into nine separate lists, which can
be searched collectively. The site was first listed by Yahoo in 2000, and
Lewis published The Dictionary of Playground Slang three years later.
The most recent updates appear to have been in 2007, but the site has
an estimated value of $4343, and still receives over 1200 page views a
day. Clearly, an online dictionary that relies on a single person to
mediate and edit entries submitted by multiple users makes a heavy
demand on its editor’s time. An enthusiastic individual may be
willing to put in the required time to begin with, but this enthusiasm
is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run, particularly if it doesn’t
generate enough income to free them from paid work.
The Online Slang Dictionary has existed since 1996, and instead of
relying on its editor, Walter Rader, to post updates and changes, this
site allows users to edit existing definitions, record their own fre-
quency of use, plot their position on a map, and vote on whether
words are ‘vulgar’ or not by increasing or decreasing the proportion

of a chilli pepper that’s coloured red, starting from a default chilli
rating of 50%. This user input is with reference to entire entries,
which may include different senses and different parts of speech.
Users often add definitions rather than editing existing ones. For
example, the entry for dude reads:
To dress elaborately or flamboyantly. got all duded up for the show. [2002]
Used to express approval, satisfaction, or congratulations. [2002]
Can sometimes be used when something disappointing happens. Dude,
that’s stupid. [2003]
1) goes before a sentence in exclamation to get the listeners attention 2) a way
of referring to someone. Dude, I finally figured out how to play that really hard
song on my guitar! Do you understand what I’m trying to say, Dude? [2003]
an expression meaning “yes, very good, cool, hello, etc.” Dude! Good to see
ya! [2003]
Distain. Dude. [2004]
Greeting. Dude! [2004]
Is there someone in the closet with a knife? Origin: Rob Schnider stand up
Dude? [2004]
used to obtain another persons attention, used to reference a person
without using their name. Hey dude, what are you doing? [2004]
a man Hi dude, waht’s up? [2006]
A friend or buddy Dude, what’s on your face? [2007]
a male. That dude over there is pretty cute. He’s a weird dude. [1998]
To show polite acceptance of one’s presence or approval of one’s suggestion.
[2004]
A total of 95 users had voted in response to the question ‘How

common is this slang?’ 78 said ‘I use it’, 3 ‘No longer use it’, 11 had
‘Heard it but never used it’, and 3 ‘Have never heard it’. 28 had voted
on ‘How vulgar is this slang’, resulting in a meaningless 11% vulgarity
rating. Several users of the term had mapped their positions on the
west and east coasts of the United States, with a large gap in the
middle, with isolated users in Mali, Russia, India, and Singapore. No
British users had mapped their usage, though dude is commonly used
as a term of address in the UK. D00d is defined separately on The

Online Slang Dictionary, with no link provided between the two
spellings. If users were willing to read other definitions before posting
their own, to check for other possible spellings, and to take the time to
provide information about their own usage for terms that other
people had posted, this could be a very useful online resource. Links
to Twitter for each term provide particularly interesting evidence of
contemporary use, although there’s a lot of background noise. The
website receives approximately 23,600 page views per day, and has an
estimated value of $51,757.
An even more profitable business model was adopted by Urban
Dictionary, founded in 1999 by a first-year computer science student
at California Polytechnic State University, as a parody of dictionary.
com. Aaron Peckham couldn’t have anticipated how many definitions
the site would eventually host (over 6 million at the time of writing).
By 2005, he was making ‘a very small profit’ after covering his costs,
but by 2009 he’d given up the day job. Two dictionaries in book form,
Urban Dictionary calendars, and a wide range of products customiz-
able with any definition from the site combine with advertisements
from Google AdSense to generate income. A ‘word of the day’ email
list, Facebook and Twitter links, a text message lookup system, and a
version designed for searching by phone all ensure that the Urban
Dictionary website receives as many hits as possible. This is clearly
successful, because the website receives an estimated 1.6 million page
views each day, and is worth approximately $3.47 million.
Urban Dictionary celebrates its democratic status, emphasizing
that anyone can post terms and definitions and that no editorial
judgements are made on the grounds of quality. A selection from
among the definitions for minger, in which references to individuals’
names are replaced here by ‘XX’, illustrates some of the problems with
Urban Dictionary’s contents:
a woman u take out back and shoot damn that chick is minger (I’d Better go
take her out back and shoot her) [2003]
Any hata. [2003]

ugly and spoty person with bad teeth and breath. may have a nice ass. XX
[2003]
a minger is a fucker. it is a very versatile word similar to fuck except you can
say it in public without getting dirty looks because no one knows what
you’re talking about. Ming off! or What the ming does that girl think shes
doing with my man? or Whatever, go ming yourself. [2004]
someone who is the coolest person in the world. not only are they hot as
hell, they are fun to be around and put your stick in. DAMN NUKKAH! look
at dat fine ass minger. [2004]
Since 2005, volunteer editors have sifted through users’ contributions

to filter out nonsensical submissions and personal, sexist, and
racist definitions (though racist and sexist terms can be defined).
Editors aren’t permitted to reject submissions they consider to
be incorrect. A few definitions for minger from after this date will
allow you to judge the success of the editors’ application of these
rules:
A person who is a descendant of a Mexican and Ginger. Who has black thin
hair and is white freckly skin. Mingers are also ugly as shit. One example of
a ginger is XX. XX is a Minger. [2008]
Someone who is ugly, fat, gross or otherwise undesirable. XX is a minger.
[2009]
the ugliest person i know. she is the definition of smelly and fat and is
terrible at netball. lazy and ungrateful, a minger sleeps and eats more than
anything else. You’d rather saw off your own foot than dare walking closer
to her wow that XX girl is such a minger! [2010]
Users can click a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ symbol to indicate

whether or not they like a definition, and the definition with the highest
approval rating is presented first for each word. The last three examples
are among the lowest rated for minger, but thumbs up and down don’t
always provide an indication of quality because insults directed towards
famous people tend to drift towards the top of the list.
In 2009, Peckham redefined Urban Dictionary as ‘the dictionary

you wrote’ rather than ‘the slang dictionary you wrote’, in recognition
that much of what it contains isn’t slang. It also isn’t a dictionary in
any traditional sense, but it does contain raw materials that are
invaluable to any serious slang lexicographer. An entry in Urban
Dictionary doesn’t prove that a word is still in use in a particular
way, and much of its contents are just made up, but if an Urban
Dictionary definition precedes other evidence, it can provide a reliable
antedating. It also offers a forum for arguments about the meaning
and origins of slang terms, but no definitive answers are provided.
Many online slang dictionaries have no pretensions to authority or
comprehensiveness. They’re intended as entertainment rather than
education, and often rely on stereotypes about local and national
groups. Dictionaries written from an outsider perspective often find
it difficult to distinguish between dialect, colloquialisms, and slang.
For example, The Septics Companion website purports to list British
slang, but includes many terms that are standard in British English,
such as aerial “radio antenna”, bank holiday “a public holiday”, and
car park “parking lot”. This represents a reversal of the position
we saw in the nineteenth century, when British commentators
considered all terms originating overseas to be slang. Professional
lexicographers and lexicologists offer more authoritative sources of
information about slang online, and some of these are listed in the
notes.
Using online resources to document slang

I’m going to end this chapter by using online resources to trace the
history of a slang word that’s too new to be in any of my dictionary
sources: kettle “to control protestors by containing them in a small
area”, often in the form kettling. Its first appearance in a newspaper
with this sense was in the Guardian in March 2009, where kettle “an
area surrounded by police” is also found. The BBC news website soon
followed (April 2009), as did newspapers in the United States (May

2009), Ireland (December 2010), India (April 2010), Canada (May
2010), and South Africa (February 2011). Outside the UK, references
were often to British policing tactics used in the UK or adopted
abroad for events like the G20 summit, and kettle is sometimes
described as a police term. This gives rise to the first hypothesis:
2009—, originally UK police slang.
However, while newspaper citations prove that journalists around
the world use kettle, they don’t prove that the police (or anyone else)
use it, or that it’s slang. There are several well-established police blogs
and glossaries of UK police slang online, but none were using kettle
with this sense before its appearance in the press in 2009. This doesn’t
prove that it wasn’t police slang: it could have been restricted to a
single police force. On the other hand, it might have been a conve-
nient metaphor invented by one reporter and misinterpreted by
others, leading us to a second hypothesis: 2009—, originally UK
journalists.
If kettle is journalists’ slang, we might expect it to be restricted to
newspapers, but Twitter provides 20 examples of kettling from the last
24 hours (and that’s only the first screen), which satisfies me that the
term isn’t restricted to journalists. Since it’s evidently reasonably
widely used, we now have to decide whether it might be standard or
colloquial rather than slang. Of the first 20 Google blog search results,
seven place kettling in inverted commas, and five explain its meaning:
it evidently isn’t used widely enough that bloggers expect their readers
to understand it. It’s not colloquial, then, or restricted to journalists,
and it’s not police slang or jargon, so what is it?
The earliest example I’ve found online is from 2003, written
from the perspective of protestors, with two from 2005 referring to
protests in Hamburg and Hong Kong. Three of the earliest examples
are ultimately from Indymedia sites, which offer ‘grass-roots, non-
corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political
issues’. This suggests a third hypothesis: 2003—, originally protest
groups. Various websites state that the tactic of kettling was first used
in response to protests in Seattle in 1999, and some assume that the

term also dates from then, but online searches don’t support this
position at present: it’s possible that 2003 could be antedated using
written sources, but at least we would now know where to start
looking.
Conclusions . . . and questions

Naturally, the introduction of these new technologies has given rise to
new terms, both formal and informal. Commercial terms tend to be
assimilated quickly by those marketing, reviewing, and using new
products, sometimes spreading rapidly into general usage. Computer
users also develop their own slang to supplement the technical and
informal terms used by industry professionals.
Computers have also allowed people to document their own slang
in innovative and interactive ways. Although the results aren’t always
very good, this material will continue to be invaluable to slang
lexicographers, and the wealth of material online allows us to seek
evidence in new ways. Online citations also raise new questions that
I’ll attempt to answer here, in case any budding slang entrepreneurs
are reading this book.
Can online terms be categorized as slang? I would say yes: online and
spoken language aren’t distinct anymore, if they ever really were.
Do people use slang terms in the same way online as in speech?
Probably not entirely: the way people use slang terms is conditioned
by the context, on and offline. The way people use slang online is
likely to be influenced by their anticipated audience or by the image
they want to project of themselves. But it’s a less distorting lens than
the literary and media representations we’ve relied on until now.
Can you be sure when and where an online citation was written? This
depends on your source: on newspaper websites and blogs you’ll be
able to see the date of original posting, but for some websites you may
only be able to see when it was last updated. In this case, even if
you’re certain a term was used before that date, you’re going to have
to look elsewhere for concrete evidence. Take datings from Google

Books with extreme caution: there are about 20,500 twenty-first
century hits for prithee.
Is the concept of national slang still sustainable? I think it is. Though
the proportion of slang that’s international may continue to rise, it’s
also possible that new terms will develop to maintain distinctiveness,
as has happened with African American slang.
Fellow Australians use this term. Can I label it ‘Australian’? Before
you label something as ‘British’, ‘American’, ‘Canadian’, or whatever,
decide what you mean by that label and find out whether it’s accurate.
You can’t rely on your own intuitions, but blogs offer really useful
evidence.
Isn’t slang changing so rapidly that it’s no longer possible to keep up?
No. You’ve seen that a lot of the slang used today has been around for
a surprisingly long time. If no one had documented the early uses of
these terms, we’d think they were new. The same goes for current
slang. Some of the slang you use will fall from use in a few years time;
some will spread to wider international or colloquial usage. In either
case, isn’t it worth documenting that you used it?
Have online slang dictionaries put professional slang lexicographers out
of a job? Absolutely not. The more (mis)information there is online, the
more necessary it becomes to have authoritative sources.
Could slang lexicography be done to a higher standard online? Hell
yes! Online slang lexicography could combine professional standards
with input from slang-users around the world. A site that received
enough hits could generate the money to pay for high-quality
research and editorial work. How wicked would that be?
Endnotes
David Crystal, Language and the Internet, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), and Greg Myers, The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis
(London: Continuum, 2010), both provide fascinating accounts of online lan-
guage use, but neither has much to say about slang. In 1959, a member of MIT’s
Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC), called Peter Samson, had documented
terms used by model train enthusiasts at the university <http://tmrc.mit.edu/
dictionary.html>. Overlaps between this list and the Jargon File are relatively few
in number, but reveal hybrid social connections. The latest print version is Eric
S. Raymond and Guy L. Steele, The New Hacker’s Dictionary, 3rd edn (Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996). The unedited original file is available at <http://
www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html>, and the current revision at <http://
www.catb.org/jargon>.
‘Me g0 gr4b s0Me k0ph33’, like many examples from this section, is from Erin
McKean, ‘L33t-sp34k’, Verbatim 27/1 (2002), 13–14. Greg Costikyan, ‘Talk Like
a Gamer’, Verbatim 27/3 (2002), 1–6, provides many of the lexical examples and
initialisms cited here. J3ff C4r00s0 (Jeff Carooso), ‘Are you l33t?’, Network
World, 17 May 2004, Back News, 76, documents the decline of leetspeak. The
exchange from the World of Warcraft forum <http://eu.battle.net/wow/en> (EU
site) is no longer accessible online. I’ve changed the posters’ names. Computing
terms were listed as slang in Scott LaFee’s ‘We’re Spammin’ Now; So Can any
Chiphead’, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10 May 1995, Lifestyle, E3; and Jim
McClellan’s ‘Netsurfers [sic] Paradise’, The Observer, 13 Feb. 1996, Life, 8.
‘Alpo and Fray’ by Seth Ferranti (aka Soul Man) on <http://www.gorillaconvict.
com/blog> was posted on 2 Oct. 2010 and edited two days later. You can read
Bock the Robber at <http://bocktherobber.com> and watch Skanger Me Banger
on YouTube at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPddpNuzLn8>. I looked at
the Facebook sites for the University of Leicester Students’ Union site and Frater-
nity & Sorority Life at Indiana State University on 5 Nov. 2010, and considered
posts from the past month or so. Many of the comments appeared to be from
students new to the institutions who were, presumably, using slang terms they’d
learnt at home. It’s possible that different slang would have been used later in the
academic year.
Twitter’s user statistics and glossary are at <http://support.twitter.com/articles/
166337-the-twitter-glossary>. The graphs showing the dissemination of Twitter
terms come with a health warning. They make no distinction between grammatical
forms, so tweet “a message” and tweet “to send a message” are counted together
and the results are combined here. These are counts of articles containing the
words rather than of word frequency, which may deflate the results. However,
Nexis results sometimes include multiple editions of the same newspaper, and this
will have an inflationary tendency. In short, the numbers aren’t comparable
between papers, though the trends should be. My final caveat is that these figures
don’t tell us anything about the spoken usage of these journalists, let alone their
readers, but they do tell us about the rate at which regular readers of these
particular newspapers were exposed to these words.
Extracts from online dictionaries are uncorrected and appear as they do online.
I’ve referred to The Rap Dictionary <http://www.rapdict.org/Main_Page> (my
information about the history of this dictionary is from its ‘about’ page) and The
Online Dictionary of Playground Slang <http://odps.org>, which gave rise to
Chris Lewis’s The Dictionary of Playground Slang (London: Allison and Bushby,
2003), described on the website and in David Newnham’s ‘The Word on the
Street’, Times Educational Supplement, 31 Oct. 2003, n.p. Estimates of web
traffic and value in this chapter are from Website Outlook <http://
www.websiteoutlook.com> [25 Mar. 2011]. The Online Slang Dictionary can be
found at <http://onlineslangdictionary.com>, The Septic’s Companion at
<http://septicscompanion.com>, and information about Urban Dictionary is
from its website and the following newspaper articles that documented its
development: Thuy-Doan Le, ‘Urbandictionary.com Sorts out Slang from Stan-
dard Lingo’, Sacramento Bee, 7 Jul. 2005, n.p.; Casey Phillips, ‘Web Site Compiles
Online “Slangtionary”’, Chattanooga Times Free Press, 23 Jan. 2008, Life, E1;
Denise Ryan, ‘Teen Slang: Enter at Your Own Risk’, The Vancouver Sun, 12 Sept.
2009, A10; and Blessy Augustine, ‘Word toyour [sic] Mother’, MINT, 26 Dec.
2009, n.p. If you’re interested in keeping up with the latest developments in
English vocabulary, you might try <http://www.doubletongued.org> by Grant
Barrett, <http://www.dictionaryevangelist.com> by Erin McKean, or <http://
languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll> by Mark Liberman et al. On Twitter, you
can follow bgzimmer, GrantBarrett, or emckean. Early examples of kettle
are available at <http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/kettle_11>,
<http://kotaji.blogsome.com/2005/12/18/satueday-in-hong-kong-eyewitness
-accounts>, <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368011.html>, and <http://
de.indymedia.org/2007/05/179084.shtml>. Searches in this section were performed
on 18 Mar. 2011.
12 Endsville
What is slang?
If you’ve stuck with me this far, you’ll know that I disagree with some of
the ways people have distinguished slang from other types of language.
It’s not necessarily new, or linguistically unusual, or associated with
uneducated people, or necessarily vulgar. It’s not just colloquial lan-
guage taken to an extreme. It doesn’t include dialect or jargon,
although local and professional slang do occur. It doesn’t include
swearing, though some swearing is slang. Neither is it restricted to
the spoken language to the extent that it once was. It isn’t necessarily
used for deliberate effect. Slanginess isn’t a quality of words or mean-
ings: what’s slang in one context wouldn’t be slang in another. It isn’t
bad to use slang, but it isn’t good to use it either. What’s key is whether
you use it well—in an appropriate context and in a way that achieves
the result you want. Unfortunately, the judges of your success (your
audience), who may not even agree among themselves, are applying
ever-changing rules that no one will ever explain to you clearly.
So is slang a useful word? Bethany Dumas and Jonathan Lighter
wrote a long article asking that very question, and concluded that it is,
as long as it’s used carefully. They argued that an expression that
fulfilled two or more of the following criteria should be considered

slang:
1. if it were used in formal speech or writing, it would lower the tone

(with a jarring or comical effect)
2. its use implies familiarity with the thing being referred to and a
rejection of the more conventional views of those who might not be
familiar with it
3. it is a taboo word in conversations with people of greater power or
higher social status
4. it is used in place of a more widely known synonym.
It is worth noting that these criteria all refer to how expressions are
used rather than to the expressions themselves, which is great, but
while these filters might eliminate some contenders, I’m not con-
vinced that they’d block out all other types of non-standard English.
Mardy “moody” (1903—, UK dialect) would fulfil 1 and 4, and
probably 2 and 3, but it isn’t slang. Poo “faeces; a lump of excrement”
(c.1939—) would tick 1 and 4, and probably 3, but it’s now colloquial
in British English. Criteria 3 and 4 more or less guarantee that all
swear words are categorized as slang, which makes it impossible to
distinguish between widely used and restricted forms.
What these criteria don’t acknowledge is the importance of slang in
creating and maintaining a sense of group or personal identity. Slang
isn’t just about rejecting conventional values and words. It’s also about
fitting in: about conforming to the way your friends speak, or the
people you’d like to be friends with. These four criteria also imply that
slang is used with deliberate intention, but most slang is used without
self-reflection. The most common slang terms are used repeatedly to
express value judgements and affiliations. For example, in Pixar’s
Finding Nemo, Marlin (a clownfish) comes round after a run-in with
some jellyfish to find himself riding on the shell of a turtle:
Crush: Dude [Marlin Groans] Oh, he lives! Hey Dude!

Marlin: [Groans.] What happened?
Crush: Oh, saw the whole thing dude! First we were like whoa. Then we
were like wooo. And then you were like woaoaor.
Marlin: What are you talking about?
Endsville 299
Crush: You, mini man! Taking on the jellies! You’ve got serious thrill issues,
dude! Awesome!
Marlin: Ooh oh, my stomach!
Crush: Oh man, hey, no hurling on the shell, ok dude? Just waxed it.
Marlin: So, Mr Turtle . . .
Crush: Hey, dude, Mr Turtle is my father. Name’s Crush.
Marlin: Crush, really? Ok Crush. Listen, I need to get to the East Australian
Current. EAC.
Crush: Dude. You’re riding it dude. Check it out!
Crush’s repeated use of dude adds nothing to the content of his com-
ments, but it tells us a lot about him (laid-back surfer) and how he feels
towards Marlin (friendly and respectful). He switches to man when he
wants to make a serious point and still defines his self-identity in
opposition to his parents, even though he’s 150 years old. Dude is an
expression of Crush’s identity every bit as much as his Californian
accent, along with like, check it out, hurl, ride, and awesome. But Crush
doesn’t stop to agonize over his word choices. The turtles Crush hangs
out with all say dude, and it’s become part of their group identity: a turtle
that didn’t say dude would be marginal to this group, and it would be
hard to pin down whether its dudelessness was cause or effect.
Representations of slang
But turtles can’t talk. That wasn’t real slang: like most of the quota-
tions in this book, it was a representation of the speech of a character
type rather than a sample of actual speech. In films and other forms of
representation, words are chosen very deliberately with an eye to their
effect on viewers, listeners, or readers. Children watching Finding
Nemo probably pick up that there’s an amusing difference between
the over-anxious urban clownfish and the laid-back turtle, but they
may not be able to identify the meaning of their accents or the
connotations of their word choices. These additional layers of mean-
ing are for adult viewers.
Representations of slang on screen are misleadingly convincing: we

forget entirely that the characters are carefully honed products of
meetings and script changes, with every word chosen for optimum
effect. Their artistic merit doesn’t rely on the slang being up to date or
realistic: it can convey character traits and information about rela-
tionships even if it isn’t an accurate representation of how people
really speak. But there are also plenty of representations of slang that
are just lazy reworking of stereotypes. There are documentaries about
frogs and there’s Kermit. What’s difficult is telling the difference
between the two. I think Finding Nemo is great and the turtles
speak convincingly, but what do I know? If you were riding the
waves in California in 2003, you’d be a better judge, but could you
distinguish between the way you spoke in 2003 and the way you
spoke in 2002? Could you be sure the way you spoke was representa-
tive of all Californian surfers? Are you sure you were quite as central
to the surf scene as you’d like to believe?
We can check contemporary television and cinematic use of slang
by listening to speech and looking at tweets and blogs and other
online material, but representations of slang in novels and plays,
which can be just as convincing, can’t be verified in this way. When
we come across sixteenth-century beggars or eighteenth-century so-
cialites speaking in a particular way, we’re likely to assume that this is
really how that type of person spoke at that time. Maybe they (or
some of them) did, but that’s only likely if their author mixed in the
appropriate circles, had a really good ear, and resisted the temptation
to exaggerate for comic or dramatic effect. Slang used on stage or on
the page will probably have been as unfamiliar to most of its contem-
porary audience as it is to us, and most of them would have been no
better judges than we are. There are similar problems with all the
other types of evidence available to us: journalists may report stereo-
type rather than reality, Old Bailey records provide us with reported
speech rather than accurate transcripts, and many slang dictionaries
copy earlier slang dictionaries. Letters, blogs, even autobiographies,
are written self-consciously. It’s next to impossible to write without
Endsville 301
imagining a reader or engaging in greater self-reflection than we use

in speech.
Before (I hope) you throw your hands up in despair, let me just say
that although we can’t rely on any of these types of evidence on their
own, they often coincide. Where playwrights, novelists, and letter-
writers use or talk about the same terms, apparently independently,
we can start to rely on their evidence. What we’re collecting is
circumstantial evidence, but if we get enough of it, it does become
convincing.
Slang creation, use, and documentation

We’ve seen that some conditions are particularly conducive to the
development of slang. Conditions conducive to the use of slang are
much easier to fulfil: all you need is a standard language in a society
that’s big enough to break into subgroups, whether defined by social
class, age, gender, or any combination of these and other factors.
There has to be some movement between the groups, or at least some
admiration or emulation. Until relatively recently, the people docu-
menting slang have been the literate elite with contacts in journalism
or publishing, and their personal experience of slang-creators and
even slang-users has often been minimal (see Figure 27). For this
reason, slang has often been attributed to groups closer to those
in power: not African American musicians, for example, but beats
(primary adopters), or young people in general (secondary adopters).
Writers of slang dictionaries have often picked up their evidence from
representations rather than slang usage, and the representation and
documentation of slang have both been subject to censorship.
With increasing literacy, relaxed censorship, and greater access to
publishing technologies, including the Internet, some of these bound-
aries have begun to dissolve. Advertisers, entertainers, the media, and
Joe Blogger sometimes simultaneously create and represent ‘slang’
(see Figure 28). If this catches on, it may genuinely become slang
Secondary
Slang
Sla Adoption
ng Dis
Primary
Di cus
cti sio
Slang
on ns
Adoption
ar
ies
an
d
Slang
Creation
Representations of Slang
27 A model of traditional slang creation, adoption, representation, and

documentation.
through use. The documentation of slang is no longer restricted to

any one group: slang-creators and adopters can use and discuss their
own slang in dictionaries and online discussions. Although the situa-
tion represented by Figure 28 offers the potential for more informed
accounts of the origins of slang, it also generates misinformation. The
transition between these two models isn’t complete, and probably
never will be. Commentators and dictionary-makers wanting to pro-
vide broad coverage will still have to operate under the traditional
model, to some extent, though with greater access to documentation
by the inner circles.
Slang and freedom

It’s no coincidence that the groups considered to be particularly creative
makers and users of slang have generally been oppressed (African
Americans, gay men, the working classes, etc.) or marginalized
(young people, criminals, drug-users, etc.). If you’re a member of a
Endsville 303
Primary
Slang
Slang
Creation
Adoption
Representations Secondary
of Slang Slang
Adoption
Slang Dictionaries and Discussions
28 A model of contemporary slang creation, adoption, representation, and

documentation.
group that isn’t oppressed or marginalized, you don’t have much reason
to undermine the hierarchy. But why the repeated pattern in which
the dispossessed create slang terms and the privileged adopt them?
Why did upper-class British men emulate working-class men in the
nineteenth century? Why do middle-class white teenagers emulate
inner-city African Americans today? The answer must surely lie in the
freedoms that come with being marginalized and the restrictions that
come with being a member of polite society. No one would expect a
working-class man to spend his leisure time drinking tea in a drawing
room, so the upper-class young man rebelled against the constraints of
respectability by using working-class slang. We don’t expect black rap
artists to have progressive attitudes towards gender or sexuality, and
white teenagers (white rap artists) feel free to adopt the sexual politics of
rap along with its slang. By identifying with disadvantaged minorities,
slang-users can show their disdain for the standards and traditions of
mainstream society without actually having to give up their privileges or
go to the trouble of being creative in their own right.
Slang and gender

Slang has often been about gender as well as class and ethnicity. In
1922, Otto Jespersen (who deserved a better fate than to be quoted
mainly for the sake of argument) wrote that women exert a ‘great and
universal influence on linguistic development through their instinc-
tive shrinking from coarse and gross expressions’, in contrast with
men, who ‘want to avoid what is commonplace and banal and to
replace it by new and fresh expressions’; to men ‘are due those
changes by which we sometimes see one term replace an older one,
to give way in turn to a still newer one, and so on’. In other words,
women create euphemisms and men create slang. Jespersen went so
far as to say that using slang ‘is undoubtedly one of the “human
secondary sexual characters”’, though presumably in the same way
that a well-paid job is: slang use is a product of social structures and
rules, not of inherent physical or psychological difference.
Women have played a vital, though probably involuntary, role in
the development of slang. Rebellion is less rewarding if no one is
upset by it, and we’ve seen that the restriction of women’s talk has
been intertwined with the development of slang around the world.
For much of the period covered in this book, middle-class young
women with a rebellious streak have only been able to adopt young
men’s slang, having been forced into the position of secondary adop-
ters by the restrictions of their own lives. Now that young women
have more freedom, they both use and develop more slang of their
own. Fortunately, there are still plenty of people willing to supply the
necessary disapproval.
National slang
Slang is also associated with the question of national identity, though
the nationality of slang terms can be a complicated business. Figure
29 contains parallel subcategories of slang terms (it’s impossible for
Endsville 305
Slang originating
Slang originating in
elsewhere, but Slang brought from
Britain but common Slang used across
established in Britain Britain and elsewhere
to all English- North America
across several by settlers
speakers
generations
Slang only Slang only

ever used in ever used in
Britain the US
Slang originating in Later slang Later slang

Slang originating in
Britain, but also used originating elsewhere, originating elsewhere,
the US, but also used
in commonwealth but also used in but also used in the
elsewhere
countries Britain US
Slang originating and Slang brought from Slang brought from

used in Australia and Britain and elsewhere Slang used across
North America Britain and elsewhere
NZ, but not used by settlers by settlers
elsewhere
Slang only Slang only

ever used in ever used in
Australia Canada
Later slang Slang originating in

Slang originating in Later slang
originating elsewhere, Canada, but also used
Australia, but also originating elsewhere,
but also used in elsewhere
used elsewhere but also used in
Australia Canada
29 Slang nationalities.
them to be identical because of the historical differences), showing

that different definitions of ‘national slang’ operate in different con-
texts. Putting aside the complications caused by national colloquial-
isms, solid grey boxes indicate categories of slang that are usually
considered national slang. Gradated grey indicates categories of slang
only sometimes considered national. Those categories of slang that
aren’t claimed as national are left white. Only ‘American slang’
encompasses terms originating elsewhere, sometimes on the assump-
tion that all slang used in America is American in origin. Conversely,
‘Canadian slang’ is defined most narrowly, in opposition to both
British and American slang.
Any dictionary of national slang that doesn’t explain what it
includes and excludes isn’t worth buying, but there isn’t a definitive
definition of national slang because it’s a misleading concept: it

assumes both greater conformity and greater distinctiveness than
exist in reality. A particular slang usage may have been created in
Australia and only ever used there, but it will be used in conjunction
with slang with various other origins and distributions. A practical
account of ‘Australian slang’ would need to include all these other
terms, but a symbolic account would exclude them.
One last metaphor

The metaphors used to discuss slang, in this book and elsewhere,
reveal that we want to think of it as a concrete entity, although slang is
an abstract noun (like defiance, solidarity, or evaluation). Even as an
abstract noun, it’s problematic. When slang is used to refer to a word
or collection of words, it seems to imply that they are slang, or that it’s
a quality inherent in them.
So let’s try an abstract metaphor, if such a thing is possible. Slang is
an attitude (insolence, for example, coolness, disdain, admiration, or
a desire for conformity) expressed in words. Any word habitually
used with one of these slangy attitudes retains the association, but the
association wears off when the word is used by people who don’t
share or are only pretending to share the attitude. When a group of
people are stereotyped by their attitude, outsiders will find signs of it
even where it isn’t being expressed. Words associated with the atti-
tude will come to be used in representations of the group. Most of us
don’t analyse our attitudes while we’re expressing them, but members
of the group may find pleasure or take pride in their attitude, and
wish to represent it to the world or encourage other people to adopt it.
Others will guard their attitude fiercely against intruders and feel
resentful when people they see as members of their own group
express a different attitude.
Attitudes are exported along with political and economic influence.
Britain’s attitudes were influential in the eighteenth and nineteenth
Endsville 307
centuries. American attitudes have been influential since WWII. We

all have attitudes, but if we’re in line with the majority, we tend not to
acknowledge our own. Attitudes don’t have an independent existence:
they’re products of people, relationships, and contexts.
THE END
“the last straw” (1919-1975, originally Australian)
“perfection” (1950-1996, US jazz slang)
Endnotes
Bethany K. Dumas and Jonathan Lighter asked ‘Is slang a Word for Linguistics’
in American Speech 53 (1978), 5–17. Otto Jespersen is quoted from Language: Its
Nature, Development and Origin (London: Allen & Unwin, 1922), 247–8. Marlin
encounters the turtles in Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich’s Finding Nemo
(Burbank/Emeryville, CA: Walt Disney/Pixar, 2003). In a 60 Minutes interview
(broadcast 10 Oct. 2010), Eminem complained that his sexism is unfairly singled
out for criticism because he’s white. Any dictionary of ‘American slang’ will
include numerous terms that originated in the UK, but Paul Dickson’s War Slang
(Darby, PA: Diane Publishing, 1994), allegedly listing ‘slang expressions created
by, for, or about American fighting men and women’ (x), now in its third edition,
provides a clear demonstration of the elasticity of the concept.
Acknowledgements
................................................
Figures 1, 3, and 17 are reproduced by permission of <http://

www.offthemark.com>. Figure 2 was scanned by Philip V. Allingham,
and is reproduced with permission from <http://www.victorianweb
.org>. Figures 4, 8, 11, 20, and 21 are reproduced by permission of
<http://www.cartoonstock.com>, and Figure 6 with the permission
of Charley Krebs. Figure 12 is reproduced with permission from the
British Library Board (# All Rights Reserved. The British Library
Board. Licence Number: UNILEI22), and Figure 15 courtesy of the
Library of Congress. Figure 19 is reproduced by permission of Ohio
State University Libraries, and Figure 26 by permission of <http://
www.chrismadden.co.uk>. Figures 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 18 were
scanned by the University of Leicester Design Services. Greg at
<http://bocktherobber.com> and Gorilla Convict at <http://
www.gorillaconvict.com/blog> kindly gave me permission to use
material from their blogs. Except where it has expired, copyright
remains with the original holder. I would be glad to hear from the
copyright holders for Figures 5, 7, and 18, which are reproduced
without prejudice.
Work on this book was completed during study leave from the
University of Leicester. I’m very grateful to my Head of School,
Martin Halliwell, for his continued support, to Ruth Page for giving
me the benefit of her much greater knowledge of online communica-
tion, and to Ben Parsons for his expertise on Early Modern contact
with the Netherlands. I’ve also learnt a tremendous amount from my
students, as will be apparent. I’ve enjoyed it too. Thanks very much.
Michael Adams, Paul Denton, Jonathon Green, Alan Kirkness, Tim
Acknowledgements 309
Machan, and Sarah Ogilvie (in alphabetical order) were all incredibly
generous in reading drafts and offering countless useful suggestions
for their improvement. They have enhanced and enriched this book
no end, and I’m enormously grateful to them. I’d also like to thank
Julia Steer, Elmandi du Toit, and Jenny Lunsford at OUP, as well as
Jack Whitehead and Michael Sheppard. The remaining faults are
entirely my own.
Explanatory Notes
................................................
Abbreviations and typographical conventions

a. preceding a date = ante (before)
e.g. a.1590 = before 1590
AAVE African American Vernacular English
AND Australian National Dictionary
c. preceding a date = circa (around)
e.g. c.1590 = around 1590
HDAS Lighter, Historical Dictionary of American Slang
MED Kurath, et al., Middle English Dictionary
n noun; (in references) note
n.p. no place of publication; no publisher; no page numbers
e.g. (n.p.: Hemlock Press, 1910) = no place of publication given
e.g. (London: n.p., 1910) = no publisher named
e.g. (London: Hemlock Press, 1910), n.p. = no page numbers provided
NZ New Zealand
OE Old English (as used by the Anglo-Saxons)
OED Oxford English Dictionary
r after a page number = recto (the front of a page)
e.g. 8r = the front of the sheet numbered 8
RAF Royal Air Force
UK United Kingdom
US United States (of America)
v after a page number = verso (the back of a page)
e.g. 8v = the back of the sheet numbered 8
WWI World War One
WWII World War Two
+ in dates: indicates discontinuous evidence
e.g. 1517+1972 = only two citations, with one from each of these years
- in dates: indicates continuous evidence
e.g. 1517‐1972 = numerous citations spanning this period
— in dates: indicates evidence of current use
e.g. 1517— = used since 1517 and still in use
/ in dates: indicates the date range of a source

e.g. 1888/94 = cited in a source published between 1888 and 1894
[ ] in dates: indicates that the OED marks this citation as a dubious or
marginal example
e.g. [1941]+1952—
? indicates an uncertain date or derivation
e.g. ?1517 = the date of the source is debateable, but 1517 is based on the
best evidence available
italics used for cited terms
“” used for definitions
() indicate optional elements of definitions
e.g. “a (fat) man” = “a man” or “a fat man”
[] contain indications of meaning where a definition would be unhelpfully
long
e.g. [a type of whisky]
: in definitions: indicates that the preceding element also explains the term’s
etymology
e.g. peeps “people: close friends”
< > contain spellings or URLs
A note on spelling
Slang words often vary in spelling, particularly when they are first written down.
When I cite slang terms, I have used the spelling preferred by my dictionary
sources, but the spellings in quotations will sometimes be different.
A note on dates: ‘That’s still in use’

For each of the slang words mentioned in this book, and for some of the
colloquial and standard ones too, I’ve given dates of use in brackets. These are
based on citations (verifiable examples of use) from the Oxford English Diction-
ary (OED), Green’s Dictionary of Slang, the Historical Dictionary of American
Slang (HDAS), and the Australian National Dictionary (AND), occasionally
supplemented by my other cited sources. Qualified dates (e.g. ‘since at least
2000—’) are based on online searches and could probably be antedated. None
of my dates indicates the whole period during which a word was used: only the
time during which there’s evidence of its use with the definition given. I’m using
the dictionaries critically, and where I don’t feel that a dictionary citation
illustrates the meaning I’m talking about, I’ve excluded it.
Final dates are even more contentious than first dates of use. I decided not to
give last dates where I have evidence of use in or after 2000 (e.g. 1966—). When
the dictionaries didn’t have contemporary citations for a term that I thought
might still be current, I used Nexis newspaper searches, Google Blogs, and Google
Books to determine whether or not it was. In each case, I looked for examples of
312 Explanatory Notes
people using the term rather than just talking about it, so ‘He’s what the earliest
settlers might have called “a right minger”’ and ‘He’s what we call a right minger
round here’ don’t prove continued use, but ‘He’s a right minger’ does. For most
words there are plenty of examples of use, but if they’re all of the first or second
type, I haven’t recorded them as current. I’ve also excluded later citations from
dictionary sources from the dates given.
It’s very hard to pin down when a word falls from use altogether, because
anyone who remembers using it themselves, remembers someone talking about
it, sees it written down, hears it in a song or a film, or comes across it by any other
means, might use it again at any time. It’s probable that some of the terms with
last dates are still in use, but at a (perhaps temporarily) low frequency. Contem-
porary examples of slang senses for words frequently used in Standard English
have been particularly hard to locate.
All the dates cited here should therefore be understood as statements of the
best evidence available to me at the time of writing. They could be proved wrong
by additional evidence at any time, but if you disagree with them, please look first
at my dictionary sources to see if they explain the difference of opinion.
A note on definitions: ‘That’s not what it means’

Most words have more than one meaning, and they’re often only subtly different.
For example, animal can refer to:
1. “any living creature”
2. (by narrowing of 1) “any living creature other than a human”
3. (by narrowing of 1 or 2) “any mammal”
4. (a figurative use of 2) “a human who behaves like an animal”
5. (by extension of 2) “a toy in the shape of a living creature”
6. (by narrowing of 4) “a passionate sexual partner”.
There aren’t any hard and fast rules about when these developments should be
treated as separate meanings in a dictionary, though decisions are often influ-
enced by the amount of evidence available. A dictionary-maker with dozens of
examples of usage 6, for example, might treat it under a separate definition, but if
it occurred only once, 6 could be listed in combination with 4, with the addition
of “specifically a passionate sexual partner” if necessary.
Definitions in this book are generally based on my dictionary sources, and
they reflect the divisions in meaning found there. If you feel that any of my
definitions are too specific or just plain wrong, it may be that these are high
frequency words for which closely related meanings have been split into separate
definitions by the dictionaries I’m using. My evidence that a slang term has been
used in a particular way isn’t intended to exclude the possibility that you use it
differently. I’ve had to resist the temptation to mention all the other meanings of
the words listed here, some of which are only subtly different, to avoid getting
bogged down in detail. Luckily, if you’re not convinced by my definitions, you

can usually check the evidence provided in the dictionaries I’ve used.
By saying that a word has one meaning, I’m not implying that it doesn’t have
other meanings. In Britain, fanny has been used to refer to the female genitals
since 1835; in the United States it has been used to refer to the buttocks since
1919. An unrelated fanny was used at sea to refer to a mess-kettle (1904‐1952).
It would be nonsensical for me to tell you that fanny “buttocks” is wrong because
the word really means “female genitals”, and it would be nonsensical for you to
tell me that the “female genitals” sense is wrong. Neither of us would pay much
attention to Captain Birdseye insisting that fanny meant “kettle”. These senses
aren’t mutually exclusive. The fact that one or more of us is right doesn’t prove
that the others are wrong, but we would all be justified in wanting evidence for
meanings we’re unfamiliar with. This is why I’ve provided the dates.
A note on sources
It wouldn’t have been possible to write this book if so much work hadn’t already
been done in this area, and I don’t want to take credit for other people’s labours.
Rather than peppering the discussion with bibliographic footnotes, I’ve listed my
sources for each chapter in the endnotes.
Bibliography
................................................
ADAMS, MICHAEL, Slang: The People’s Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009).
ADE, GEORGE, Fables in Slang (Chicago & New York: Stone, 1899).
ALCOTT, LOUISA MAY, Little Women (Boston: Roberts, 1868).
‘American Slang’, The Argus (Melbourne), 21 Mar. 1918, 5.
‘American Slang’, The Weekly Standard and Express, 19 Aug. 1899, 3.
ANTHONY, WALTER, ‘Our Cousin’s Slang’, The San Francisco Call, 21
Nov. 1909, 27.
—— ‘Leslie on English as she is Spoke’, The San Francisco Call, 20 Feb. 1910, 63.
‘Anzac Slang’, The Argus (Melbourne), 25 Dec. 1915, 4.
AUGUSTINE, BLESSY, ‘Word toyour [sic] Mother’, MINT, 26 Dec. 2009, n.p.
The Australian: <http://www.theaustralian.com.au>.
‘Australian Speech and American Slang’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Jun.
1932, 9.
AVIS, WALTER S., A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (Toronto:
Gage, 1967).
AWDELAY, JOHN, The Fraternitye of Vacabondes (London: John Awdelay, 1575).
BAKER, PAUL, Fantabulosa: A Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang (London:
Continuum, 2002).
BAKER, SIDNEY J., A Popular Dictionary of Australian Slang (Melbourne: Robert-
son & Mullens, 1941).
—— New Zealand Slang: A Dictionary of Colloquialisms (Christchurch: Whit-
combe & Tombs, 1941).
BARKER, RONNIE, Fletcher’s Book of Rhyming Slang (London: Pan, 1979).
‘Barrack-Room Slang’, Pall Mall Gazette, 17 Dec. 1896, n.p.
BARRETT, GRANT: <http://www.doubletongued.org>.
BAYARD, DONN, ‘New Zealand English: Origins, Relationships, and Prospects’,
Moderna Språk 94/1 (2000), 8–14.
BBC News: <http://news.bbc.co.uk>.
‘Betrayed by Slang’, Alderson News, 11 Apr. 1918, 3.
BOCK THE ROBBER: <http://bocktherobber.com>.
Bibliography 315
BOLDERWOOD [sic], ROLF, Robbery Under Arms (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1889).

BOYLE, DANNY, Trainspotting (London: PolyGram, 1996).
BRANDON, HENRY, see W. A. Miles.
British Newspapers 1600–1900: <http://www.bl.uk/eresources/newspapers/
colindale2.html>.
BROADUS, E. K., ‘Campus English’, The Gateway, 12 Feb. 1932, 5.
BROME, RICHARD, A Jovial Crew, or, The Merry Beggars (London: E.D. and N.E.,
1652).
BROWNE, THOMAS, see Rolf Bolderwood.
BURCHFIELD, ROBERT (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 5:
English in Britain and Overseas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994).
‘BUSHMAN’, ‘The Prevalence of Slang’, The West Australian, 21 Aug. 1897, 6.
CAGE, KEN, Gayle: The Language of Kinks and Queens (Houghton, SA: Jacana
Media, 2003).
CAROOSO, JEFF (J3ff C4r00s0), ‘Are you l33t?’, Network World, 17 May 2004, Back
News, 76.
CASSIDY, DANIEL, How the Irish Invented Slang (Oakland, CA: CounterPunch,
2007).
CATTANEO, PETER, The Full Monty (Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, 1997).
‘A Chapter on Slang’, Caledonian Mercury, 8 Jul. 1859, n.p.
CHAUCER, GEOFFREY, The Canterbury Tales: <http://www.librarius.com/
cantales.htm>.
‘A Chicago Girl’s Slang’, Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, 7 Nov.
1885, 1.
Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers: <http://chroniclingamerica
.loc.gov>.
COLEMAN, JULIE, A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Volume I: 1567–1784
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
—— A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Vol. II: 1785–1858 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004).
—— A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Vol. III: 1859–1936 (Oxford:
—— A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Vol. IV: 1937–1984 (Oxford:
‘College Colloquialisms are a Mystery’, The Gateway, 7 Nov. 1939, 2.
‘Conversations in Slang’, The Advertiser (Adelaide), 27 Jun. 1906, 8.
COPLAND, ROBERT, Hyeway to the Spital-House (London: Copland, c.1536).
COSTIKYAN, GREG, ‘Talk Like a Gamer’, Verbatim 27/3 (2002), 1–6.
CRANE, STEPHEN, Maggie: A Girl of the Streets (New York: Appleton, 1896).
CROWE, CORNELIUS, Australian Slang Dictionary: Containing the Words and
Phrases of the Thieving Fraternity, Together with the Unauthorised, though
316 Bibliography
Popular Expressions Now in Vogue with All Classes in Australia (Fitzroy: Barr,
1895).
CRYSTAL, DAVID, Language and the Internet, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006).
D., E. E., ‘Of Some Australian Slang’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Oct. 1894, 5.
D., J., ‘Slang’, The Newcastle Weekly Courant, 23 Jan. 1892, n.p.
D., K. S., ‘Slang and Accent’, The West Australian, 12 Sept. 1892, 3.
DALZELL, TOM, Flappers 2 Rappers: American Youth Slang (Darby, PA: Diane
Publishing, 1996).
DAVIDSON, MAX, ‘Emma Thompson’s Attack on Slang: the Pedants’ Battle may be
Lost’, Telegraph, 29 Sept. 2010, n.p., available online at <http://www.telegraph
.co.uk>.
‘Degenerates’ Slang Glossary’, Chicago Daily Tribune, 8 Mar. 1900, 7.
DE HEK, DANNY, New Zealand’s Information Pack: <http://www.nz-immigration
.co.nz/lifestyle/slang-words.html>.
DEKKER, THOMAS, O Per Se O, or A New Crier of Lanthorn and Candlelight
(London: John Busbie, 1612).
DENNIS, C. J., The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke, reprinted edn (Sydney: Angus &
Robertson, 1915).
DICKENS, CHARLES, The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (London:
Chapman & Hall, 1836).
—— American Notes (London: Chapman & Hall, 1842).
DICKSON, PAUL, War Slang (Darby, PA: Diane Publishing, 1994).
DILL, STEPHEN H. and CLYDE BURKHOLDER, Current Slang: A Biennial Cumulation
(Vermillion: University of South Dakota, Department of English, 1969).
—— and DONALD BEBEAU, Current Slang: A Biennial Cumulation (Vermillion,
University of South Dakota, Department of English, 1970).
DOYLE, RODDY, The Commitments (London: King Farouk, 1987).
DUCANGE ANGLICUS, The Vulgar Tongue: Comprising Two Glossaries of Slang,
Cant, and Flash Words and Phrases used in London at the Present Day
(London: Bernard Quaritch, 1857).
DUMAS, BETHANY K. and Jonathan Lichter, ‘Is Slang a Word for Linguists?’,
American Speech 53 (1978), 5–17.
DU MAURIER, GEORGE, ‘The Slang of the Day’, Punch, 5 Aug. 1871, 44.
DUNNE, FINLEY PETER, Mr. Dooley in Peace and War (Boston: Small, Maynard &
Co., 1898, repr. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001).
E., B., A New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew
(London: W. Hawes, c.1698).
Early English Books Online: <http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home>.
EBLE, CONNIE C., Slang and Sociability: In-group Language among College Students
(Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1996).
‘Editorial Notes’, Red Deer News, 3 Apr. 1906, 4.
EGAN, PIERCE, Life in London (London: Sherwood, Neely & Jones, 1821).
Bibliography 317
Facebook: <facebook.com>.
FAIMAN, PETER, Crocodile Dundee (Hollywood: Paramount, 1986).
FINERTY, JAMES J. Criminalese: a Dictionary of the Slang Talk of the Criminal
(Washington, DC: [self-published], 1926).
‘Flapper Filology’, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 8 Mar. 1922, 9.
FRENCH, PHILIP, ‘Leaving’, The Observer, 11 Jul. 2010, New Review, 26.
GAILLARD, SLIM, Vout-O-Reenee Dictionary ([?Hollywood: Atomic Records],
1946).
GALSWORTHY, JOHN, To Let (London: Heinemann, 1921).
GAMES, ALEX, Balderdash and Piffle (London: BBC Books, 2006).
Gay Girl’s Guide to the U.S. and the Western World (n.p., c.1955).
Glossary of Eton Expressions: <http://www.etoncollege.com/glossary.aspx>.
GOLDSMITH, OLIVER, She Stoops to Conquer, or The Mistakes of a Night (London:
F. Newbery, 1773).
Google Blog Search: <http://blogsearch.google.com>.
Google Book Search: <http://books.google.com>.
Gorilla Convict Blog: <http://www.gorillaconvict.com/blog>.
GRANVILLE, WILFRED, Sea Slang of the Twentieth Century (London: Winchester,
1949).
GREEN, JONATHON, Green’s Dictionary of Slang (London: Chambers, 2010).
GREENE, ROBERT, A Disputation between a He Coney-Catcher and a She Coney-
Catcher . . . Discovering the Secret Villainies of Alluring Strumpets (London:
T.G., 1592).
GROSE, FRANCIS, A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (London: Hooper,
1785).
The Guardian: <http://www.guardian.co.uk>.
HARMAN, THOMAS, Caveat or Warning for Common Cursitors (London: William
Griffith, 1567).
HARRISON, TRACEY, ‘It’s True. Kids Don’t Talk the Same Language; Slang Takes
Over From English’, Daily Record, 29 Jul. 1999, 26.
Hell upon Earth (n.p.: n.p., 1703).
HITCHIN, CHARLES, The Regulator or, A Discovery of the Thieves, Thief-takers and
Locks (London: T. Warner, 1718).
HORNE, ALEX, Wordwatching (London: Virgin Books, 2010).
HOTTEN, JOHN CAMDEN, A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant, and Vulgar Words,
2nd edn (London: Hotten, 1860).
How to Speak EastEnders: A Brief Glossary of Cockney Expressions (n.p.:
Lionheart, 1988).
‘INDIGNANT’, ‘Slang Teaching in State Schools’, The Argus (Melbourne), 20 Mar.
1896, 3.
Indymedia: <http://de.indymedia.org> and <http://www.indymedia.org.uk>.
The Jargon File (original version): <http://www.dourish.com/goodies/
jargon.html>.
318 Bibliography
The Jargon File (current version): <http://www.catb.org/jargon>.

JESPERSEN, OTTO, Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin (London: Allen &
Unwin, 1922).
JOHNSON, SAMUEL, A Dictionary of the English Language (London: J. & P. Knapton,
1755).
JONES, JACK, Rhyming Cockney Slang (Bristol: Abson, 1971).
JONSON, BEN, The Alchemist (London: John Stepneth, 1612).
JORY, REX, ‘Aussie Slang is on the Endangered List Like Animals and Plants Facing
Extinction’, The Advertiser, 10 Aug. 2009, Opinion, 18.
KENDALL, PARK, Dictionary of Service Slang (New York: Mill, 1944).
KIPLING, RUDYARD, Barrack-Room Ballads and Other Verses (London: Methuen,
1892).
KOALA NET, Australian Slang Dictionary: <http://koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.
html>.
KURATH, HANS et al., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1952–2001): <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med>.
LAFEE, SCOTT, ‘We’re Spammin’ Now; So Can any Chiphead’, The San Diego
Union-Tribune, 10 May 1995, Lifestyle, E3.
LANEHART, SONJA L. (ed.), Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African Ameri-
can English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001).
LAUGESEN, AMANDA (ed.), Glossary of Slang and Peculiar Terms in Use in the A.I.F.
1921–1924 <http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/aif-slang>. See also
A. G. PRETTY.
LAY, MAY AND NANCY ORBAN, The Hip Glossary of Hippie Language (San Fran-
cisco: [self-published], 1967).
LE, THUY-DOAN, ‘Urbandictionary.com Sorts out Slang from Standard Lingo’,
Sacramento Bee, 7 Jul. 2005, n.p.
LEECH, JOHN, ‘The Great Social Evil’, Punch, 10 Jan. 1857, 114.
LEGMAN, GERSHON, ‘The Cant of Lexicography’, American Speech 26 (1951),
130–7.
Leicester Online Slang Glossaries: <http://www.le.ac.uk/ee/glossaries>.
LEVERAGE, HENRY, ‘Flynn’s Dictionary of the Underworld’, Flynn’s 3–6 (3 Jan.–2
May 1925), Vol. 3: 690–3, 874–7, 1056–7; Vol. 4: 118–9, 488–9, 664–5, 868–9,
1150–1; Vol. 5: 191–2, 280–1, 511–12, 660–1, 818–19, 968–9; Vol. 6: 116–17,
211–12, 426–7.
LEWIS, CHRIS, The Dictionary of Playground Slang (London: Allison and Bushby,
2003).
LIBERMAN, ANATOLY, Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008).
LIBERMAN, MARK et al.: <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll>.
The Life and Character of Moll King (London: W. Price, 1747).
LIGHTER, JONATHAN EVAN, ‘The Slang of the American Expeditionary Forces in
Europe, 1917-1919: An Historical Glossary’, American Speech 47 (1972), 5–142.
Bibliography 319
—— Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (New York:

Random House, 1994–).
LIPTON, LAWRENCE, The Holy Barbarians (New York: Messner, 1959).
LIT, HY: <http://www.hylitradio.com/index.php?page=6>.
—— Hy Lit’s Unbelievable Dictionary of Hip Words for Groovy People
(Philadelphia: Hyski, 1968).
LITTLE, BERT, ‘Prison Lingo: A Style of American English Slang’, Anthropological
Linguistics 24 (1982), 206–44.
LYNCH, JOHN, ‘Oxford Costume’, Punch, 7 May 1853, 191.
MCCLELLAN, JIM, ‘Netsurfers [sic] Paradise’, The Observer, 13 Feb. 1996, Life, 8.
MACKAY, CHARLES, ‘Fashionable Slang’, North Wales Chronicle, 18 Jan. 1879, n.p.
MCKEAN, ERIN, ‘L33t-sp34k’, Verbatim 27/1 (2002), 13–14.
—— <http://www.dictionaryevangelist.com>.
MCREYNOLDS BANKS, J. R., ‘An Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary’, Columbia Jester
27 (Dec. 1927), 10; (Jan. 1928), 19; (Feb. 1928), 14; (Mar. 1928), 12.
MAITLAND, JAMES, The American Slang Dictionary (Chicago: privately printed,
1891).
MALCOLM, SHERMAN, The American Slangist (Blenheim, Ont.: n.p., 1888).
MATHERS, ANN, The Hip Pocket Book (New York: Aphrodite Press, 1967).
MATSELL, GEORGE, Vocabulum, or, Rogue’s Lexicon (New York: Matsell, 1859).
MAYHEW, HENRY, London Labour and the London Poor (London: Woodfall,
1851).
‘May Use Native Slang But Professor Bans Americanisms’, The Courier-Mail
(Brisbane), 13 Dec. 1933, 12.
MENCKEN, H. L., The American Language (New York: Knopf, 1919).
MILES, W. A., Poverty, Mendicity and Crime . . . to which is added a Dictionary of
the Flash or Cant Language, Known to Every Thief and Beggar edited by
H. Brandon, esq. (London: Shaw and Sons, 1839).
‘Military Slang’, Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, 23 Jun. 1894, n.p.
‘Modern American Slang’, The Queenslander (Brisbane), 11 Jun. 1892, 1134.
MONCRIEFF, W. T., Songs, Parodies, Duets, Chorusses [sic] &c. &c.: in an Entirely
New Classic . . . in Three Acts, called Tom & Jerry, or, Life in London (London:
John Lowndes, 1821).
MOORE, BRUCE, Speaking Our Language: The Story of Australian English (Oxford:
MORRISON, ARTHUR, Tales of Mean Streets (London: Methuen, 1865).
‘Mrs Langtry at the Prince’s Theatre’, The Times, 21 Jan. 1885, 5.
MÜGGE, MAXIMILIAN AUGUST, The War Diary of a Square Peg (London: Routledge,
1920).
‘Multimedia News Release – Don’t be ‘Naff ’ – Learn to Use ‘Chuffed’, ‘Laughing
Gear’, ‘Half Four’ and Dozens of other British Slang Words before your
London Holiday’, PR Newswire US, 4 May 2005.
MYERS, GREG, The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis (London: Continuum, 2010).
320 Bibliography
National Library of Australia, Australia Trove: <http://trove.nla.gov.au/

newspaper>.
‘Need of a Slang Dictionary’, The Times (London), 23 Jun. 1919, 18.
The New Art and Mystery of Gossiping (London: n.p., ?1760).
NEWNHAM, DAVID, ‘The Word on the Street’, Times Educational Supplement, 31
Oct. 2003, n.p.
Nexis: <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis>.
NOEBEL, DAVID A., The Homosexual Revolution (Tulsa, OK: American Christian
College, 1977).
NYE, RUSSEL B., ‘A Musician’s Word-List’, American Speech 12 (1937), 45–8.
O’FLAHERTY, H. C., Life in Sydney, ed. Richard Fotheringham, Australian Plays for
the Colonial Stage 1834–1899 (Queensland: University of Queensland Press,
2006).
OLIPHANT, LAURENCE, Piccadilly (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1870).
The Online Dictionary of Playground Slang: <http://odps.org>.
The Online Slang Dictionary: <http://onlineslangdictionary.com>.
‘On Slang’, The Times, 31 Dec. 1913, 63F.
Ordinary’s Account, see Proceedings of the Old Bailey.
ORSMAN, H. W., Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary (Auckland: Heinemann,
1979).
—— and DES HURLEY, New Zealand Slang Dictionary (Auckland: Reed, 1992).
OUTCAULT, RICHARD FELTON, ‘The Yellow Kid Takes a Hand at Golf ’, New York
Journal, 24 Oct. 1897, 8.
‘A Parent’, ‘Slang Teaching in State Schools’, The Argus (Melbourne), 23 Mar.
1896, 6.
PARKER, ALAN, The Commitments (Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, 1991).
PARKER, GEORGE, Life’s Painter of Variegated Characters (London: R. Bassam,
1789).
PARSONS, BEN, ‘Dutch Influences on English Literary Culture in the Early Renais-
sance, 1470-1650’, Literary Compass 4/6 (2007), 1577–96.
PARTRIDGE, ERIC, Slang: Today and Yesterday (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1933).
—— A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (London: Routledge,
1937).
—— A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 3rd edn (London:
Routledge, 1949).
—— A Dictionary of the Underworld (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949).
PHILLIPS, CASEY, ‘Web Site Compiles Online “Slangtionary”’, Chattanooga Times
Free Press, 23 Jan. 2008, Life, E1.
POULTER, JOHN, The Discoveries of John Poulter, 5th edn (Sherbourne: R. Goadby,
1753).
POUNTAIN, DICK AND DAVID ROBBINS, Cool Rules: Anatomy of an Attitude (London:
Reaktion, 2000).
Bibliography 321
PRESTON, DONALD WESLEY, A Survey of Canadian English Slang (University of

Victoria: MA thesis, 1973).
PRETTY, A. G., Glossary of A.I.F. Slang (typescript, Australian War Memorial). See
also LAUGESEN, AMANDA.
The Proceedings of the Old Bailey: London’s Central Criminal Court, 1674–1913:
<http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/index.jsp>.
QUINION, MICHAEL, Port Out Starboard Home (London: Penguin, 2004).
RAMIREZ, J. DAVID et al. (eds.), Ebonics: The Urban Education Debate, 2nd edn
(Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2005).
RAMSON, W. S., The Australian National Dictionary (Melbourne: Oxford
University Press, 1988). <http://203.166.81.53/and>.
The Rap Dictionary: <http://www.rapdict.org/Main_Page>.
RAYMOND, ERIC S. AND GUY L. STEELE, The New Hacker’s Dictionary, 3rd edn
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).
‘Restaurant Slang’, Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated Times, 10 Oct. 1908,
234.
‘Rhyming Slang’, Penny Illustrated Paper, 20 Aug. 1910, 248.
RODGERS, BRUCE, The Queens’ Vernacular: A Gay Lexicon (San Francisco: Straight
Arrow, 1972).
ROGERS, DAVID, ‘We Know What U Mean, M8. Innit?’, Times Educational
Supplement, 12 Dec. 2008, n.p.
ROSS, ALLY, ‘If You Tinkin’ Ali G is Racis You Can Kiss Me, Batty Boy’, The Sun,
12 Jan. 2000, n.p.
RUEHL, P., ‘Dinkum Slang gets the Gong’, Sunday Herald Sun, 9 Apr. 1995, News, 6.
RYAN, DENISE, ‘Teen Slang: Enter at Your Own Risk’, The Vancouver Sun, 12 Sept.
2009, A10.
SAMSON, PETER et al., Abridged Dictionary of the TMRC Language: <http://tmrc.
mit.edu/dictionary.html>.
SCHOROW, STEPHANIE, ‘Brit-slang Invasion; Blimey!’, The Boston Herald, 11 Jun.
1999, Arts & Life, 63.
SCORSESE, MARTIN, Gangs of New York (New York: Miramax, 2002).
Sea Cadets Training and Administration Website: <http://www.sccheadquarters
.com>.
SEBASTIAN, HUGH, ‘Negro Slang in Lincoln University’, American Speech 9 (1934),
287–90.
‘The Sentimental Bloke’, The Advertiser (Adelaide), 10 Apr. 1918, 7.
The Septic’s Companion: <http://septicscompanion.com>.
SHADWELL, THOMAS, The Squire of Alsatia (London: James Knapton, 1688).
SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM, The History of Henry the Fourth, Part I. The Arden
Shakespeare, ed. David Scott Kastan (London: Thompson Learning, 2002).
SIMPSON, J. A. AND WEINER, E. S. C. (eds.), OED Online, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000–): <http://www.oed.com>.
Skanger Me Banger: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPddpNuzLn8>.
322 Bibliography
‘Slang’, Daily News, 25 Sept. 1868, n.p.

‘Slang’, The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 9 Nov. 1869, 7.
‘Slang’, The Star, 3 Apr. 1875, n.p.
‘Slang in the Salon’, Glasgow Herald, 22 May 1865, n.p.
‘Slang in Women’s Colleges’, New York Tribune, 19 Jan. 1901, 7.
‘Slang Not Slander’, The Queenslander (Brisbane) 21 Apr. 1888, 628.
‘Slang Words and Phrases’, The Times, 3 Apr. 1858, 5F.
‘A Society for the Suppression of Slang’, The Penny Illustrated Paper and Illu-
strated Times, 22 Feb. 1873, 115.
‘Society Slang’, Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, 20 Nov. 1899, n.p.
South African Dictionary Unit: <http://www.ru.ac.za/dsae>.
SPENSER, EDMUND, The Faerie Queene (London: William Ponsonbie, 1590).
STANTON, ANDREW AND LEE UNKRICH, Finding Nemo (Burbank/Emeryville, CA:
Walt Disney/Pixar, 2003).
STEELE, GUY L., The Hacker’s Dictionary: A Guide to the World of Computer
Wizards (New York/London: Harper & Row, 1983).
‘A Study in Current Slanguage’, The San Francisco Call, 31 Oct. 1897, 23.
SWIFT, JONATHAN, Polite Conversation in Three Dialogues (1738), ed. George
Saintsbury (London: Chiswick, 1842).
‘TEACHER’, ‘Slang Teaching in State Schools’, The Argus (Melbourne), 27 Mar.
1896, 6.
THORSON, LARRY, ‘Cockney Soap Opera on the Telly in United States’, Associated
Press, 8 Jan. 1988.
‘The Tichborne Case’, The Times, 25 Jun. 1880, 4.
The Times Digital Archive: <http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/archive>.
Times of India: <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com>.
TOOK, BARRY AND MARTY FELDMAN, Round the Horne (London: Woburn Press,
1974).
TOTTIE, GUNNEL, An Introduction to American English (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).
‘Translated for English Use’, Boston Daily Globe, 17 Aug. 1913, 45.
TRUMBLE, ALFRED, Slang Dictionary of New York, London and Paris (New York:
National Police Gazette, 1881).
TUFTS, HENRY, A Narrative of the Life, Adventures, Travels and Sufferings of Henry
Tufts (Dover, NH: Samuel Bragg, 1807).
TWAIN, MARK, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (New York: Century, 1884).
Twitter: <http://twitter.com>.
Urban Dictionary: <http://www.urbandictionary.com>.
‘Use This Dictionary of Slang in Exploitation’, Film Daily 49, 22 Aug. 1929, 15.
VAN PATTEN, NATHAN, ‘The Vocabulary of the American Negro as Set Forth in
Contemporary Literature’, American Speech 7 (1931), 24–31.
VAUX, JAMES HARDY, Memoirs of James Hardy Vaux (London: W. Clowes, 1819).
Voices from the Days of Slavery : <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/
voices>.
Bibliography 323
WALKER, GILBERT, A Manifest Detection of the Most Vile and Detestable Use of
Diceplay, and Other Practices Like the Same. A Mirror Very Necessary for all
Young Gentlemen [and] Others Suddenly Enabled by Worldly Abundance, to
Look in (London: Abraham Vele, c.1555).
WASHINGTON, BOOKER T., Up From Slavery (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1901).
WEAVER, PAUL et al., ‘County Cricket Blog – as it Happened’, Guardian Unlimited,
20 Jul. 2010: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/jul/20/county-
cricket-live-blog>.
WEBB, H. BROOK, ‘The Slang of Jazz’, American Speech 12 (1937), 179–84.
WebsiteOutlook: <http://www.websiteoutlook.com>.
WEBSTER, NOAH, An American Dictionary of the English Language, 2 vols. (New
York: S. Converse, 1828).
WELSH, IRVING, Trainspotting (London: Secker & Warburg, 1993).
WENTWORTH, HAROLD AND STUART BERG FLEXNER, Dictionary of American Slang
(New York: Crowell, 1960).
‘What They Say about Slang’, University Missourian 80, 17 Dec. 1913, 2.
WHITMAN, WALT, Complete Prose Works (Whitefish MT: Kessinger, 2004).
Wikipedia (English): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>.
—— Jazz Discussion: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkJazz>.
WILLARD, JOSIAH FLYNT, Tramping with Tramps (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1899).
—— The World of Graft (London/New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1901).
WOLFRAM, WALT AND BEN WARD (eds.), American Voices: How Dialects Differ from
Coast to Coast (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006).
WOOLLEY, LISA, American Voices of the Chicago Renaissance (Dekalb: Northern
Illinois University Press, 2000).
World of Warcraft (EU site): <http://eu.battle.net/wow/en>.
WYCHERLEY, WILLIAM, The Country Wife (London: Thomas Dring, 1675).
‘Yankee Slang Increasing’, The Argus (Melbourne), 19 Jul. 1913, 8.
Your Vaseline Hair Tonic Flip-Talk Contest Booklet (New York: n.p., c.1961), n.p.
YouTube: <http://www.youtube.com>.
YULE, HENRY and A. C. BURNELL, Hobson-Jobson (London: John Murray, 1886).
Word Index
................................................
This index links cited non-standard words sharing the same form regardless of
meaning or grammatical function. The spelling of slang words varies. I have
chosen the forms preferred in my main dictionary sources. References in bold are
to illustrations.
abdicate 32 aos 270

abominable snowman 242 app 283–4
absquatulate 209 apples and pears 46
ace 35, 53, 120, 249 apple-knocker 254
aceage 35 apple sauce 249
acid 89, 216 arch-enemy 241
acidhead 35 arf arf 240
ack-ack 74 -aroo(nee) 36, 258 n
acting jack 75 arse 46, 146–7
act the maggot 232 arsehole 20
afters 168 arvo 219
-age 35, 44 n, 270, 271 ask 33
air 77, 79 ass 162–3, 290. See also arse
airdash 229 -ati 36
alive (alive) oh 222 Aussie 220
all is boman 131–2 autem (mort) 126, 127
all my eye and Betty Martin 17 awake 156, 208
all-nighter 201 awesome 22–3, 64, 278, 299
all right 2–3 awful 160, 162, 163, 164–5
all wet 226 awfully 162
amazing 18 ax(e) 82, 83
ambo 222
ammunition 168 baboo English 169
angel 185 baby 251
any road 211 baby-batter 231
326 Word Index
baby’s head 35 batty 228

babysitter 258 batty-boy 8
bach 185, 224 battyman 228
back 165 batty-riders 228
back door 31 beak 61
bad (egg/hat) 31, 32, 33, 253 beano 222
baddy 232 bear 41
badgered 232 beard 258
badger’s nadgers 79 n beast 154–5
bag 86, 88 beastly 162
baggage-man 132 beat 258
bail up 212 beatenest 196–7
baldface 185 beautifully 77, 78–9
ball 46, 83, 84–5, 86 beef 33, 177
ballast 189 bee’s knees 79 n
ball-gown 32 be gagging for it 99
bally 2–3, 6 be hanged 129–30
balmy 14–15 be-in 86, 89
bam 153 bell 252
banger 155, 276 bells and whistles 269
banging 18 belly-ache 185
banjax 232 bender 159
banjo 216 bene 122–3, 124–5, 126–7
banzai 45 benjamin 251
bar 120 benny 85
barb 148–9 be nowhere 83
barbie 36 benship(ly) 127–8
bare 41, 106 berk 46
barefoot(ed) 184 Bertha Winder 246
barf 45 bess 131–2
barking 148–9 best 212
barnstorm 244–5 betamax 274
barred 120 betty 34, 131–2
bash 201 bff 66
basket 154 biff(er) 1, 198
basketcase 76 bifta 98
batch 224 big apple 28 n
batter 7–8 big boy 251
battle-ax(e) 177 big picture 249
Word Index 327
big time 258 bludger 219

big up 228 blunt 157–8
big wheel 255 bob 15, 61, 159
big-wig 209 bobbery 169
bikkie 221 bobby 2–3
bindle 227 bodacious 64
bing (awaste) 127–8 bogart 250
bint 44 bogosity 270
bio-break 274 bollocks 17, 276
bippy 259 boman 131–2
bit 133 bombat 230
bitch 135–6, 147 bona 231, 256
bite 121 bona fides 18
biznatch 37 bone 61
bizzo 222 bone-pit 186
blackfellow 211 bonk 101, 103
blag 99 bonk-buster 242
blagger 95 bonzer 215, 217
blah 77, 79 boob 250
blamed 213–14 booby 250
blerry 230 boodle 4
blessed 7–8 boogie board 220
blimed see blamed booze or bouse 122–3, 124–5, 126–7
blimey 168 boozer 219
bling (bling) 263–4 boozing 126
bloak see bloke boozing-ken 132
blog 37 boozy 122
bloggerati 36 bore 155
blogosphere 36 borrow (and beg) 246
bloke 29, 66, 138, 166–7, 210 bosh 17
blokie 184 bosting 287
blood 87, 135–6 bottle-o 222
bloody 21–2, 252 bottom dollar 183
blooming 210 bouse see booze
bloss 135–6 bowsprit 31
blouse 77, 79 boychick 202
blow (up/one’s mind) 87, 89, 159, 211 boyfriend 77
blowey 221 boy scout 52–3
BLT 189 boyz 40
328 Word Index
brach 148–9 bunch 77

brainiac 241 bunco 202
brain patch 247 bunco-steerer 241–2
brass (hat/nail) 52, 69 bundle 131–2
bread 85 bun-duster 77, 80
breaker 283 bung 121, 124–5
breeder 68 bunkum 209
brekker(s) 36 bunny-boiler 250
brekkie 221 Bunty 230
brewski 61 burl 216
brick 158 buroo 232
brickie 221 bush 212
brig 185 bushie 221
brilliant 16, 287 bust 85
briny 163 buster 275
bro 99 busy as a cat burying shit 223
broad 241–2, 249 butch 257
brother 98 n butt 232
brown 166–7 buttock(ing) 135–6
brown job 52 butty 232
brum 34 buzz 131–2, 138–9
brummagem 34 by jingo 244
bubble (and squeak) 69, 134–5, 151 by the bye 154
buck 15 by the numbers 75
Buckley’s (hope/chance) 219
buckshee 243 cabin 229
buddy 5 cackle 189
buffy 7–8 cadger 136
bug 87, 247, 255 cake 188–9
bug fever 247 cake-hole 35
bugger 21 callithumpian 179
bughouse 254 call someone’s bluff 275
bull 253 camp 68, 82
bull dyker 198 can 245
bulletin board 284 canary 198
bull’s eye 135–6 Can I do you now, sir? 256
bullshit 17 cannon 254
bump dat 278 canoodle 185
bumpkin 151 Canuck 226
Word Index 329
Can you hear me mother? 256 chit 168, 192

cardy 224 choccy 221
Carnegie derby 74 choky 169
carrot top 258 chook(ie) 219
case 122, 139 choon 40
cash 4 chop 216
cat 66, 210, 258 chope 230
catawampus 179 chopsy 232
catch (on) 4, 247 chovey 210
cater 120 Chrissy 221
cat’s pyjamas 77, 79 christen 210
cat’s whiskers 79 n chuck (out/up/over) 213
cause 79 chucky 219
cdr 270 chum 212, 215
cellar-smeller 77, 80 chump 184, 213–14
cha-cha-cha 66 chunk 189
champers 36 church 139–40, 210
champu 229 cit 151
chant or chaunt 137–8 classic 165, 278
chap 164–5 clear out 253
chav 170 n cliner 216, 217
chavvy 170 closet 68
-cheat 124 clout 135–6
check it out 299 cloy 121, 127–8
cheerio 168, 222 cluck 254
cheers 6 cly 121, 133
cheese it 2–3 coal 152
cheesy 160 cobber 169
cherry 177 cobblers 46
chesterfield 226 cocum 177
chewie 221 cod 232
chewing gum 229 codger 135–7
chib 232 coffee-cooler 52
chick 66, 289 cogs 247
chicken-guts 52 coldie 221
chill 91 cole 152
chink 4 collar 213
chiphead 274 college 255
chiseller 254 color-head 89
330 Word Index
colt 129–30 crimp 241–2

come down (with) 186 criss 228
come off (it) 193 croak 177
come the raw prawn 221 crook 213–14, 254
compo 222 crop 138
con 251 cropper 162
concern 159 cross (as a frog in a sock) 139, 223
conch 228 cross-dress 33
coney 43, 120 n cross-dressing 33
coney-catcher 120 crown (jewels) 32
connection 84 crud 50
considerable 181 crunk 96–8, 110–11, 112, 115
cool 17, 83, 114, 258, 287, 290 cry gammon 133
cooler 177 CU 40
coolio 36 culchie 232
cooter see couter cull 131–2, 133
cop (off) 99, 100, 185 cunning as a dunny rat 223
copacetic 198 cunny 43
cop bung 138–9 cunt 46
cope 88 cuntor 271
copper 69, 137–8, 140, 166–7 cure 244
corny 198 currency 207
counterfeit crank 124 cursedly 154
couter 139–40 curve 183
cove 122, 127, 131–2, 138, 157, 208, 210 cushty 287
cow 216 cut (it/out) 85, 127–8, 160–1, 198, 225
cowabunga 259 cutch 232
cozzie 221 cyberpunk 274
crack (wind/one off) 126, 139, 210 cyberspace 274
crank 124 cynk or cynque 120
crap 17, 137–8
crash (out/the gate) 77, 79, 89 da 8
crazy 83 dadda-baaji 229
cream 220 daddle 137–8
creep joint 255 daddy 258
creepy 103 daddy-o 36, 66, 222
cretin 20 dag 216
crib 138–9, 159, 161 daisy 135–7
crikey 168 dame 188
Word Index 331
damn 21 dis 37, 106

dancers 131–2 disco 262
darkman(s) 122, 210 ditch 56
darky or darkey 135–6, 175 div 61
dasies see daisy divine 248
dash 213–14 do 165
dashing 159 dob on/in 220
daylights 135–7 dock 122, 168
deadline 242 doco 222
dead man 161 dodgy 16
dead nail 208 dog 149, 220
dealer 85 dogan 227
dealio 36 dog and bone 260–1
death 64 dog-bolt 149
deep throat 250 doghouse 255
deevy 248 dog-leech 148, 150
def 64 Dogpatch 240
dekko 169 dog-robber 52
deliver the goods 225 dog’s bollocks 79 n
dell 122–3, 127 dog tags 75
derrick 135–7 dogwatch 242
derro 222 doh 259
deuce(d) 120, 160 do in (the eye) 2–3, 165
deuseavile 127–8 dole 224
devilish 209 doll(y) 15–16, 34
dibble 259 do one’s dash 213–14
dibs 7–8 dope 185, 246–7
dick 254 dork 278
diddle 269 Dorothy Dix 242
die with one’s boots on 183 double whammy 240
dig(s) 85, 159 douchebag 106
diggings 159 dough 225
dilly 213–14 doughboy 169
dimwit 226 douse 175
dinero 185 down (and dirty) 66, 156, 212, 269
ding (ding/dong) 1, 133, 217 down the hatch 6
dinkum (oil) 7, 215, 216, 217 doxy 123, 127
dinky(-di) 217, 221 drag 85
dirty 213 dragon lady 240
332 Word Index
draw in 7 emote 33
draw one (in the dark) 189 end 307
drawing teeth 161 enthroned 32
dreadfully 163 epic 95
dreamboat 19 -er(s) 36
dreamy 278 esky 221
drinkage 35–6 establishment 88
drip 63 evening sneak 175
drongo 219 excellent 18
droopy drawers 226 fab(ulous/bo/by) 64, 92
drop 137–8 facebook (stalk) 277
drop-out 63 Facefuck 277
drug 83 face the music 186
drum 253 facety 228
drummer 186 facey (B) 228, 277
dry as a dead dingo’s donger/a nun’s fade out 249
nasty/a pommy’s towel 223 fag 59
dry bob 61 faggoty 198
dub 131–2 fag hag 68
dude 201, 219, 275, 288–9, 298–9 failboat 272, 273
duds 14, 127 fair (dinkum/go) 7, 213–4, 216
duff 4 faker 210
dummy 188 fall for 192
dust 4, 225 fall guy 254
Dutch oven 35 fall out 83
dyke(r) 88, 198 fam 134, 135
famble 124
eager beaver 53 fambling-cheat 124
ear bash 220 fang 122
ears 283 fanny 313
Easy Street 185 fantastic 18, 64
ecaf see eek FAQ 274
ecilop 47 far out 83, 90
eek 257 fart 46
egad 153 fat-guts 129–30
ek dum 229 fatta 230
elbow-bender 258 fawney 139–40
elevate 160 FB(ook) 277
elocute 193 fence 132, 139
Word Index 333
fever 247 flyboy 52

filch(man) 123 flying coffin 55
file 133, 135 fob 159
fin 177 foist 121
finale-hopper 77, 79 foo-foo 75
finger 255 footy 221
finger-popping 258 form 162
finnip 47, 177 forshizzle 37
fireworks 55 Fortean 242
fisho 222 fossick 219
fishy 7–8 four-by-two 69
fisk 133–4 four one one or four eleven 275
fit as a Mallee bull 223 frag 270
five-O 67 frame 254
fix(ings) 85, 179–80 frantic 83
fiz see phiz frape 106–7
fizgig 69 frater 124
fizzboat 224 freak 89
fizzing 161 freaking 279
flag 124–5 Fred Karno’s Army 244
flake 33 fresh 239
flaky 33 freshwater mariner or seaman 124
flame 269 friend of Dorothy 250
flaming 213–14 frillies or frillikies 248
flaming onion 92 frisk 134
flapper 77 Fritz(ie) 74
flash 135–7 front 275, 286
flat 135–6 Frosh 243
flatfoot 52–3 frow 135–6
flat-wheel or -wheeler 77, 79 frowst 59
flimp 139 fuck (off/up) 20–2, 28 n, 39, 51, 261, 290
flip (one’s lid/one’s wig/out) 66, 85 Fuckbook 277
flipper 31 fucker 290
flop 245, 253 fucktard 36
floss 275 fud 104
fluff 226 fugly 37
flummox 7–8 fun 179, 192
flunk (out) 61 funk 262
fly 7–8, 156 funky 83, 262
334 Word Index
funnies 242 gig 83, 101, 102

furphy 215 gills 7–8, 160
futz 45 gimp 84
FYI 239 n ginger (beer) 69
gippo 168
gaff 133 give a bell 252
gage 126–7 give a rat’s arse 276
gagging for it 99 give best 212
game 7–8 give gammon 133
gammon 133 give it a burl 216
gamp 237 give the air 77
gan 122–3, 126–7 give the pip 214
gang 77 give the wink 209
gangsta 8, 40 Glasgow magistrate 232
garbo 222 glaze 175
garret 31 glee 133
gas 232 glim 175
gaslight 249 glimstick 131–2
gasper 243 glitch 269
gat 251 glom 254
gate-crash 79 n gnarly 64
gay 29–31, 32, 39, 105–7 go (on) 83, 239
gaydar 37 goat 191
g’day 219 gob 135–6
gear 65 gobdaw 232
gee 184 gobshite 276
geek 44 n, 63 God-awful 185
gen 6 gomer 259
George 192 gone 83
geronimo 45 gong 168
get down and dirty 66 good one 32
get even with 194 good sport 164–5, 225
get one’s head down 168 goof 249
get one’s laughing-gear round 6 google 284
get out and dust 225 governor 161
get someone’s goat 191 graft 177
get the hump 213–14 grand 245
get the pip 213–14 grass(hopper) 69, 88
get up early 7–8 grave 55
Word Index 335
gravel-cruncher or -crusher 52–3 hanging 278

grease 251 hang out 84, 159
greasies 224 hang up 23, 88
great 18 hansel 137–8
green 156 happening 88
greenie 221 happy dust 198
gremlin 50 hard-up 158
griffin 229 hard word 216
grit 187 n Harrigan 246
groom 163 Harry (Gold/Tate) 231, 244, 246
groove 83 harsh 104
groovy 17, 90, 92 hashtag 281–2
groper 137–8 hata 290
grotty 65 hatches, matches, and dispatches 242
grouse 64 have a dash 214
growler 7–8 have a heart 192
grub 139 head 87
grungy 269 -head 35, 274
grunting-cheat 124 headliner 245
GTGPC 106 head-man 61
gubbal 230 heap 155
gubbins 243 hearty 137–8
guff 276 heat 255
gumdrop 258 heavy 243
gumption 196 heeled 251
gungho 45 hellacious 198
gunsel 255 hep 85
gunz 40 herring-choker 227
gutzer 216 hey 219
guv 6 hi 219
guy 5, 95, 219 high 84, 88
highball 251
hacker 268 highfalutin 185
half 6 hijacker 251
half-assed 276 hike 247
ham(fatter) 245 hip 66, 90
handicap 164–5 hippy 90
handsel see hansel hipster 83
hang a right/left 16 history-sheeter 229
336 Word Index
hit 88 idk 66
hoax 161 I don’t mind if I do 256
hog-caller 258 -ie 36, 221–2, 248
hokum 245 ill 31
hold (up) 84, 133 I’ll be seeing you 251
holy crap/shit 278, 279 immense 33
honky 201 immensely 163
hooch 249 imshi 215
hood 67, 254 ina 231
hoodlum 185 incog 153
hoof 198 inked 216
hook 158–9 innit 40, 106
hooligan 244 inside togee 134
hoosegow 202 in the dark 189
hoover (up) 34 in the doghouse 255
hopefully 18 in the/a groove 83
hop the twig 137–8 in the nuddy 220
horn in 77 in the swim 162
hornswoggle 179 -io 36
horse 85 I say 209, 225
horse play 185 I should smile 187
hoser 227 I should worry 191
hot 83, 290 It girl 249
hot dog 77 ivory 193
hottie 44 n, 99, 100, 103, 221 -iz(n)- 37
how’s your father 256 -izzle 37
hump 213–14
hung up (on) 88 jack 34, 75, 254
hunk 19 jackaroo 212
hurl 241–2, 299 jacket 59
hush shop 177 Jack Johnson 92
hustle 193 jakey 232
hype 84 jalopy 155
hyps 153 jam 198
jam-can 74
I can tell you 193–4 jam-jar 46
ice 254 jammed 77
idea-pot 186 jandal 224
identity 212 jane 77
Word Index 337
JAP 38 kangaroo 177

jawbone 227 keen 243
jazz 77, 262 keep even with 193–4
jazzbo 245 keep one’s eyes skinned/peeled 186
jeep 240 keister 185
jemmy 34 Kelly 202
jenny 75 kelter 137–8
jerk 114 ken 124–5, 131–2, 133, 135, 210
jerkwater 14 kero 222
jhakkas 230 kersplat 1
jiffy 219 kettle 253, 291–3
jildi 169 key 89
Jimmy Grant 69 Keystone (cops) 250
jingoism 244 Khyber 46
jism 185 kick against the pricks 43
jitterbug 198 kick ass 95
jive 198 kicking 65
jocker 254 kick-off 243
Joe 227 kid 239, 251
Johnny Raw 168 kiddy 177
John Roscoe 255 Kim’s game 237
joint 77, 88 kindy 221
joker 2–3 kip 101, 103
jolly 162, 163, 192 kiss me 8
jomer 138–9 kiss my arse 147
joseph 34 kitty party 229
josh 184 Kiwi 224
journo 222 klingon x
joyride 243 kludge or kluge 269
joystick 243 knob 31
jude or judy 213 knock (up) 220, 252
jug 251 knockback 220
juice 243 knock the sand from
jump 275 under 187 n
junk 250 knock the spots off/out
juvie 63 of 181–3
knowledge-box 35
kahuna 44 kryptonite 241
kaffir 230 kwaii 64
338 Word Index
la-di-da 106 log on 274

lage 126–7 LOL 38–9, 95, 105–7, 239 n
lally 231, 257 lollipop 258
lam 254 lolly 219
lamps 15 lonely heart 242
langret 120 loo 6
larrikin 212 looey 75
laters 101, 103, 106, 107 look like 154
laughing-gear 6 loonie 226
launder 148–9 loose 137–8
lavender-cove 210 loot 169
lay 130–1, 133, 134 lope 131–2
lean on 275 lotion 177
leather-lay 133 lour 124–5, 127
leatherneck 52 lout 59
leave (anything) in the chamber 66 lovely (jubbly) 194, 259
ledge 37, 95 low-down 225
left (hook) 213–14 lug 2–3, 254
leg 37 lumber 232
legend 37, 95 lurgy 256
legless 260–1 lurker 274
lend 2–3 lush 64, 104, 106–7, 186
let drive 188 Lynch law 209
let George do it 192
level 7 mac(kie) 248
lid 85, 88 McCoy 255
lie too heavy on the basket 148–9 Mcjob 34
life of Riley 202 mad (as a cut snake) 64, 223
lift 121, 127, 133 Mae West 34
like 13, 83, 95, 105, 298–9 mafeesh 215
lime twig 121 maffick 242
link 121 maggot 232
lip 7–8 magic 64, 287
lippy 221 magistrate 232
llama 271 mailer 230
loaf 46, 168 majat 230
lob 2–3 majita 230
lock 132 make 122–3, 124–5, 135–6, 254
loco 202 make tracks 159
Word Index 339
make-up 244 mill 249

malarkey 240 milquetoast 240
malky 232 mince pies 140
mammy song 245 min dae 230
man 88, 98, 99, 198, 299 ming 290
mang 170 minge 170
mardy 298 minger 289–90
mark 138–40 minging 232
Mary Ann 254 mini-me 250
masala 229 mizzle 137–8
masher 164 MMG 270
mash it up 228 mo 6
massive 8, 228 mob 153, 158, 177
matchbox 88 mobile 152
mate 6, 40, 96, 98, 219 moby 269
matey 95 moffie 230
matrimonial 229 mollisher 170, 210
maund 122 molly 134–5
maypole 31 moniker 253
mazard 232 monkey (meat) 74, 253
Mc- see Mac- monnisher 170
mean (as cat’s piss) 31, 223 montra 208
meathead 35 mooey 170
medico 44 moolah 220
mega 18, 201 moon 201
mellow yellow 89 mootah 202
mental x Moreton Bay (fig) 69
mentality 275 moron 20
merci or mercy boko/bucket(s)/buckup/ morris 135–6
buttercups 169 mort 124–5, 126, 127, 135
merk 41 mortar-board 15
meshuga 45 motherless 230
messed up 165 mouse (potato) 61, 274
meth 88 mozzie 221
metho 222 muck-raker 192
Mickey Mouse 250 mud(-pup) 189, 213–4, 227, 270
MILF 38 muffin (top) 227, 239 n
military hotel 229 mug 186, 239, 254
milko 222 muller 170
340 Word Index
mulligan (stew) 202 Newfie 226

mumblage 270 New York nipper 246
munchkin 250 nice 192
muppet 59, 259 nicker 253
murk 41 nicks see nix
Murphy 202 nigga 40
mush 170 nigger 43–4
Mutt (and Jeff) 239–40, 250 niggergram 228
my hearty 137–8 niggle 126–7
mystery 184 nightie 248
niminy-piminy 192
Naafi 38 nip 121
nab 124, 147 nix 5, 137–8
nabcheat 122 no hoper 220
nadger (plague) 256 nonce 59
naff (off) 257, 260–1 nongolozi 231
nail 135–6, 184, 208, 228 noob 271
name is mud 213–14 noogie(s) 259
nancy boy 53 no sir 193
nang 287 not 259
nap 133, 135 not on your tintype 187
napoo 44–5 no way 105
narc 89 nowhere 83
nase 122 no worries 220
nasho 222 nuddy 220
nasous 135–6 nudge nudge (wink wink) 259
nasty 31 nugget 34
native 211 nukkah 290
nebbish 202 number 75, 198
neck 14, 77, 243 number-cruncher 269
ned 232 numpty x, 232
needle (artist/pointer) 208, 254 nut 2–3, 31, 164, 232
nerd 63, 269, 285 nutmeg 46
nerf 272 nyang 287
net 210
net-head or -surfer 274 -o 222
netiquette 274 ochre or ocher 177
neves or nevis 47 ofay 198
new chum 212 office 75, 209, 254
Word Index 341
off of 131 paddy wagon 202

off one’s trolley 187 palooka 240
oh yeah 251 pan (out) 183, 249
oil(ed) 232, 254 pani 170
OJ 189 pansy 257
ok 251 pants 17
okapi 230 papers 87
old identity 212 part 2–3
old man 166–7 pattering 122
old soldier 53 patrico 126–7
oliver 34, 135 pav 224
omee 257 paw 193
OMG 105–6, 239 n pay-off 255
on one’s own hook 158–9 peace out 195
on one’s uppers 185 peach 129–30
on the make 254 pea-soup(er) 227
on the peg 168 peck 122
oont 229 peckish 6
opiate 89 peeps 135–6, 279
optert 231 peg out 213
-oroonee see -aroonee pennif 47
oudish 287 people 164–5
out 153, 213–14 pepsi 227
out of the closet 68 perfectly 77, 78–9, 194
out of collar 213 perv 220
out of order 260 peter-lay 133
out of sight 87 phat x, 40
outside togee 134 phiz 153
over the hill 75–6 phone-phreaker 274
over the river 193–4 phut-phut 229
over the top 75–6 pick-up 5
ownage 271 pick up a nail 228
Oz 37 piece of cake 189
pig 15, 138
-p 270 pike (off) 130–1, 133
pack 168 pikey 104
pad 84, 135–6 pimp 276, 279
padding-ken 210 pinch 139–40
paddock 165 pine-top 185
342 Word Index
pip 213–14 POTUS 242

pipe 5, 188 potwalloper 185
piss 35, 146 poutine 226
pisshead 35 pow 1
pizza face 61 poz 153
PJs 248 pozzy 169
plague 129–30 prad 133
plaguily 153 prance(r) 122, 124–5
plant 190, 255 prang 201
play for a sucker/fool/buster 275 prat(fall) 29, 126–7
play horse with 185 prehab 49
plonk 217, 220 pretty 192
plonker 259 prezzie 221
plucked 161 prick (teaser) 43, 63, 278
plucky 159 prig 127–8, 131–2, 164, 181, 183
plump 184 prince(epessa) 32
plunger 162 pro 244
pod 29, 40 prop 244
pogey bait 75 prostrate 18
poggle 228–9 prushun 254
pokie 221 psyche 198
pole 213–14 puckeroo 229 n
police 67 puckerow 229
politricks 228 puh-leeze 145
polly 221–2 puke 149
pollywog 181 n pukka 169
pom(mie/egranite) 69 pull down 138–9
pond 248 pum-pum 228
pony 253 punani 228
poo 298 punk 253
poof 253 pure x
pop 4, 131–2, 188 push 133, 208, 212
posh 39, 170 put a crimp in 241–2
posse 228 put down 275
possie 221 put the acid/hard word on 216
postie 221 put up 159
pot 29, 40 Pygmalion 22
potch 202 pyjies 248
Word Index 343
quack(salver) 150 rellie 221

queasy 154 rello 222
queen (of diamonds/hearts) 32 rep 153
queer 69, 157–8, 239 retard 36
queerly 137–8 retweet 281–2
quid 164–5 re-up 67
quiff 168 rhino 4, 152
quiz 161 rhinocerical 152
riah 257
raas see rass(claat) ride 249, 299
rabbit 154 ride shotgun 201
radical 64 ridge 132, 134, 210
rag 253 ridgy-didge 210
raggedy-assed 76 ridiculous 64
ragtime 261–2 right 188
rambo 250 righteous 64
random 62 righto 222
rap 254 Riley 202
rare 164–5 ring (off) 22–3, 165
raspberry 46 roach(-holder) 88, 201
rass(claat) 228 rock 4, 254, 271
rat’s arse 276 rock and roll 65
rattler 133 rocker 170
raw 232 rocking 278
raw prawn 221 rock spider 230
reader 138–9, 208 ROFL 38, 95, 106–7
ready 4, 6, 152, 260–1 rogue 129–30, 151
real McCoy 255 rookie 75
red 210 roomie 278
red eye 189 rooter 188
redge see ridge rooty 169
red tab 52 ropeable 224
reeva 231 roscoe 255
reffo 222 rot 17
regal 32 rotten 164–5
rego 222 round me/the houses 140
regular 138–9, 158 round up 189
relate to 84 rouseabout 212
relieving-officer 161 row 161, 165
344 Word Index
rowdy 140 scratch 60

royal 32 screamingly 163
RTS 270 screw 213, 254
rub 56 screwball 226
rubbish 220 scroggin 224
Ruby Murray 6 scrounge 169
rugger (bugger) 36, 230 scrub 279
rum 126–7, 133, 134, 135 scuffer 232
rumpo 257 security blanket 240–1
running-smobble 130–1 sed 287
rushee 61 see you later alligator 65
rustle 177 selector 228
send to church 139–40
Sadie Hawkins Day 240 septic (tank) 69, 291
sad sack 240 servo 222
safe 64, 98 set(-down) 185, 192
salvage 243 shack up 83
Salvo 222 shag(adelic) 250, 252
sand 187 shakester 138–9
satchel mouth 198 shamus 42–3
sawbuck 177 sheila 219
sawney 139–40 shellacked 77, 79
say 225 shickster 139, 210
’sblood 129–30 shikkered 217
scad(s) 4 shin 196
scag(head) 35 shit(load) 99, 146, 275, 276
scalper 185 shivoo 216, 217
scandal 77, 80 shiznit 37
scarfie 224 shoful 7–8
scene 85 shoo-fly 192
schlong 202 short 87
schlump 202 short-stop 188
schmuck 45 shotgun 201
scoff 253 shove (along/up/out/off/one’s trunk)
Scooby(-doo) 104, 259 2–3, 137–8
score 88, 99, 100 showful see shoful
scram 255 shrap or shrapnel 104, 105
scrambled egg 52 shut-eye 249
scrap-iron 189 sice 120
Word Index 345
sick 95 snake 275

sickie 221 snap 123
simply 194 snapper 232
single act 245 snatcher 184
sink 120 snazzy 64
sit-in 89 sneak 130–1, 175
skag 35 sneaking-budge 131
skanger 276 sneech 104
skank(aroo) 36, 99, 100 snide 15
skedaddle 179 snitch 135–7, 275
skesana 231 snob 15
skew 126–7 snort 54
-ski 258 snout 213–14
skid 7–8 snow 198
skin (head/show) 50–1, 138–9, 229 snowpocalypse 49
skipper 124 soap 4
skirt(-chaser) 5, 35 sob sister 242
skobe or skobie 276 soccer 36
skunk works 240 sock 59
skyrocket 252 sockdolager 179
slack bob 61 softwarily 270
slacker 192 some 79
slag (off) 63, 276 song and dance 245
slang 135–6, 179, 210 sook 224
slapped in the face 189 soor 229
slap-up 162 sort 157–8
slat 135–6 so they say 211
sleeve-button 184 soul (brother) 86, 87
slick 225 sound (as a pound) 18, 64–5
slop 47 sound off 76
slope 254 soup 253
slug 184 soup-strainer 35
sluice (one’s gob/mouth (etc.)) 135–6 spacktard 36
slum 131–2, 210 spade 85
small-timer 245 spam 259
smart 154 spark 253
smoke 92 n, 121, 153, 155 spaz 63, 269
smokey (bear) 283 Special K 34
smoko 222 speed 89
346 Word Index
speel 138–9 straight (goods/man) 7, 68, 88, 245, 246

spell 212 strapped 185
spew 148–9 street 67
spiffing 287 strewth 66, 219
spiffy 219 strides 66
spikebozzle 243 strike-breaker 77, 79
split 85, 166–7 strike me 217
splurge 186 stubble-jumper 227
spond(ulicks) 2–3, 4 stuff 4
sponge cake 188–9 stump up 159
spoony (on) 162 stunner 159
sport 5, 160, 164–5, 225 stunning 162
spring chicken 277 stunt 247
spud-islander 227 sub 80, 189
square 83, 85 sub-chaser 77, 80
squeal 189, 254 sub-cheese 229
squid 8 sub-deb 80
stake(y) 185, 227 submarine 189
stalker 99, 100 suck 227, 271
stall 121, 127, 138, 210, 249 sucker 275
stamp(s) 4, 134 suckhole 227
star 244 sucky 232
stars and stripes 184 sugar 4
stealth abs 49 sunnies 221
steam roller 192 sup 37, 195
sterling 207 super (cool/fatted/fly/sonic/straight)
stick (up) 212, 290 18, 37, 64, 89
stickybeak 252 surfie 221
stiff 14 swab 51
stink 165 swag 39, 139, 210
stinkard 148–9 sweatbag 104
stir 5 sweater 59
stocious 232 sweet 194, 195, 278
stomp(ie) 134, 230 sweetman 198
stoned 16 swell 139–40, 156, 158, 160, 208
stone the crows 6 swim 162
stooge 245 swing 87, 262
stool 254 swing the lead 243
stow 208 switcharoonee 36
Word Index 347
tail 69, 177 tinney, tinnie or tinny 36, 135–6

take the air 77, 79 tinternet 40
tanner 166–7 tintype 187
tar 253 tip 15, 135–6, 164–5, 239
tard 36 titch 244
tardis 259 tix 278
tart up 231 tizzy 159
ta-ta for now 256 toco 169
tea 88 toff 164
tec 253 toge(e) 134
teensville 66 toke 88
teeny bopper 89 tomato 77, 79
telephone 229 Tommy (Atkins) 167–8, 255
tell off 168 tommy gun 255
telly 252 tool 15
tenderloin 251 too right 220
ten-four 283 toot 185
tenner 253 top banana 245
thimble 210 top dollar 279
thinking cogs 247 top end of the day 247
third 188 top hole 287
Thompson 255 tosh 17
three card man 241–2 tosser 114
throne 32 totally 105
throw 242 t’other side 135–6
thumb-candy 274 totty 101, 103
tiara 32 touch 135–6
tich 244 tour 122, 127
ticker 247 tout 135–7, 157–8
ticket 168 township 212
Tico 202 trackie 221
tidy 232 trap 209
tiffin 229 treacle (toffee) 246
tight 7–8 treat 213–14
tile 157–8 tremendous 22–3
tilt 131–2 trencher-rascal 148–9
Tim 232 trend 281–2
tin (hat) 4, 55, 159 trey 120
tink 8 tribal 229
348 Word Index
trimmings 180 up a gum-tree 217

trip (out) 88, 89 up the/a pole 213–14
troops 255 up to 211
troppo 222 up to (the) scratch 60
trot (out) 213 up to snuff 158
trotter 135–6 uppers 185
trouble and strife 46 uprightman 123
truckie 221 uptight 88
tsatske 202 usual suspects 249
tuck 59, 226
tucker 215, 217 valentino 249
tuneage 36 vanilla 269
tuque 226 vanilla checks x
turn around/off/on/round 84, 89, 184 varda 231, 257
turnip 251 varmint 154
twaddle 155 veg (out) 220
twanger 104 veggy 221
twat 20 vego 222
tweak 269 vile 133
twee 248 ville 133
tweet 279–81 -ville 66
twig 209 -vouti 258 n
twist and burn 66
twit 153, 281–2 wag (off) 41, 219
twitter 279–81 wagwan 41
twitterati and twittersphere 36, 280–1 wallah 44
two-fisted 251 wallie or wally 77, 79
typewriter 75 wangle 243
wannabe 111
uber 44 wap 127–8
u-ey 221 warb(le) 193
ugly customer 158 wart 56
uh-huh 225 WASP 38
uncle 251 watch 122–3, 127
underground 88 way 184
unfollow 281–2 wazzup 101
unfriend 277 webfoot 52
uni 220 wedge 132, 134, 210
up 88, 156, 209 weed 88, 98
Word Index 349
well x, 260 wisecrack 249

well-heeled 185 wise up 249
wet 226 with it 211
wet bob 61 with the best of them 193
whack 196–7 wizard 64
wha’gwaan 41 wog 181
whammy 240 wonderful 18
whangdoodle 179 wonder woman 241
what a gwaan 41 wonga 104, 105
whatever 14 n, 101 woot 271
What’s the state of the wop-wops 224
world-p? 270 work 85
wheedle 135–6 wow 190
wheel 255 wowser 220
wheeze 244 wrangler 189–90
where it’s at 87 wrecked 101, 103
wherewithal 4 wuss 104
whid 127–8
whiddle 136 -y 36, 221–2
whinge 219 yack 45, 139, 210
whistle (and flute) 252 yank 69
white 210 yap 254
whizz-bang 55 yen 255
wibble 259 yo 195, 278, 286
wicked (bad/good) x, 16, 18, 32, yob(bo) 47, 222
286–7, 294 you bet 193
wig (out) 85, 87
wimp(y) 240 -z 40
win 122–3, 124–5, 127 za 37
wind-up 169 zap 45
windy 74 zero 269
wing (it) 245 zhoosh (up) 231
wink 209 zombie 227
winnitude 270 zoom 243
Index
................................................
[references in bold are to illustrations]
abbreviation 37–9, 107–8, 221–2, 256, influence on British slang 220, 221,
270, 272 222, 260
Ade, George 187–9 Awdelay, Thomas 123
advertising see slang in advertising
African American English ix–x, 86–7, back slang 46–7, 210
195–7 Baker, Sidney J. 217–18, 223–4
African American slang 83, 194–200, beat slang 82–5, 87, 88, 89–90, 161, 301
261–3, 275, 301. See also jazz, rap Boldrewood, Rolf 210–11, 214
airforce slang see military slang Brandon, Henry 138–9
Alcott, Louisa May 192–3 British slang 6, 7–8, 118–72, 231–2,
American slang 3–4, 5, 73, 174–203, 233, 253, 291, 305
233, 252, 264, 305 influence on American slang 178,
influence on Australian slang 209, 181–3, 184–5, 186, 237, 252, 278
216, 218–19–6, 220, 222, 233, influence on Australian slang 208,
251, 263 209–10, 213, 214, 219, 237
influence on British slang 170–1, influence on Canadian slang 225–6
172, 237, 250, 260–4, 278, influence on Irish slang 276
288–9 Brome, Richard 126–7
influence on Canadian slang 225, 263 Browne, Thomas see Rolf Boldrewood
influence on Irish slang 276
Anglicus, Ducange 140 Canadian slang 225–7, 305
Anglo-Indian slang 168, 169–70, cant 58–9
228–9 American criminals’ language 5, 75,
Anglo-Romany and Gypsies 125, 84, 125, 175–8, 254, 255, 275
170, 287 American tramps’ language 75, 84,
army slang see military slang 177, 253–4
Australian slang 2–3, 7, 36, 69, 207–23, Australian criminals’ language
233, 252, 305 207–11
Index 351
British criminals’ language 119–41, Grose, Francis 56–7, 155, 156–7, 161
170, 175, 178, 208, 210, 253 Gypsies see Anglo-Romany
Caribbean slang 41, 227–8
Chaucer, Geoffrey 9, 145–6 Harman, Thomas 123–5, 208
cinema and slang 200, 219, 249–52, Hell on Earth 130–1
266–7 hip hop see rap
specific films using slang 5, 92, 125, hippy slang 85–90
231, 250–2 Hitchen, Charles 131–2
colloquial language 13, 218–19, 297 Hotten, John Camden 159–61, 184
computer slang see online and
computer slang Indian slang 228–30. See also
Copland, Robert 122–3 Anglo-Indian slang.
Crane, Stephen 184 insults and abuse 19–20, 130, 144,
criminal slang see cant 145, 149
Crowe, Cornelius 209–10 Irish slang 231–2, 276
influence on American slang 42–3,
Darwinism 10, 73, 75–6, 91 202, 241–2, 246–7
Dekker, Thomas 125, 127–8
Dennis, C. J. 213–15 jargon 51 n, 56, 60–1, 150, 272–3, 277,
Dickens, Charles 157–8, 179–80, 237 282, 297. See also professional
disco 90, 199, 262 slang.
drugs slang 84, 85, 87–9, 98–9, 198 The Jargon File 269–70, 284–5
jazz 82, 83, 85, 198–9, 200, 262
Egan, Pierce 155, 157, 209 Johnson, Samuel 57, 178–9
etymology 26–47 Jonson, Ben 148–50, 156
flapper slang 76–80, 81, 90, 161, 238 King, Moll 135–7
Flexner, Stuart Berg 172 Kipling, Rudyard 167–8, 237
folk etymology 40–2, 46
frogs 2, 47, 49, 58, 72, 73, 93, 95, 116, Lay, May 85–9
264, 300 leetspeak 270–2
Leverage, Henry 177–8
Gaillard, Slim 258 n Life in Sydney 209–10
Galsworthy, John 164–5 Lighter, Jonathan 74 n, 180–2, 297–8
gang slang see rap Lipton, Lawrence, 82–5, 88
gay slang 32, 68, 82, 131, 256–7 Lit, Hy 257–8
Goldsmith, Oliver 154–5, 156 loan-words in English slang 44–5
Green, Jonathon 41 from African languages 230–1, 242
Greene, Robert 121–2 from Arabic 44, 215, 230
352 Index
loan-words in English slang (cont.) Online Dictionary of Playground

from Dutch 123, 125, 150, 151 Slang 286–7
from French 29, 44, 120, 128, 145, Online Slang Dictionary 287–9
169, 262 Orban, Nancy 85–9
from German 44, 123, 138
from Indian languages 44, 169, Parker, George 137–8
228–30. See also Anglo-Indian Partridge, Eric 28, 42–3, 107–9,
slang 170–1, 172
from Italian 44, 256 Polari see gay slang
from Latin 18, 119, 145, 152 Poulter, John 132–4
from Romany 170, 256, 287 prison slang see cant
from Spanish 44, 202, 256 professional slang 54–5, 189–90, 242,
from Yiddish or Hebrew 42–3, 45, 249, 253, 274. See also jargon
139, 191, 202 public-school slang 19, 35, 36, 59–61
from other languages 44–5, 255
radio and slang 199, 256–9
Maitland, James 184–5 rap, hip hop, and gang slang 8, 66–7,
Malcolm, Sherman 186–7 285–6, 303
Matsell, George 175–6, 177 examples 40, 96–7, 195, 255, 263–4
Mencken, Henry 191–2 restaurant slang 55 n, 189
military slang 50–7 rhyming slang 46, 68–9, 140–1, 246, 248
American military slang 45, 50–3, examples 70, 104, 240, 244, 252,
55, 65–6, 73–6, 199–200, 270 159, 260–1, 291
Australian military slang 6–7, 215–17 Rodgers, Bruce 32, 68
British military slang 19, 44–5, 50–3,
55, 56, 74, 167–70, 242–3 Scorsese, Martin 125
Moncrieff, W. T. 155–6 Scottish slang 232
Mügge, Maximilian 168–9 Shadwell, Thomas 152, 156
music hall 74, 211, 243–6, 256 Shakespeare, William 9, 129–30, 146
Shaw, George Bernard 22
national slang 232–3, 304–6 slang 11–24, 116, 297–9, 306–7
naval/navy slang see military slang slang and creativity 1, 11, 18,
newspapers and slang 79, 80, 200, 47, 49–50, 71, 111–12, 161,
204, 238–43, 300 302–3
New Zealand slang 69, 223–5, 233 slang and ethnicity 8, 189, 246–7.
See also African American English,
Oliphant, Laurence 181, 183 African American slang, rap
online and computer slang 38–9, 40, slang and gender 10, 69, 147, 148,
65, 105–6, 108, 266–94 157, 166, 171, 194, 304
Index 353
examples of men’s slang 158–63, Standard English 12–13, 56–7,

164–5 111–12, 143–4, 278
examples of women’s slang 163, in Australia 211–13, 216, 220–1
192–4 in India 229
slang and social class 137, 143–4, in New Zealand 223
145–6, 165–6, 171–2, 187, in the United States 178–9, 186–7,
190–1, 194–5, 303 190–3, 197
examples of working-class slang student slang 62, 103–4, 277–8
7–8, 161, 164, 166–9 American student slang 61–3, 198,
examples of upper-class slang 200–1, 243
153, 154, 164–5 British student slang 103, 159–61
slang as an indication of low See also youth slang
intelligence 1–2, 17–18, 172 swearing 20–1, 144, 211, 297, 298
slang as a corrupting influence 3, 9, examples 21, 130, 145, 149, 153,
151–2, 156, 158–9, 186–7, 154, 167, 168, 196, 214
250–1, 264 Swift, Jonathan 152–4, 156
slang in advertising 64–5, 66, 71,
101, 201–2, 261, 264, 293 television and slang 259–61
slang used for concealment 3, 67, theatre and slang 194, 243–9, 256–7,
108, 128, 273, 285. See also cant 300
slang used for group-formation 3, 7, examples 244–5
51–2, 67–9, 104–5, 107–8, 114, Trevisa, John 146–7
256, 267–8, 273, 298–9 Trumble, Alfred 176
slang used for rebellion 1, 50, 56, Tufts, Henry 175
57, 108, 110, 304 turtles 14, 298–300
dating slang usage 28, 80, 81, 92, Twain, Mark 195–7
93, 291, 294, 311–13
disseminating slang 90–2, 112–16, Urban Dictionary 49, 97, 272, 289–91
190, 238, 250, 278–84,
302, 303 vaudeville 245–6
representing slang 24, 67, 92–3, Vaux, James Hardy 207–8
125–9, 238, 250–5, 264, 275,
299–301, 302, 303. See also Walker, Gilbert 119–20
slang in advertising, cinema, Washington, Booker T. 197
radio, television Webster, Noah 178–9, 180, 181, 183,
South African slang 230–1 191, 192
spelling 28–9, 39–40, 270–2, 289, 311 Welsh slang 232
sporting slang 158–9, 165, 188–9, Wentworth, Harold 172
209, 214 Whitman, Walt 183–4
354 Index
Wild, Jonathan 131 Wycherley, William 150–1, 156

Willard, Josiah Flynt 177
WWI 19, 50–7, 91, 92, 168 youth slang 18–19, 62–5, 172, 199–
WWI and slang transmission 216, 202, 212–13, 258–9, 301
262. See also military slang as a focus for inter-generational
WWII 19, 50–7, 218 anxiety 2–4, 5–6, 102, 158–66,
WWII and slang transmission 171, 171, 268
199–200. See also military slang examples x, 8, 96–107

The Life of Slang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Life of Slang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Life of Slang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What time periods does the book cover?

What time periods does the book cover?

The Life

4 Survival and Metamorphosis 73

5 The Spread of Slang 94

6 Prigs, Culls, and Blosses: Cant and Flash Language 118

7 Jolly Good Show: British Slang to the

8 Whangdoodles and Fixings: Early American Slang 174

9 Bludgers, Sooks, and Mofﬁes: English Slang

10 Top Bananas and Bunny-boilers:

11 Leet to Lols: The Digital Age 266

Slang is a subject that provokes strong emotions. Some people

Standard language equals socialization and conformity; non-standard

Slang in the ring

tiresome terms reveals limitations of vocabulary, imagination, and

Slang in the news

The following words and phrases probably sounded slangy in this

bally “very” (1899—) lend “to give” (OE—)

“By the way, pop, can I have a few ‘stamps’ to-day?”

The third extract, written by a British ﬁlm-reviewer in 1919, looks

Slang creates frictions, misunderstandings, and pretended misunder-

Perhaps this sounds convincing if you’re not a speaker of British

fair dinkum “honest; on the level” (1894—, usually Australian)

In this extract, to know and use slang is to be genuine, trustworthy,

skid ?preﬁguring squid “a pound” (1902—) buffy “drunk” (1853-1924)

Slang is appropriate for this conversation not just because it allows

Slang has long inhabited the area of friction between generations,

counterfeit currency. Those who use slang are characterized by the

Language is also commonly described in terms of clothing. To use

This is part of the reason why it is necessary to deﬁne what slang is

in the sentence than we would their Standard English equivalents. It’s

when it was ﬁrst documented in the sense “foolish; weak-minded”

one; an attractive woman” (1778—), all of which were once Standard

Rather than entering wider colloquial or even standard use, some

We go to school and then perhaps on to university with people of our

Slang, abuse, and swearing

1 Deﬁning swearing: Mark Parisi, ‘Dam! Dam! Dam!’

I was with a delicate elderly relative, I said ‘Bugger!’ or ‘Damn!’ instead,

colloquial now in the sense “extraordinarily good”, but it was slang

particular moment in time. Even if they were correctly labelled, which

substitute for the perfectly good English tooth drawer. Dandelion is

slang words before the spelling becomes stabilized. For example, in

d. originally US slang (Of men, at ﬁrst, then also women) homosex-

It’s clear, particularly in a number of ambiguous examples since 1922,

been inﬂuenced by the “showily dressed” sense (2b). In the early

Slang created by changes in meaning

in the opposite direction. Unreliable or unintelligent statements

{Standard English term of disapproval} ! {slang term of approval}

Another example of linked changes in meaning arises in the overlap

Slang created by changes in function

“a snack consisting of two slices of bread and a ﬁlling” (1762—),

Slang created by changes in form

alcohol. Tuneage (since at least 2000) appears to mean “a good tune”,

Slang created by abbreviation

3 Crossed wires I: Mark Parisi, ‘When You Type ROFL’.

word that can be either an initialism or an acronym. Short for laugh-

Slang created by changes in spelling