Abdul Omar Nuro

Edinilson Luís Salé

Lídia André Francisco

Jorge Estevão Alberto Nhoua

Language and Culture Vs Language and Thoughts

(Licenciatura em ensino de Inglês com Habilitação em Português)

Universidade Rovuma

Extensão Niassa

2022
 Abdul Omar Nuro

Edinilson Luís Salé

Lídia André Francisco

Jorge Estevão Alberto Nhoua

Language and Culture Vs Language and Thoughts

(Licenciatura em ensino de Inglês com Habilitação em Português)

The present work of Sociolinguistics is to be

submitted at Arts and Science Department for
evaluated ends, with the supervision of:

MSc Jenete Azizi

Universidade Rovuma

Extensão Niassa

2022
 Índice

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

2 Language and Culture Vs Language and Thoughts................................................................. 4

2.1 Basic concepts .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 ·Language ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.2 Culture....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 ·The relationship between language and thought Vs Language and Culture ................... 4

2.2.1 Relationship between thought and culture ................................................................ 5

2.3 Linguistic relativity .......................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Taboos ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.4.1 Etymology ............................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Euphemism ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.5.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 12

2.5.2 Rhetoric ................................................................................................................... 13

2.6 Swear Words .................................................................................................................. 13

2.6.1 American Swear Words (US) ................................................................................. 13

2.6.2 British Swear Words (UK)...................................................................................... 14

2.6.3 Australian Swear Words (AU) ................................................................................ 15

2.7 Slang ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.7.1 Defining slang ......................................................................................................... 16

3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 19

4 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 20
 3

1 Introduction

An understanding of the relationship between language and culture is important for language
learners, users, and for all those involved in language education. For language teachers and
learners in general, an appreciation for the differences in opinion regarding the relationship
between language and culture can help to illuminate the diversity of views held toward the use of
language. Moreover, insight into the various views can assist not only second language learners
but also first language users, as the way we choose to use language is not just important for some
of us. Such insights also open the door for a consideration of how both language and culture
influence people‟s life perceptions, and how people make use of their pre-acquainted linguistic
and cultural knowledge to assess those perceptions. For all language users, the recognition of
how their language affects others can greatly impact the direction and motivation for both
language study and interpersonal relationships, and it can also add great insight and value to
language education, program planning, and curriculum development. This paper begins by
introducing the concepts of language and culture.
 4

2 Language and Culture Vs Language and Thoughts

2.1 Basic concepts

2.1.1 ·Language

Language is media and results of the human mind. That is used to communicate, either like
through written, oral speech, or body movement (sign language). With language, humans can
adapt they customs, behavior, social governance, and also easy to assimilate themselves with all
forms in society.

Language in general can be interpreted as a symbol of the human vocal system that is used as a
tool for thinking, forming our mind, and to understand the mind of other person (Kunjana
Rahadi, 2001:159). In speech, understanding comes first than production

2.1.2 Culture

Culture is things that related to the mind and human reason. Culture is the result of the creativity
and thinking of each member in language community. Culture that born from the individual and
the community reflects the attitude and thinking of the society itself. Culture is derived from the
Latin word Colere mean the process or work. Culture is very closely connected with the society.
Malville J. Bronislaw Mlinowski Herkovits, suggested that everything contained in the society is
determined by the culture of the society itself.

According the various definitions, we can make conclusion. Culture is the result of human
thought which will affect the level of knowledge and the system of ideas contained in the human
mind, so it make the culture is abstract. The manifestation of culture is such as behavior and real
things, example language is human life equipment to communicate with other human beings or
other living creatures.

2.2 ·The relationship between language and thought Vs Language and Culture

Noam Chomsky says that since human is born, people have supplied with thought and language
competence. In other words, the basic language competence is innate by nature not as the result
of a learning process. The philosopher, John Locke, some centuries ago proposed precisely this
view: that the relationship between language and thought is such that thought is independent of
 5

language, with language deriving from thought. Given such a relationship, language can thereby
fulfill its primary role which is as an instrument for the expression or communication of thought.

2.2.1 Relationship between thought and culture

If culture is knowledge, it can exist only inside people's heads so there is a problem in studying
it: how can one know what the cultural knowledge of Mr. X is? Worse still, how can one know
what the culture of community X is? Does one need to examine the cultural knowledge of every
member of the community? And what if there are differences between people? Problems like
these are completely familiar to the student of linguistics, of course, and the solutions are much
the same whether one is interested in culture or in language. Firstly, we can observe people's
natural behavior (i.e. outside artificial experimental situations) and draw our own conclusions
about the knowledge that must underlie it. Secondly, we can arrange interviews and ask people
more or less direct questions about their knowledge, taking their answers with a pinch of salt if
need be. Thirdly, we can use ourselves as informants. And fourthly, we can conduct
psychological experiments of one kind or another, such as measuring the length of time it takes
people to perform certain tasks in order to develop a measure of the relative complexity of the
knowledge involved. All these methods can be used, and have been used in both cultural
anthropology and linguistics.

Given the definition of culture as 'socially acquired knowledge', it is easy to see that culture is
one part of memory, namely the part which is 'acquired socially', in contrast with that which does
not involve other people. This distinction is anything but clear, so we must not put too much
weight on it, but it might distinguish between propositions which are known to be true from one's
own experience and those which have been learned from other people. An example of the first
kind would be 'I had sausages for lunch today', which is excluded from the notion 'culture';
whereas a proposition like 'Columbus discovered America' clearly belongs to culture, as
something one has learned from other people. Similarly, some concepts are cultural and others
are not. We create the former because we see that others around us make use of them in their
thinking, as may be illustrated by the concepts which students of linguistics or sociolinguistics
build up because they find that their teachers are using them. (In most cases there is a word for
such concepts, so the main clue the student has to the existence of a concept such as 'diglossia' is
the existence of the word.) A non- cultural concept, on the other hand, is one which we build
 6

without reference to other people, as a convenient way of interpreting our experience - 'me', or
'the way my wife talks', or 'the smell of paint'.

To the extent that a distinction can be made between cultural and non-
cultural knowledge, it concerns the source of such knowledge. If it means an approximation to
the concepts or propositions in other people's minds, it is cultural, but otherwise not. One of the
most interesting things about cultural knowledge is the extent to which people can interpret each
other's behavior and arrive at more or less the same concepts or propositions. For instance,
millions of people every year attend concerts of various kinds in Britain, but with very few
exceptions they appear to share the same concepts for categorizing concerts (pop, classical, jazz
and so on), and the same propositions about what constitutes appropriate behavior during each
type (for instance, during a classical concert audience participation is very closely restricted as to
what may be done and when).

If people did not share such detailed knowledge, their behavior in concerts could not be as
predictable as it in fact is, especially since the conventions are somewhat arbitrary. On the other
hand, it does not follow that non-cultural knowledge must differ from person to person, since
different people can arrive at similar conclusions on the basis of similar experiences of the
universe or similar genetic predispositions. For instance, if we find that all human beings have a
concept 'vertical dimension', there is no need to assume that they have all learned it from other
people in order to establish a chain of connections between them; it is much more likely that it is
because they all live in a world dominated by gravity and full of human beings who walk
upright; or even that it is inborn and needs no learning. (Clark and Clark 1977: page 534) Thus
we find that there are three kinds of knowledge:

 Cultural knowledge, which is learned from other people;

 Shared non-cultural knowledge, which is shared by people within the same community or
the world over, but is not learned from each other;
 Non-shared non-cultural knowledge, which is unique to the
individual.
 7

Edward Sapir, in his studies with Benjamin Lee Whorf, recognized the close relationship
between language and culture, concluding that it was not possible to understand or appreciate
one without knowledge of the other” (taken from Wardhaugh, 2002, p. 220). However,
Wardhaugh (2002, pp. 219- 220) reported that there appear to be three claims to the relationship
between language and culture: The structure of a language determines the way in which speakers
of that language view the world or, as a weaker view, the structure does not determine the world
view but is still extremely influential in predisposing speakers of a language
toward adopting their world-view The culture of a people finds reflection in the language they
employ: because they value certain things and do them in a certain way, they come to
use their language in ways that reflect what they value and what they do
A „neutral claim‟ which claims that there is little or no relationship between the two
The first of these claims, though in its definitive phrasing is disputed by many sociolinguists, is
commonly associated with Sapir and Whorf. This claim is the basis for much research on the
relationship between language and culture and therefore will be covered in the most detail
following an acknowledgement of the other two, beginning with a brief consideration of the
„neutral claim‟.

The neutral claim that a relationship does not exist between language and culture, when
considering language for its communicative powers and its role in the culture that uses it, would
appear to be one for a philosophical debate. While it can be argued that it is possible to analyze a
language and/or culture without regard for the other, the reasons for such an analysis seem highly
suspect. The fact that language is used to convey and to understand information would imply a
relationship in which both the language giver and receiver assume one or more roles. In
considering such communication in its most minimal of forms – i.e. the immediate setting – it
would be difficult to conclude that culture would in no way have an impact on the interaction
even on the smallest of scale.

The second proposed relationship suggests that people in a culture use language that reflects their
particular culture‟s values. This is the opposing view of Sapir and Whorf in that here it is the
„thoughts‟ of a culture which are reflected in the language and not the language which
determines the thought. This claim implies that cultures employ languages that are as different as
the cultures that speak them and therefore linguistic functions differ in terms of, for example, a
 8

culture‟s level of technological development. However, Wardhaugh (2002, pp. 225-226) argues
that we must assume that all languages possess the resources to allow any speaker to say
anything... provided that speaker is willing to use some degree of circumlocution. When needs
for lexical items arise, Wardhaugh (2002, p. 225) explains, we can assume that cultures possess
the ability and are free to create or to borrow them as needed, and that cultures that have not
done so have not yet experienced the need. Wardhaugh also notes that people who speak
languages with different structures (e.g. Germans and Hungarians) can share similar cultural
characteristics, and people who have different cultures can also possess similar structures in
language (e.g. Hungarians and Finns). Examples like these indicate that the second relationship
between language and culture is quite viable.

The first of the three proposed relationships from above is the basis for the Whorfian hypothesis;
the belief that the structure of the language determines how people see the world. The idea that
language, to some extent, determines the way we think about the world around us is known as
linguistic determinism, with „strong‟ determinism stating that language actually determines
thought, and „weak‟ determinism implying that our thought is merely influenced by our language
(Campbell, 1997). Strong linguistic determinism and the idea that difference in language results
in difference in thought, or linguistic relativity, were the basic propositions for the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis. The hypothesis claims that we see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as
we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation
(Sapir 1929b, p. 207, taken from Wardhaugh, 2002, p. 220).

In consideration of the various researches, it does appear that the structure of a language
determines how speakers of that language view their world. A look at how users of different
languages view colour, linguistic etiquette and kinship systems helps to illustrate this point. Lucy
(1996, p. 46, taken from Skotko, 1997) reported that Hanunóo, a language from the Philippines,
has four terms that seem to refer to what we would call white, black, green, and red but which
under further analysis turn out to mean roughly lightness, darkness, wetness, and dryness. Such
observations imply that some cultures interpret colours based on their language, such as with
Hanunóo, where it appears that speakers view the colour red as more of a feeling than a colour.
Alternatively, Wardhaugh (2002, p. 234) reports another theory that claims all people approach
the colour spectrum in the same cognitive way and it is the development of a culture that creates
 9

the demands for differentiation. Nevertheless, Lucy (1997, taken from Wardhaugh, 2002, p. 234)
asserts that communicatively relevant encodings of visual experience lie in socially anchored
linguistic systems. Skoto also observes (based on Lucy‟s report regarding the cross-cultural
pinwheel of color study by Brown, Lenneberg, and others) that the cross-cultural pinwheel of
color linguistics has shown that grammatical structure can influence thoughts and interpretations
(Lucy, 1996, p. 47 taken from Skotko, 1997).

If a language is set to respond to perceptions in a specific way, then the thoughts of those who
employ that language would seemingly also be restricted. However, when extending this claim to
languages that are, for example, structured to reflect social hierarchy such as with Japanese and
its numerous levels of politeness, the issue of whether the language actually controls the thoughts
of the user is difficult to confirm.

2.3 Linguistic relativity

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the Whorf
hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language influences
its speakers' worldview or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken
language. Research has produced positive empirical evidence supporting linguistic relativity, and
this hypothesis is provisionally accepted by many modern linguists.

Many different, often contradictory variations of the hypothesis have existed throughout its
history. The strong hypothesis of linguistic relativity, now referred to as linguistic determinism
says that language determines thought and those linguistic categories limit and determine
cognitive categories. This hypothesis was held by some of the early linguists before World War
II. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists.

Although common, the term "Sapir– Whorf hypothesis" is considered a misnomer by linguists
for several reasons: Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf never co-authored any works, and
never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis. The distinction between a weak and a strong
version of this hypothesis is also a later development; Sapir and Whorf never set up such a
dichotomy, although often their writings and their views of this relativity principle are phrased in
stronger or weaker terms.
 10

The principle of linguistic relativity and the relationship between language and thought has also
received attention in varying academic fields from philosophy to psychology and anthropology,
and it has also inspired and colored works of fiction and the invention of constructed languages.

The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th-century thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and
Johann Gottfried Herder, who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. Members
of the early 20th-century school of American anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward
Sapir also embraced forms of the idea to a certain extent, including in a 1928 meeting of the
History

Linguistic Society of America, but Sapir in particular, wrote more often against than in favor of
anything like linguistic determinism. Sapir's student, Benjamin Lee Whorf, came to be seen as
the primary proponent as a result of his published observations of how he perceived linguistic
differences to have consequences in human cognition and behavior. Harry Hoijer, another of
Sapir's students, introduced the term "Sapir– Whorf hypothesis", even though the two scholars
never formally advanced any such hypothesis. A strong version of relativist theory was
developed from the late 1920s by the German linguist Leo Weisgerber. Whorf's principle of
linguistic relativity was reformulated as a testable hypothesis by Roger Brown and Eric
Lenneberg who conducted experiments designed to find out whether color perception varies
between speakers of languages that classified colors differently.

As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came into focus in the
1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor among linguists. From the late 1980s, a
new school of linguistic relativity scholars has examined the effects of differences in linguistic
categorization on cognition, finding broad support for non-deterministic versions of the
hypothesis in experimental contexts. Some effects of linguistic relativity have been shown in
several semantic domains, although they are generally weak. Currently, a balanced view of
linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds
of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways, but that other processes are better seen as arising from
connectionist factors. Research is focused on exploring the ways and extent to which language
influences thought.
 11

2.4 Taboos
A taboo, also spelled tabu, is a social group's ban, prohibition, or avoidance of something
(usually an utterance or behavior) based on the group's sense that it is excessively repulsive,
offensive, sacred, or allowed only for certain persons. Such prohibitions are present in virtually
all societies. Taboos may be prohibited explicitly, for example within a legal system or religion,
or implicitly, for example by social norms or conventions followed by a particular culture or
organization.

Taboos are often meant to protect the individual, but there are other reasons for their
development. An ecological or medical background is apparent in many, including some that are
seen as religious or spiritual in origin. Taboos can help use a resource more efficiently, but when
applied to only a subsection of the community they can also serve to suppress said subsection of
the community. A taboo acknowledged by a particular group or tribe as part of their ways aids in
the cohesion of the group, helps that particular group to stand out and maintain its identity in the
face of others and therefore creates a feeling of "belonging".

The meaning of the word taboo has been somewhat expanded in the social sciences to strong
prohibitions relating to any area of human activity or custom that is sacred or forbidden based on
moral judgment, religious beliefs, or cultural norms. "Breaking a taboo" is usually considered
objectionable by society in general, not merely a subset of a culture.

The English term taboo comes from tapu in Oceanic languages, particularly Polynesian
languages, with such meanings as "prohibited" or "forbidden". That root tapu is reflected, among
others, by Tongan or Māori tapu, and by Hawaiian kapu. Its English use dates to 1777 when the
British explorer James Cook visited Tonga, and referred to the Tongans' use of the term taboo for
"any thing that is forbidden to be eaten, or made use of".[4] Having invited some of the Tongan
aristocracy to dinner aboard his ship, Cook wrote:

2.4.1 Etymology
The term was translated to him as "consecrated, inviolable, forbidden, unclean or cursed". It has
been proposed that tabu itself could be derived from alleged Tongan morphemes ta ("mark") and
bu ("especially"), but this has proven to be a folk etymology (Tongan does not actually have a
phoneme /b/), and tapu is usually treated as a unitary, non-compound word inherited from Proto-
 12

Polynesian *tapu. While the word has been mostly discussed about Polynesian languages, it also
exists in non-Polynesian Oceanic languages, such as Fijian tabu, or Hiw (Vanuatu) toq.

Those words descend from an etymon *tabu in the ancestral Proto-Oceanic language, whose
meaning was reconstructed as “forbidden, off limits; sacred, due to a sentiment of awe before
spiritual forces”.

In its current use in Tongan, the word tapu means "sacred" or "holy", often in the sense of being
restricted or protected by custom or law. On the main island, the word is often appended to the
end of "Tonga" as Tongatapu, here meaning "Sacred South" rather than "Forbidden South".

2.5 Euphemism
A euphemism is an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that is deemed offensive
or suggests something unpleasant. Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others use
bland, inoffensive terms for concepts that the user wishes to downplay. Euphemisms may be
used to mask profanity or refer to topics some consider taboo such as disability, sex, excretion,
or death in a polite way.

Euphemism comes from the Greek word euphemia which refers to the use of 'words of good
omen'; it is a compound of eû, meaning 'good, well', and phḗmē, meaning 'prophetic speech;
rumour, talk'. Eupheme is a reference to the female Greek spirit of words of praise and positivity,
etc. It was used as a euphemism by the ancient Greeks; with the meaning "to keep a holy silence"
(speaking well by not speaking at all).

2.5.1 Purpose

2.5.1.1 Avoidance
Reasons for using euphemisms vary by context and intent. Commonly, euphemisms are used to
avoid directly addressing subjects that might be deemed negative or embarrassing, e.g. death,
sex, excretory bodily functions. They may be created for innocent, well intentioned purposes or
nefariously and cynically, intentionally to deceive and confuse.

2.5.1.2 Mitigation
Euphemisms are also used to mitigate, soften or downplay the gravity of largescale injustices,
war crimes, or other events that warrant a pattern of avoidance in official statements or
documents. For instance, one reason for the comparative scarcity of written evidence
 13

documenting the exterminations at Auschwitz, relative to their sheer number, is "directives for
the extermination process obscured in bureaucratic euphemisms". Another famous example of
this is during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Russian President Vladimir Putin famously
used in his speech starting the invasion calling the invasion a "special military operation".

Euphemisms are sometimes used to lessen the opposition to a political move. For example,
according to linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the
neutral Hebrew lexical item ("beatings (of the heart)"), rather than ("withdrawal"), to refer to the
stages in the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (see Wye River Memorandum), in order to
lessen the opposition of right-wing Israelis to such a move.

2.5.2 Rhetoric
Euphemism may be used as a rhetorical strategy, in which case its goal is to change the valence
of a description.

2.6 Swear Words

English swear words are recognized all around the world, used in movies, literature, and TV
shows.

2.6.1 American Swear Words (US)

The following are commonly used curse words in American English that are understood and
used globally. It's likely where you should start, to get the most bang for your limited time.

 F*ck - The word f-u-c-k is one of the most widely recognized swear words in the English
language. The literal f-word is a shortened version of: 'Fornication Under the Consent of
the King.' Like most swear words, it did originate from a sexual reference, which is still
how it's used today.
 F*ck you - Adding the word 'you' means you're directing the offense onto someone else.
It's often used as a joke or when you're angry at someone else.
 Shit - Another meaning for shit is poo (#2), but it's often used internally when something
unexpected comes up in your life. An example is if you forgot that you have a project
that's due this week, you'll say 'Shit! I totally forgot about that.'
 Piss off - If you want someone to step away from your personal space, you can simply
tell them to piss off.
 14

 Dick head - You can visually imagine this swear word without too much effort I'm sure.
It's a commonly used name-call that is used to describe someone who's being unfair or
unjust, but it can also be with friends as a joke.
 Asshole - This is one of those curse words that literally describes a part of our body (in
the buttocks), but is also used as a swear word.
 Son of a b*tch - A versatile word that can be used internally like the word 'damn' or 'shit'
but can also be used to describe someone who tossed one over you.
 Bastard - The literal translation for a bastard is an illegitimate child or mongrel. It's used
as a noun to describe someone who gave you an unpleasant experience. For example, if
someone runs into you on the subway and you end up falling, calling them a bastard may
be appropriate.
 Bitch - A common word that's not only used globally but from both males and females.
According to this study, the word 'bitch' was used in 4.5 million interactions on
Facebook, making it the top 5 most common swear word in the English language online.
 Damn - This is not the harshest swear word used in America and one that's said to
yourself, not to harm someone else.According to this survey, it's most commonly used in
the lower east side of the United States.
 C*nt - While this word is used in Britain and elsewhere, it's much harsher in the United
States. Be careful using this, especially around women, as you may be about to enter a
physical interaction quickly after.

2.6.2 British Swear Words (UK)

The British have one of the most original swear words. Given that it's where the English
language originated from, it makes sense that they're so unique! The following British English
swear words are most commonly used in the UK but are slowly being recognized around the
globe.

 Bollocks - Bollocks is another word for 'shit', and it's used exactly the same way. The
difference is the literal translation of the words. While 'shit' means poo, 'bollocks' is used
to describe your testicles.
 Bugger - One of the most common words used by the British, bugger means to sodomize
someone. The way you use it is to exclaim an unpleasant situation or annoyance.
 15

 Bloody Hell - Out of all British swear words, this is probably the one that's quickly being
used by Americans. The word 'bloody' is also the foundational word that can be attached
to other words to form a swear word, such as 'bloody moron' or to exclaim another word,
like 'bloody brilliant!'
 Choad - Choad is just another word for penis and can be used similarly to the way the
word 'dick' is used in America.
 Crikey - Some may argue that this isn't a swear word, but it's an important English word
to recognized nevertheless. Crikey is often used to show astonishment and surprise,
similar to the way the word 'Christ!' is used.
 Rubbish - Rubbish is what the British refers to as 'trash.' So when you tell someone their
work is 'rubbish' it means that it's trash.
 Shag - To 'shag' means to have sex. Not incredibly offensive when you used it around
your friends, but just a less direct way to describe fornication.
 Wanker - The word 'wank' means to masturbate, which means adding 'er' means you're
calling someone a masturbater.
 Taking the piss - If someone from your team is being unproductive or just
downrightsilly, you can say 'are you taking the piss?'
 Twat - Twat is translated to 'p*ssy' so you can imagine how this word can be colorfully
used in many different situations.

2.6.3 Australian Swear Words (AU)

 Bloody Oath - Code for: 'F*ck Yeah!' Often used to show your immense support for
something.
 Root - What 'shag' is to the British, the word 'root' is for Australians. Used very similarly.
 Get Stuffed - An easy substitute to tell someone to 'bugger off' or 'piss off.'
 Bugger me - This one may be a bit confusing since the word 'me' is used here. But it also
means to 'get lost.' The more appropriate term would be 'bugger off'
 Fair suck of the sav - We had to end off our list of English curse words with this
idiosyncratic one. The word "sav" is short for saveloy, or a red, seasoned sausage, and it's
used when you want to say 'give me a fair chance or shot.'
 16

2.7 Slang
Slang is vocabulary (words, phrases, and linguistic usages) of an informal register, common in
verbal conversation but avoided in formal writing. It also sometimes refers to the language
generally exclusive to the members of particular in-groups in order to establish group identity,
exclude outsiders, or both. The word itself came about in the 18th century and has been defined
in multiple ways since its conception.

In its earliest attested use (1756), the word slang referred to the vocabulary of "low" or
"disreputable" people. By the early nineteenth century, it was no longer exclusively associated
with disreputable people, but continued to be applied to usages below the level of standard
educated speech. In Scots dialect it meant "talk, chat, gossip", as used by Aberdeen poet William
Scott in 1832: "The slang gaed on aboot their war'ly care." In northern English dialect it meant
"impertinence, abusive language". Etymology of the word slang

The origin of the word is uncertain, although it may be connected with thieves' cant. A
Scandinavian origin has been proposed (compare, for example, Norwegian slengenavn, which
means "nickname"), but based on "date and early associations" is discounted by the Oxford
English Dictionary. Jonathon Green, however, agrees with the possibility of a Scandinavian
origin, suggesting the same root as that of sling, which means "to throw", and noting that slang is
thrown language – a quick and honest way to make your point.

2.7.1 Defining slang

Linguists have no simple and clear definition of slang, but agree that it is a constantly changing
linguistic phenomenon present in every subculture worldwide. Some argue that slang exists
because we must come up with ways to define new experiences that have surfaced with time and
modernity. Attempting to remedy the lack of a clear definition, however, Bethany K. Dumas and
Jonathan Lighter argue that an expression should be considered "true slang" if it meets at least
two of the following criteria. Dumas, Bethany K.; Lighter, Jonathan (1978)

It lowers, if temporarily, "the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing"; in other words, it is
likely to be considered in those contexts a "glaring misuse of register". Its use implies that the
user is familiar with whatever is referred to, or with a group of people who are familiar with it
and use the term. "It's a taboo term in ordinary discourse with people of a higher social status or
greater responsibility." It replaces "a well-known conventional synonym." This is done primarily
 17

to avoid discomfort caused by the conventional synonym or discomfort or annoyance caused by

having to elaborate further.

Michael Adams remarks that "[Slang] is liminal language... it is often impossible to tell, even in
context, which interests and motives it serves... slang is on the edge."[9] Slang dictionaries,
collecting thousands of slang entries, offer a broad, empirical window into the motivating forces
behind slang.

While many forms of lexicon may be considered low-register or "substandard", slang remains
distinct from colloquial and jargon terms because of its specific social contexts. While viewed as
inappropriate in formal usage, colloquial terms are typically considered acceptable in speech
across a wide range of contexts, while slang tends to be perceived as infelicitous in many
common communicative situations. Jargon refers to language used by personnel in a particular
field, or language used to represent specific terms within a field to those with a particular interest.
Although jargon and slang can both be used to exclude nongroup members from the
conversation, the purpose of jargon is said to be optimizing conversation using terms that imply
technical understanding. On the other hand, slang tends to emphasize social and contextual
understanding. Piekot, Tomasz (2008).

While colloquialisms and jargon may seem like slang because they reference a particular group,
they do not necessarily fit the same definition, because they do not represent a particular effort to
replace the general lexicon of a standard language. Colloquialisms are considered more
acceptable and more expected in standard usage than slang is, and jargon is often created to talk
about aspects of a particular field that are not accounted for in the general lexicon. However, this
differentiation is not consistently applied by linguists; the terms "slang" and "jargon" are
sometimes treated as synonymous, Grzenia, Jan (April 25, 2005). And the scope of "jargon" is at
times extended to mean all forms of socially-restricted language. Grabias, Stanisław (1997).

It is often difficult to differentiate slang from colloquialisms and even highregister lexicon,
because slang generally becomes accepted into common vocabulary over time. Words such as
"spurious" and "strenuous" were once perceived as slang, though they are now considered
general, even high-register words. The literature on slang even discusses mainstream
acknowledgment of a slang term as changing its status as true slang, because it has been accepted
 18

by the media and is thus no longer the special insider speech of a particular group. For example,
Black American Music uses a lot of slang based on nationality and origin. The use of slang is a
combinations of slurring and slurping words as a result. Nevertheless, a general test for whether
a word is a slang word or not is whether it would be acceptable in an academic or legal setting,
as both are arenas in which standard lexicon is considered necessary and/or whether the term has
been entered in the Oxford English Dictionary, which some scholars claim changes its status as
slang.
 19

3 Conclusion

Language is a complex phenomenon for human communication. In the domain of

communication each language of the world is different from the other on both lingual and
cultural grounds. This diversity in world languages from linguistic standpoints ranges from the
clear distinction of pronunciation and vocabulary to the more complex differences of grammar.
The diversity of cultural standpoints related to different languages can be seen in the variety of
cultural connotations assigned to these linguistic codes. The culture of each nation is always
different in all the time as long as the language is also in different. When a person is not a good
mastery of the language, the people's minds will not qualify either. If the quality of a person's
mind is not good, the people will not be optimal to thinking and creativity in create the culture.
In other words, when the language of a community is not controlled properly, the cultural of
society that not be born properly.
 20

4 Bibliography

AMPUHNYA, Kalau, Language, Thought, and Culture, 2013

Coleman, Julie, Life of slang, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, March 8, 2012

Dickson, Paul, Slang: The Topical Dictionary of Americanisms, 2010

Girder, John, Warbirds: Diary of an Unknown Aviator. Texas A & M University Press, 1988

Grabias, Stanisław, Język zachowaniach społecznych (in Polish). Lublin: Wydawnictwo

Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. pp. 140–141, 1997

Grzenia, Jan (April 25, 2005). "gwara a żargon", Poradnia językowa PWN (in Polish).
sjp.pwn.pl. Retrieved April 26, 2019.