Margaret Gillian Moss Phd Thesis

ASPECTS OF THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF SLANG IN THE SPANISH OF BARRANQUILLA, COLOMBIA Margaret Gillian Moss A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 1980 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/15324 This item is protected by original copyright 7:-l </-S ASPECTS CP TIES PRODUCTION AND USE OP SLANG IN THE SPANISH OP BARRANQUILLA, COLOMBIA <> BY •f MARGARET GILLIAN MOSS ProQuest Number: 10170976 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10170976 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 I declare that this thesis has been composed by me on the basis of work done by* me in St. Andrews and Colombia, and that it has net been accepted in any previous application for a higher degree, I was admitted under General Ordinance no. 12 in October 1975* ' Candidate 1 certify that the conditions of the Ordinance and Regulations relating to the Degree of Ph.D. have been fulfilled. Aspects of the production and, use of slang in the Spanish of Barranquilla, Colombia, by Margaret Gillian Moss Thesis abstract The thesis presents a general analysis of the semantic processes involved in the production of slang in Barranquilla and of its use, particularly in relation to popular culture, socio-economic class and education. The relationship between slang and other areas of language is studied and the corpus presents 282 words and phrases accompanied by a detailed analysis of each item. Slang is a part of the vernacular, which is the most systematic area of language (cf, LabovWBBK) and due to its rapidly-changing nature, processes of semantic change which occur throughout the language can be seen in action in slang (cf, Bendezl Neyra, Guamieri, Hildebrandt, Jespersen, Niceforo, Trejo, etc,). The most important mechanism of slang production is found to be metaphor, which is analyzed in detail as a dynamic process, and it is suggested that literal language and metaphor are two extremes of the same continuous process. Within metaphor, function is seen to be the most frequent motivation (64%), the expression of relations, activities and abstract concepts in concrete terms being one of the major uses of slang. Examination of this phenomenon shows the deficit theory (cf. Bernstein flfeand, for genewral resume, Dittmar) to be probably unjustified. Notwithstanding, a relationship between slang, socio-economic class and education is established in that working class people, with least formal education, are found to be the greatest producers and users of slang. As specifically vernacular lexicon, slang is an expression of the vernacular culture . and its value systems. Relations between slang and culture are analyzed on the level of individual items in the corpus and also in a more general and abstract sense in the way in which slang is seen to fulfill in urban society some of the functions of myth (cf. L^vi-Strauss , Rosaldo). At the other end of the linguistic scale, comparisc and contrast are also drawn between slang and poetry. Throughout the first nine chapters, detailed and numerical evidence is drawn from th corpus. The corpus itself presents the meaning of each item, an example of its use, cross-references to many dictionaries in order to provide comparison with the standard and with other regional and non-standard varieties of Spanish, and analysis of the semantic process involved, its motivation, its effects, the reference of tenor and vehicle where applicable and the social distribution of the item. The appendix provides brief discussion of the influence of the mass media. Bibliography Bendezd Neyra, Guillermo, E. : Argot Limeno o Jerga Criolla del Peril, Lima, Universo, 1977. Bernstein, Basil : Class, Codes and Control, vol. I, Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971. Dittmar, Norbert : Sociolinguistics. A critical survey of theory and application, Lond- . on, Edward Arnold, 1976. Guamieri, Juan Carlos : El habla del boliche : Biccionario del lenguaje popular rioplatenase, Montevideo, Plorensa y Lafdn, 1967. Hildebrandt, Martha : Peruanismos, Lima, Moncloa-Campoddnico, 1969. Jespersen, Otto : Mankind, Nation and Individual Prom a Linguistic Point of View, London, Allen and Unwin, 1946. (oslo, 1925). Labov, William s Sociolinguistic Patterns, Oxford, Blackwell, 1973. (Pennsylvania, ■ 1972). Ldvi-Strauss, Claude : Structural Anthropology. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972. (U.S.A. 1965). e Niceforo, Alfredo : Le Gdnie de I1Argot. Bssai sur les langa^s sp^ciaux, les argots et les parlers magiques, Paris, Mercure de Prance, 1912 . Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist : "It’s All Uphill : The Creative Metaphors of Ilongot Magical Spells”, in Sanches, Mary and Ben G. Blount (eds.) : Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, New York, Academic Press, 1975* Trejo, Arnulfo B. : Biccionario etimoldgico latinoamericano del l£xico de la delincuen- cia. Mexico City, UTEHA, 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to thank the following people and institutions without whose kind help, advice and encouragement the completion of this thesis would not have been possible : Nina Eriedemann, Manuel Herndndez, the Instituto Colombiano de Antropologia, the Kuseo de Antropologia de la Universidad del Atldhtico, Alfonso Rodriguez, Rafael Sereno, Alvaro Tirado, Dr. Jos^-Luis Torres, and, of course, my supervisor, Professor Douglas Gifford CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Introduction P. 1 - 13 CHAPTER 2 Mechanisms of slang production P* 14 - 28 CHAPTER J Metaphor P. 29 - 56 CHAPTER 4 Concrete expression of abstract ideas P* 57 - 64 CHAPTER 5 The subject-matter of slang P* 65 - 72 CHAPTER 6 Slang as an expression of popular thought P* 73 “ 80 CHAPTER 7 The functions of slang P. 81 - 86 CHAPTER 8 The relationship between slang and poetry- P* 87 ~ 94 CHAPTER 9 Slang in relation to socio-economic class and education P. 95 - 101 CHAPTER 10 The corpus P. 102 - 458 APPENDIX The influence of the mass media P* 459 ~ 463 BIBLIOGRAPHY —P. 464 - 484 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1 • 1. Slang as. an object of study 1.1.1. Definition The word slang has been used to describe many different forms of language, from very narrowly restricted trade and professional jargons to any form of language usage which differs from the standard. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions, the third of which runs thuss- • 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’ and this is more or less the definition which I shall take; that is to say lexical usage (either words or phrases) which differs from the standard but which is of fairly generalized use and comprehension, not restricted to any small trade, professional or criminal group. Usage originally created by and specific to such groups may become slang when used in a wider context and by a more generalized sector of society. For instance, a number of entries in the corpus are described as cant, by which I mean that they were originally specific to the underworld but are now in more general circulation (e.g. bac.^.n (q.v.), bobo (q.v.)). Colloquial speech too, of course, frequently differs from the standard and here the scale of lexicalization and socialization to be established in section 5*2.5* is helpful. Slang, as I define it, is less lexicalized and socialized than colloquial usage: it draws more attention within the utterance, and is acceptable in a narrower range--of—social situations. For example, in writing, colloquial forms, while unacceptable in formal - 2 or technical styles, may he quite acceptable in more informal styles such as autobiographical writings end journalism; slang is rarely written and when it is, is accompanied by inverted commas. In speech, colloquial forms would be out of place in such situations as addressing a conference or* being interviewed for a job but quite acceptable when addressing a class or having tea with a respectable old lady whom one has only just met; in neither of the latter situations would slang generally be considered acceptable: it is for use among friends or occasionally vzith new acquaintances whose reaction may for some reason (common interests, background, etc.) be predicted (cf, section 7.6* on the function of slang; in group identification). Thus, for example, in Barranquilla, chapa (q.v.) in the sense ’false teeth’ is colloquial, '3 ) and in the sense ’face’ is slang, Coseriu’s s 7 tripartite distinction of slstema, norma and habla may be helpful here. Under this definition, colloquial language would be included in norma, whereas slang vzould be a part of habla which does not conform to the norma. 1.1,2, Slang as part of the vernacular Slang, then, is used only in very casual speech and when the speaker feels sure of his/her audience. It is not, however, as it has often been •t considered, a picturesque oddity outside the language system proper. As we shall see in Chapter 3? it is rooted in the system and affects changes within the system, Moreover, if one compares the amount of time a person spends addressing conferences and having tea with ladies of recent acquaintance, with the amount of time s/he spends talking to family friends and work-mates, it is clear that for the majority of people by far the greater part of their speech may and frequently does include slang (1) 11-113 ..

Load more