Preface.
The object of this essay is to examine _vulgarism_ and _slang_ in the
works of JEROME K. JEROME (b. 1859).
JEROME gives us very good specimens of the ordinary language of the
Victorian era. His style is not surprisingly original, but he shows a
remarkable talent in rendering with perfect accuracy the characteristic
talk of different classes of society. The persons he introduces to us
need only utter a few words, before we are able to form a conception
of their social position, their degree of culture, etc.; very often we
get in this manner a clue also to their character. The author has led
an exceptionally varied life—in his early years he was at different
times a clerk, a teacher, an actor, a journalist. He had, accordingly,
frequent opportunities of communicating with individuals of different
social position and different culture, and of studying their language.
He does not aim at grammatical peculiarities, elaborate phrases, or
rare expressions; his language is the average language of his own time,
acutely observed and faithfully rendered. Giving us thus a true and
varied image of the talk of different classes and trades, his writings
are specially suited to form the material for a study of _slang_ and
_cant_.
Concerning a subject so changeable as cant and slang, it is evidently of
importance to know the acceptation of every expression at every period
of the development of the language. As a matter of course, therefore, I
have tried to discover, in the language of our author, the exact shade of
sense of the different slang and cant-expressions, especially in cases
where it does not coincide with the common usage, or where it concerns
rare expressions.
In order to contribute to the knowledge of the prevalence of the cant
and slang-expressions, I have tried to indicate the social position, the
sex, the degree of culture, etc., of the persons speaking; and, as far as
possible, I have ascertained the history and etymology of my expressions,
though, in this respect, my efforts have often been without success.
A rather difficult point has been the classification of the expressions.
The question whether a term may be regarded as vulgar or slang, or merely
colloquial, is, in many cases, very debateable, as the opinions even of
qualified judges concerning this matter are often divergent. In such
cases, I have endeavoured to find a medium, founding my statements on the
authority of cultivated Englishmen.
A number of original cant and slang-expressions have, _to a certain
degree_, penetrated into the colloquial speech of the cultivated, holding
thus an intermediate position between cant or slang on one side, and
colloquial language on the other: these terms have been treated as
special groups _vulgar_ > _colloquial_ and _slang_ > _colloquial_.
I take the opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the
University-Lecturer, Mr. CHARLES SCOTT FEARENSIDE, whose valuable
assistance has been of great use to me throughout the course of my
researches.
I also beg to express my gratitude to Mr. SIDNEY CHARLESTON,
University-Lecturer in Upsala, and to Mrs. GERTRUDE FAHLSTRÖM, née
PICKERING.
Lund, October 6th, 1910.
_Olof Bosson._
Bibliography.
In the following list of Jerome’s books, T. E. means «Tauchnitz Edition»,
E. L. «The English Library».
_Year of
first
publication._
1885. On The Stage And Off (Field & T.)
1886. Idle Thoughts Of An Idle Fellow (Field & T.)
1889. Stage Land (Chatto & Windus.)
1889. Three Men In A Boat (E. L.)
1890. Told After Supper (Field & T.)
1891. Diary Of A Pilgrimage (T. E.)
1893. John Ingerfield (McLure.)
1893. Novel Notes (T. E.)
1897. Sketches In Lavender, Blue And Green (T. E.)
1897. Humours Of Cycling (Chatto.)
1898. Second Thoughts Of An Idle Fellow (Hurst.)
1900. Three Men On The Bummel (T. E.)
1902. Paul Kelver. I, II. (T. E.)
1903. Tea Table Talk and the Observations of Henry (T. E.)
[Here Cited As T. T. T.]
1904. Tommy And Co. (T. E.)
1905. Idle Ideas In 1905 (Hurst.)
1907. The Passing Of The Third Floor Back (T. E.)
1908. The Angel And The Author (Hurst & Co.)
1909. They And I (T. E.)
_Plays_
Miss Hobbs (Messrs. Samuel French, Ltd.)
Woodbarrow Farm ( » » » » )
Prude’s Progress (French’s Acting Ed.)
Barbara ( » » )
Sunset ( » » )
Fennel ( » » )
Introduction.
During the last years, a conspicuous interest—not only on the part of
philologists—has been devoted to that strange outgrowth of language
which prospers and develops, unrestricted by all literary traditions, in
the easy, natural talk of uncultivated people and of certain groups and
trades. This special language is, indeed, of real interest, and its study
is of importance, not only as a matter of curiosity.
The philologist has here ample scope for observations of different kinds.
In the language of the uneducated ‘vulgus’, he will often meet with the
first traces of an evolution which the literary and cultivated language
will have to pass through in the future; on the other hand, he will
recognize old forms and obsolete constructions which have passed out of
use in the language of the cultivated. Concerning the development of the
sense of words, as well as phonetic development, he will be able to make
observations of great interest.
In this special language _literature_ has at its disposal an ever-flowing
source of renewal.
It is supplied with an abundance of picturesque, amusing, and
characteristic words, of surprising and original expressions, of terms
constituting a spontaneous and striking manifestation of the speaker’s
thought at a certain moment. Every individual being allowed to speak
his own natural language, character-drawing gains in veracity, literary
description in freshness and variety.
In one of Jerome’s books (Paul Kelver, Vol. II. p. 208. l. 14), we come
across the following little dialogue:
»The wonderful songs that nobody ever sings, the wonderful pictures that
nobody ever paints, and all the rest of it. It’s _Tommy rot_!»
»I wish you wouldn’t use _slang_.»
»Well, you know what I mean. What is the proper word? Give it me.»
»I suppose you mean ‘cant’», I suggested. »No, I don’t. Cant is something
that you don’t believe in yourself. It’s ‘_Tommy rot_’; there isn’t any
other word.»
The young lady who makes the above remark is quite right. There are many
words in the English language that say _about_ the same, but there is not
a single word in the ‘normal’, literary language, that tells us exactly
what she wants to get said; not another word forming a concise expression
of her thought, and giving us at the same time a clue to her character.
Quite naturally, modern literature has made ample use of this »vulgar»
language, and, at the same time, the philologists have striven to
investigate its resources. Thus, France possesses about half a dozen
_Dictionnaires d’Argot_, and the English-speaking world has at its
disposal about the same number of modern _Slang_ and _Cant Dictionaries_.
Linguistic studies and essays treating this subject are as yet rather
few, but no doubt they will appear in greater number in the future.
No other literature has been influenced by this language to such an
extent as the English. In Great Britain, there have been no _Academy_, no
»_salons littéraires_», fettering and regulating the literary language.
Being allowed to develop itself in perfect liberty, it has gathered its
method of expression from different ranges of language and society. Ever
since the days of Shakespeare, English authors have made ample use of the
easy every-day language of the lower classes; and, from the beginning
of the 15th century, a rich, independent literature of slang and vulgar
tongue has been developing[1]. Modern English realists have attained
a real virtuosity in rendering with almost photographic, or rather
phonographic, accuracy the talk of different classes and individuals. It
may be truly said that it is impossible to acquire a thorough knowledge
of English without being familiar with slang and vulgarism. Whoever is
uninitiated into this special language will be at a loss to understand
many of the masterpieces of English literature. Nay, without any
knowledge of it, he will scarcely be able even to understand an English
paper.
»If you will allow me the use of slang» is a phrase often heard in
English conversation; but in reality a considerable number of original
slang and cant expressions are used without any special permission—often
without the speaker’s knowing it. There is—as in all languages, and in
English much more than in any other—a constant flow from »low class»
into »high class» language. A word or an expression, having been long
in use exclusively among the working classes, or in the easy talk of
certain trades, gradually penetrates into the colloquial speech of the
cultivated—sometimes with a slight change of the sense—and suddenly
appears one day in refined literary language. In actual English, there
are many such expressions, originating partly from cant, partly from
slang[2].
Now, what is _slang_, and what is _cant_?
When the average Englishman employs the word »slang», he usually means
all that he does not regard as »correct» English, all that sounds to
his ears more or less vulgar. In reality, a certain confusion seems to
have been long prevailing in English conception and English literature
concerning »flash» and »cant» (vulgarism) on one side, and »slang» on the
other[3].
By =slang=, I mean _the easy, natural, semi-technical language of special
classes of society_.
In English, as well as in most other languages, there are a great many
terms and expressions which are chiefly used in certain trades and
professions, and which are often unintelligible to outsiders. Such terms,
for instance, are _pater_, _mater_ (father, mother), to be _plucked_
or _ploughed_ (to be rejected in an examination), _tuck_ (sweetstuff),
_swot_ (study hard), _slack_ (the contrary of the last-named), _coach_
(private tutor), etc., all in common use among schoolboys. Many of them,
such as _chum_, _chummy_, _cheek_, _jaw_ (chatter), _spoon_ (make love),
_bunk_ (run away, escape), etc., have exceeded their original sphere and
encroached upon common, colloquial language. Among the most important
categories of slang, the following may be mentioned: _student-_,
_schoolboy-_, _military-_, _commercial-_ and _sporting-slang_. The
political world, Parliament, the printing-offices, the stage, nay,
even the Church, give their tributes to the vocabulary of slang. The
slang-terms are mostly common to all individuals of the same class,
but occasionally they differ. Thus, two universities, or even two
neighbouring schools, sometimes use different semi-technical terms to
express the same idea.
By =cant= or =vulgarism= (low-slang) I mean _the easy, natural language
of the uneducated people_.
Originally, _cant_ signified the _secret language_, used by the vagrant
classes, the »Canting Crew»—gipsies, thieves, beggars, highwaymen,
etc. But, in the course of time, the word has become a general,
half-contemptuous name for the special phraseology and vocabulary of
the lower classes. _Cant_ is the native tongue of _Seven Dials_ and
_Whitechapel_, of _Wapping_ and _St. Giles_, of _Clare Market_ and _East
India Docks_, generally speaking, of the suburbs and slums of English
towns—of all places where »the Rough», the uncultivated individual of the
lower classes, has his whereabouts. The labourer generally intermingles
his talk more or less with _cant_. It is the jargon of the _Street
Arabs_ (the London street-boys), the _Costers_, the _Bookmakers_, the
_Hooligans_ (the »Apaches» of London), the _Cheap Jacks_, the _Newspaper
Boys_, the _Shoeblack Brigade_, etc., etc. The colloquial language of the
cultivated is mixed up with cant-expressions, the amount depending on
the individual’s social position, his sex, his age, etc. Even literary
language now and then borrows a term or a phrase from _cant_. Words such
as _cad_, _pal_, _rum_, _row_, _cove_, etc., are nowadays understood in
refined society, and are generally used in colloquial language.
The centre and starting-point of _cant_ has always been London—»Rom
Vile», the marvellous city—and the vagrant people, assembled thither from
all parts of the Empire and of the world, have joined in creating its
vocabulary.
Its cosmopolitan character makes it a very difficult task to search into
its etymological sources, all the more so, as the words and phrases have
regularly become more or less altered on their being transplanted into
English soil. The cleverest etymologists are here often non-plussed,
and, in most cases, we must content ourselves with conjectures. Quite
naturally, the main part of its vocabulary consists of _Anglo-Saxon_
words, usually badly maimed. The mysterious Gipsy language, _Romany_,
as yet but imperfectly investigated, has furnished a considerable
number of old cant-terms. Such words are, for instance, _pal_, _row_,
_cove_, _rum_ or _rom_, _shindy_, all original cant-terms, but now
partly colloquial[4]. In _French_ originate, e. g., the old cant-word
_vile_ (town), _cropoh_ (= crapaud, nick-name for a Frenchman), _savey_
(to know), _bean_ (a generic term for money; bien), _quandary_ (qu’en
dirai-je? embarrassment), _dace_ or _duce_ (deux: a twopenny-piece); in
_German_: _frow_ (Frau), _kinchen_ (Kindchen), _nix_ (nichts), _gilt_
(old cant for money), _finuf_ (a five-pound-note: fünf); in _Italian_:
_case_ (house); _nantee_ (niente: nothing), _letty_ (letto: bedstead),
_bene_ (as in _bene darkmans_: good night!); in _Dutch_: _booze_ (buysen:
to drink), _bloke_ (blok?: man); in _Latin_: _max_ (maximum?: gin),
_panum_ or _panam_ (old cant for _bread_), _nincom_ or _ninny_ (non
compos mentis: simpleton), _quid_ (sovereign); in _Hebrew_: _shickster_
(girl; Hebr. chackets?), _schofel_ (name for a hansom-cab), etc.[5].
Especially during the last decades, America has strongly influenced the
development of the English language. _Americanisms_ are to be found in
great number both in colloquial English, and also in slang and cant.
The _grammar_, as well as the _phonology_, of _cant_ differs in many
respects from that of the literary language.
Analogy plays an important rôle, and the anomalisms and divergencies are
often of the same nature as those found in the language of children. The
inflection is, accordingly, very much simplified, but, on the other hand,
vulgar language has preserved several old forms which do not exist in the
speech of the cultivated.
The best way to study Cant and Slang is, of course, to listen to the
speaking individual himself. But, for several reasons, this must, as
a rule, be left to natural-born Englishmen. Another way is to study
literature, especially the English and American humorists.
Whoever has tried to make himself at home in this special branch of
English literature has undoubtedly had some reason to complain of
the insufficiency of the philological aids within his reach. He will
often search in vain for the information he wants in the most detailed
grammars; the dictionaries of slang and cant may stand him in good stead,
but they are all insufficient, and they do not always agree with one
another; in particular, their classification is very inconsistent and
often erroneous. On the whole, it may be truly stated that this important
part of the English language is, as yet, but imperfectly investigated.