‘There is nowt wrong with slang’

 The article written by Belinda Webb argues that, as put rather obtusely by the title “there is nowt wrong with slang”. With specific regards to Emma Thompson who had started a campaign against the use of sloppy slang. The writer’s protest to the campaign is based half in personal attacks and half in fallacy. Belinda Webb is glorifying colloquialisms and their detrimental effects on the current generation’s articulacy; and this is what I will be responding to in this article.

“That epitome of Hampstead luvviness, Emma Thompson, has apparently started a campaign against the use of sloppy slang and street talk”. In the very first sentence Miss Webb has made a personal attack on someone because they are trying to promote articulation and urge teenagers to express themselves with a broader vocabulary. Great going. She then goes on to say “what’s to be expected from a Cambridge graduate?” Attempting to alienate Thompson because they have been accepted and then graduated from a prestigious university; so far Webb has proved nothing but envious resentment of those who are able to express themselves intelligibly.

Miss Webb continues to state “it [slang] demonstrates an inventiveness and quickness of thought…a language on the go, evolving not just from one generation to the next but from one year to the next.” The writer’s phrase ‘language on the go’ seems an apt description, as these colloquialisms are indeed, going. Their impermanence is staggeringly obvious, however there is no progression or ‘evolution’ as is said by Ms  Webb; these words are fleeting at best, and frivolous sub-communicatives at worst.

Belinda Webb then uses Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting to postulate that “British literature is served well by slang – it can energize prose.” This I am in agreement in with the writer; slang can indeed enrich our written and in some cases spoken language. However the over extolled slang that is borderline invasive of teenagers vocabulary is forcing out its etymological relatives for vapid and improper counterparts. Slang is an addition to the English language, not a replacement.

The sub title of the article is also something that particularly struck my attention, in which Belinda Webb chooses to write “Emma Thompson of all people ought to know that Shakespeare’s slang became part of our everyday language” this statement, of course, is true. However, Shakespeare was able to effectively and eloquently express himself using standard English, or in his case old English. His use of slang did not allow omittance of his vocabulary to accommodate such colloquialisms. There is also a strong tinge of hypocrisy in these words, as the writer implies that Emma Thompson “of all people” is knowledgeable of  slang and its applications throughout history. The writer states this while simultaneously arguing that no one person can judge whether colloquialisms are socially acceptable. It certainly appears that her argument holds little legitimate ground. And even less sensical.

“What Thompson et al may be put out at is feeling out of touch with the reality of this younger generation” This quote is one of her barrage of flawed sophisms that shook me the most. Not only is it another personal attack on Thompson, reducing Webb’s argument back into the realms of uneducated squabble, but it is also offensive to this “younger generation”. Webb is generalizing the entirety of the current teenage generation, but implying that colloquialisms are our “reality”. If Miss Webb is in any way fighting for the empowerment of the teenage age group, she has certainly done quite the opposite. Webb also states that “They [teenagers] may not consciously know this is what they are doing but they are seeking a language that represents their reality, and a way of creating a private space for those with whom they identify.” This quote is one I find the most encompassing of Webb’s opinions on slang; that is is something to be revered and encouraged, which in some cases is very true, and slang can be used to create literary masterpieces, but the “reality” is that this simply is not happening. Those using slang on a daily basis will quite unsurprisingly use it to talk about things they would discuss on a daily basis; it is not quite the catalyst for a language revolution that Webb depicts it as.

The writers tumultuous babble appears to wane into reason and humility toward the end, with her closing statement that of “I am not saying language is a substitute for “standard” English, but it should be recognised and capitalised for what it is – a love of communication of and inventiveness of speech…” Which is indeed agreeable, however Webb still continues to greatly romanticize slang and its modern application to language; perhaps we could encourage the youth to creatively incorporate colloquialisms into language as Shakespeare did if we gave the current generation the articulation to do so, just as Shakespeare did. Then perhaps, Miss Webb’s asinine glorification of modern slang would perhaps seem less sophistic.