Anglicisms In The Structure Of Modern Youth Slang: Genesis And Lexico-Semantic Models

Abstract

The study attempts to identify the characteristics of youth communication in the context of various subcultures, taking into account national, social and gender aspects. The goal is to determine the role of youth jargon in the process of socialization of the younger generation, as well as the place that anglicisms take in it. The study allowed us to go beyond traditional lexicography in the direction of cultural linguistics, environmental and axiological linguistics, into the sphere of metasubject correlations, educational and educational mission. The analysis of the factual material is carried out on the basis of traditional and newest methods of linguistic research: observation, description, content analysis, synthesis, systematization, as well as elements of statistical, structural-functional, cultural and distributive methods of analysis. The article examines anglicisms in the system of modern youth slang, their genesis, word formation methods, lexical and semantic models and functional significance. The research object plays a unique role in this process. Scientists dealing with the speech of modern youth note a high degree of its jargonization. Among the reasons for this phenomenon there is the need for “one's own”, specific language for communicating with peers, the influence of globalization, the expansion of pop culture, the development of Internet communication and mass media. The authors come to the conclusion that modern Russian communicative behavior, even in public space, is characterized with a colloquial-slang constructive-style vector, which entails the need to revise not only the criteria of the literary norm, but also the orthological paradigm as a whole.

Keywords: Anglicismjargonslangsocialization; sociolectyouth

Introduction

There are many definitions of jargon, youth slang, which in most studies is interpreted as a kind of sociolect that differs from the literary language in specific vocabulary and phraseology, expressiveness of speech turns and special use of word-formation models, but it does not have a unique phonemic and grammatical system. In lexicological dictionaries, it is indicated that “jargon is a speech of some kind of social or other group united with common interests, containing many words and expressions that differ from the common language, including artificial, sometimes conventional ”(Ozhegov & Shvedova, 2010, p. 190).

The existence of jargon is due to social stratification. However, at present, a kind of “common jargon” has formed - an understated style of speech that erodes already established linguistic norms and is not only used by a wide variety of segments of the population in everyday life, but also quite often sounds in television and print media. It is always important for young people to have their own language, which draws a line of demarcation, separates “friend-or-foe”. It is obvious that adequate communication in the youth environment is fundamentally impossible without understanding the features of its language (Albekov et al., 2019).

Problem Statement

The study is supposed to solve the question of what role - productive or negative - youth slang and, in particular, anglicisms play in the process of personality socialization.

Research Questions

3.1. To consider the linguacultural aspects of youth jargon, its genesis, typological features, ways of word formation and lexical and semantic models.

3.2. To analyze the features of its use in the speech of young people of different sex and age.

3.3. To study the functional significance of anglicisms in the structure of youth jargon.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the role of youth jargon in the process of socialization of the younger generation, as well as the place that anglicisms take in it - borrowings from the English language.

Research Methods

The analysis of the factual material is carried out on the basis of traditional and the newest methods of linguistic research. Among them, there are such techniques as observation, description, content analysis, synthesis, systematization, as well as elements of statistical, distributive and cultural analysis methods. A hermeneutic approach to the interpretation of linguistic units has been implemented. Based on a survey of students, a glossary of slangisms was compiled, which are used in their everyday speech in various communicative situations.

Findings

Youth jargon is represented with the following lexico-semantic groups:

1. A significant part of "general youth" slang is made up of words denoting the processes of interpersonal communication, since it is the communicative act that is the key factor in the socialization of youth (Larina, 2015). These are verbs associated with various kinds of activity and the emotional and psychological sphere: lolirovat' - laugh; roflit' - be ironic; agrit'sya - to be very angry; sherit' - share something on social networks.

2. There are the words of “general youth” slang associated with the so-called “search sexual activity” (Gromov, 2009). They are a) names of women and men: tamblergorl - a girl with colored hair, like a doll; badma(e)n - alpha male; bad, dangerous person; crush is a subject of secret and unrequited love; b) lexemes that describe the process of dating, flirting or courtship: vtyurit'sya, vtreskat'sya, kleit'(sya), pikapit'.

3. Agonal words expressing the idea of verbal (Kolmakova & Shalkov, 2019) or physical aggression: borzet', nayezzhat', vlomit', gasit' mochit', makhach, mesilovo.

4. Words expressing an emotional assessment of the situation (Bogdanova, 2018): trabl - problem, nuisance, error, obstacle; krin(d)zh - shame for a person who disgraces himself in front of others; lulz - a joke, a joke; tru - an expression of approval; fayno - good.

5. Designations of clothing, footwear or their details ( labuteny - shoes from the Christian Louboutin brand; svitshot - sweatshirt without a hood; nayki - Nike brand sneakers).

There are many ways to form lexical units of youth jargon (Dedova & Petrukhina, 2019), in particular:

1. Foreign language borrowings: chelyendzh, tresh, boyfrend, pruf.

2. Associative sound transfer: “ limon ” instead of “million”.

3. Borrowing criminal vocabulary: fart - happiness, luck; ksiva - document.

4. Affixation (sometimes accompanied with truncation of the base stem):

-uh (a): klikuha, spokukha, textuha ; -on-: vypivon, zakuson, rasslabon ; -ug (a): shoferyuga, zhurnalyuga ; -l (a): vodila (from the noun “driver”), kidala (from the verb “ kidat” ) - a deceiver; zero affixation (non-affix word formation): navar, nayezd, otkat etc.

5. Foreign language borrowings, as a rule, from the English language, constructed by analogy with Russian derivational models. For example, they include the suffix -er- to denote persons by the nature of their activity or the suffix -yan-): ve(a)yper (from the English “vapor”-“steam”) - a smoker who prefers to use only electronic cigarettes; rufer (from the English “roof” ) - an extreme, jumping on roofs, climbing high structures.

6. Universalization (semantic condensation) is one of the ways of "thickening" the meaning, i.e. the formation of a word by splicing on the basis of a stable phrase, to which it is synonymous (often accompanied by an affixation): "contract murder" - zakazukha .

7. Contamination - all sorts of overlap without the use of interfix morphemes (Dedova & Grigorieva, 2018): “ sterva + servis” – stervis; “drakon + dekanat” – drakonat.

8. Truncation of the stem as a way of forming abbreviated words: schiza - schizophrenia.

9. Truncation of the stem + affixation: variant – varik, televizor – telik.

10. Metaphorical transfers: a golyak - complete absence of something; zakladka, klad - a prohibited (narcotic) substance, sealed in a small bag.

11. Development of polysemy: toksichnyy (person, character), toxic - 1) a manipulator that relieves responsibility for certain actions; 2) bored with complaints about their problems; 3) causing negative emotions; 4) expressing excessive, but always imaginary concern for others; 5) giving out inappropriate jokes, trolling.

12. Abbreviation and its varieties: rofl - phonetic tracing paper; an acronym for the English abbreviation "ROFL" ("Rolling on the Floor Laughing"), used to refer to strong, contagious laughter.

13. A pun, including elements of a language game: yazh(sh)ka, yasha, yaga - low-alcohol carbonated energy cocktail (from the English “Jaguar”).

There are factors that stimulate the replenishment of slang due to Anglicisms:

1. Digitalization processes and communication in social networks: hashtag - kheshteg, spam - spam .

2. Modern music and "club" subculture, as well as the film industry and show business: remake - remeyk , face-control - feys-kontrol .

3. The development of fast food restaurants, the popularity of fast food: makdak, mak (from the English “McDonald’s”), fastfud, fudkort.

4. Imitation of the communicative models of behavior of English-speaking youth (Dedova & Lee, 2020): party- pati ; looser-luzer; prank – prank.

When processing statistical data, it turned out that the indicators of the use of jargon differ among boys and girls, as well as among students of the 1-st and senior years.

When considering the frequency of word usage of jargon (Table 01 ), attention is drawn to the fact that their number in the speech of girls is expressed in a much larger number than in the speech of boys. This discrepancy is because the above data were obtained on samples of unequal size: the number of female respondents who took part in the survey turned out to be much greater than the number of boys. For a statistically substantiated conclusion about a significant discrepancy between the indicators, it is necessary to calculate the Student's criterion to determine the percentage by the formula: $t=\frac{\left|p_1-p_2\right|}{Sed}$

where $p_1$ is the share (in %) in the first array of frequencies;

$p_2$ –in the second array.

$Sed\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\sqrt{P\times Q\times \left(\frac{\mathrm{1}}{n_{\mathrm{1}}}+\frac{\mathrm{1}}{n_{\mathrm{2}}}\right)}$,

where $n_1$ is the number taken as 100% in the 1st sample,

$n_2$ –in the second, P and Q are calculated by the formulas:

$$P=\frac{p_{\mathrm{1}}\times n_{\mathrm{1}\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}{p}_{\mathrm{2}}\times n_{\mathrm{2}}}{n_{\mathrm{1}}+n_{\mathrm{2}}}$$

$$Q=\mathrm{100}\mathrm{\%}-P$$

The sequence of actions for calculating t is as follows: 1) find P and then Q; 2) calculate Sed (%); 3) calculate t. These actions help you understand whether the differences identified are significant. According to the law of statistics, the discrepancy is insignificant if $t\le \mathrm{1,96}$.

1. Let us compare the frequency of the use of jargon by 1st year boys with the frequency of use of jargon by senior young men:

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{19}\times \mathrm{402}+\mathrm{10}\times \mathrm{402}}{\mathrm{402}+\mathrm{402}}=\frac{\mathrm{7638}+\mathrm{4020}}{\mathrm{804}}=\mathrm{14,5}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Q=\mathrm{100}\mathrm{\%}-\mathrm{14},\mathrm{5}\mathrm{\%}=\mathrm{85},\mathrm{5}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Sed\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\sqrt{\mathrm{14,5}\times \mathrm{85},\mathrm{5}\times \frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{402}}}~\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}$$

$$t=\frac{\mathrm{19}-\mathrm{10}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}=\frac{\mathrm{9}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}=\mathrm{5}\mathrm{\%}$$

2. Let's compare the frequency of use of jargon by 1st year girls with the frequency of use of jargon by older girls:

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{13}\times \mathrm{402}+\mathrm{6}\times \mathrm{402}}{\mathrm{402}+\mathrm{402}}=\frac{\mathrm{5226}+\mathrm{2412}}{\mathrm{804}}=\mathrm{9,5}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Q=\mathrm{100}\mathrm{\%}-\mathrm{9},\mathrm{5}\mathrm{\%}=\mathrm{90},\mathrm{5}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Sed\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\sqrt{\mathrm{9,5}\times \mathrm{90},\mathrm{5}\times \frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{402}}}~\mathrm{1},\mathrm{5}$$

$$t=\frac{\mathrm{13}-\mathrm{6}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{5}}=\frac{\mathrm{7}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{5}}~\mathrm{4},\mathrm{7}\mathrm{\%}$$

3. Let us compare the frequency of jargon use by 1st year girls with the frequency of jargon use by 1st year boys:

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{19}\times \mathrm{402}+\mathrm{13}\times \mathrm{402}}{\mathrm{402}+\mathrm{402}}=\frac{\mathrm{7638}+\mathrm{5226}}{\mathrm{804}}=\mathrm{16}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Q=\mathrm{100}\mathrm{\%}-\mathrm{16}\mathrm{\%}=\mathrm{84}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Sed\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\sqrt{\mathrm{16}\times \mathrm{84}\times \frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{402}}}~\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}$$

$$t=\frac{\mathrm{19}-\mathrm{13}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}=\frac{\mathrm{6}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}~\mathrm{3,3}\mathrm{\%}$$

4. Let us compare the frequency of the use of jargon by senior girls with the frequency of use of jargon by senior young men:

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{10}\times \mathrm{402}+\mathrm{6}\times \mathrm{402}}{\mathrm{402}+\mathrm{402}}=\frac{\mathrm{4020}+\mathrm{2412}}{\mathrm{804}}=\mathrm{8}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Q=\mathrm{100}\mathrm{\%}-\mathrm{8}\mathrm{\%}=\mathrm{92}\mathrm{\%}$$

$$Sed\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\sqrt{\mathrm{8}\times \mathrm{92}\times \frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{402}}}~\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}$$

$$t=\frac{\mathrm{10}-\mathrm{6}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}=\frac{\mathrm{4}}{\mathrm{1},\mathrm{8}}~\mathrm{2,2}\mathrm{\%}$$

The established discrepancies in the frequency of the use of jargon between girls and boys of the 1st and senior years are statistically significant. The fact is that among both boys and girls the frequency of the use of jargon has significantly decreased in the process of studying at a university. There are also certain psychological reasons for this. It is well known that slang is most actively used by young people aged from about 14-15 to 24-25 years. It was during this period that the desire to find like-minded people came to the fore, to gain authority among peers (Zhilina et al., 2019). The use of slang is due to the formation of "self-concept" and the formation of self-esteem. Over time, the awareness of oneself as a part of this or that subculture loses its significance and, therefore, the need for communication in one's own language is sharply reduced.

According to psychologists, girls develop emotionally faster than boys do. Thus, female students of all courses and all specialties had a richer vocabulary of emotions than young men, and their speech was more literate and “standard” (Ryleeva et al., 2019). Many young men admitted that the level of their use of jargon is actually even higher due to coarse, often obscene language, which, of course, they did not include in their list (Kolmakova & Shalkov, 2017, 2018). Girls use slang words and expressions, first of all, as a word game that fills their speech with ironic or humorous notes.

Conclusion

Thus, the higher the level of knowledge of information and communication technologies and the English language is the higher the level of use of anglicisms among students. The data obtained during the research indicate a high degree of jargonization of the speech of modern youth. The reasons are the need for “their own” language to communicate with peers, the influence of globalization, the development of the media, the dominance of pop culture, mass communication in social networks, multiculturalism as a social and linguistic phenomenon.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that in the depths of the national linguistic consciousness a transformation of the generally accepted style hierarchy is taking place. In the concept of V.G. Kostomarov, the diffuse state of the traditional system of functional styles of speech leads to dramatic changes in the relationship between “ the stylistics of language resources” and “the stylistics of their current use (stylistics of texts)” (Kostomarov, 2005, p. 43). Modern Russian communicative behavior, even in a public space, is characterized by a colloquial-slang constructive-style vector, which entails the need to revise not only the criteria of the literary norm, but also the orthological paradigm as a whole.

References

1. Albekov, N. N., Zherebilo, T. V., Israilova, L. Yu., Musaeva, L. S., & Tazurkaeva, S. S. (2019). Concept as an invariant basis of the communicative situation. The European Proceedings of Social &Behavioural Sciences, LXXVI, 3485-3491.
2. Bogdanova, L. I. (2018). Otsenochnyye smysly v russkoy grammatike (na materiale glagolov emotsional'nogo otnosheniya) [Evaluative meanings in Russian grammar (based on the verbs of emotional attitude)]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika [Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Linguistics], 22(4), 843-872.
3. Dedova, O. V., & Grigorieva, P. V. (2018). Igrovoye slovoobrazovaniye v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Game word formation in modern Russian]. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 9: Philology, 5, 49-64.
4. Dedova, O. V., & Petrukhina, E. V. (2019). Internet kak istochnik lingvisticheskoy informatsii (dlya izucheniya dinamiki russkogo slovoobrazovaniya) [Internet as a source of linguistic information (for studying the dynamics of Russian word formation)]. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 57, 137-159.
5. Dedova, O. V., & Lee, Ya. (2020). Sostav i struktura leksiko-semanticheskogo polya "mezhlichnostnoye obshcheniye v internete" [Composition and structure of the lexical-semantic field “Interpersonal communication on the Internet]. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 9: Philology, 3, 81-94.
6. Gromov, D. V. (2009). Sleng molodezhnykh subkul'tur: leksicheskaya struktura i osobennosti formirovaniya [Slang of youth subcultures: lexical structure and features of formation].Russkiy yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii [Russian language in scientific coverage], 1(17), 228-240.
7. Kolmakova, V. V., & Shalkov, D. Yu. (2017). Problema ustanovleniya granits yazykovogo oskorbleniya [The problem of identifying the markers of linguistic insult]. Filologicheskiye nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philological sciences. Issues of theory and practice], 12-1, 111-113.
8. Kolmakova, V. V., & Shalkov, D. Yu. (2018). Osobennosti russkogo kommunikativnogo povedeniya v nachale XXI veka [The peculiarities of the Russian communicative behaviour in the early XXI century]. Pyatigorsk State University bulletin, 4, 61-64.
9. Kolmakova, V. V., & Shalkov, D. Yu. (2019). Rechevaya strategiya prikaza № 227 «Ni shagu nazad!»: kommunikativno-pragmaticheskiy aspekt [Speech strategy of order number 227 “Not a step back!”: Communicative and pragmatic aspect]. Molodoy issledovatel' Dona [Don Young Explorer], 1(16), 124-129.
10. Kostomarov, V. G. (2005). Nash yazyk v deystvii: ocherki sovremennoyrusskoy stilistiki [Our Language in Action: Essays on Contemporary Russian Stylistics]. Gardariki.
11. Larina, T. V. (2015). Pragmatika emotsiy v mezhkul'turnom kontekste [The pragmatics of emotions in an intercultural context]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika [Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Linguistics], 1, 144-163.
12. Ozhegov, S. I., & Shvedova, N. Yu. (2010). Tolkovyy slovar' russkogo yazyka: 80000 slov I frazeologicheskikh vyrazheniy [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions]. A TEMP.
13. Ryleeva, A. S., Emanova, S. V., Sokolskaya, M., Kazantseva, E., & Khomutnikova, E. A. (2019). Features of visual communication of girls in the internet space. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, LXXVI, 3701-3705.
14. Zhilina, V. A., Kuznetsova, N. V., Akhmetzyanova, M. P., Teplykh, M. S., Zhilina, E. A., Prilukova, E. G., & Bashirova, T. A. (2019). The issues of the dialogue of a modern subject with the society. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, LXXVI, 3454-3461.