СПЕЦИФИКА МОЛОДЁЖНОГО ЖАРГОНА В ИНДИВИДУАЛЬНОМ ЛЕКСИКОНЕ

One of the widely discussed issues in linguistic literature of recent years is language transformations and sociolects, including youth jargon. Various aspects of language social differentiation always attract researchers’ focused attention, as thus one can see language functioning in situations of real communication. Today linguists talk about youthspeak mostly in terms of changing a native speaker’s personality as well as individual’s perception of the world rather than influencing the state of modern language. In other words, it’s not enough to understand how the language changes enriching itself with jargon expressions of different nature, but why native speakers now choose jargon expressions instead of literal norm and in what way it can impact their schemes of behavior. It means that one more important moment here is what the factors which define the principles of social and individual language variability are and how jargon expressions are identified by us and included into individual lexicon. These are probably common questions for the whole field of researching social differentiation of language, but we believe youthspeak, traditionally being the most open and sensitive lexical group, offers some opportunities for defining patterns of human’s speech behavior in terms of jargonization of language.

The state of youth jargon in modern society, its “internetization” in a context of shared information spaces, advertisement and the media prevailing in modern communicative sphere can only confirm A.A.Leontiev`s idea of defining psychological aspects of social matters through “changes in social-psychological or social structure of society or stimulation of direct social phenomenon through impact on the mentality of either a certain social group or the whole society” [6, P. 256]. For this extend, as we reckon, in informational society it`s precisely consciousness of a certain person which in fact turns to be “the creator”, the basis for constructing the world around, using the endless opportunities and borderless potential of natural language for its own purposes. Human activities always make a person refer to “the idea of the world” carried in mind, evoking certain feelings, experiences, relations, evaluations, which can`t but reflect in the language [5]. L.S.Vygotsky emphasized that a meaning of a word in speech is never constant, it riches the word through the dynamics which give opportunities to get newer and newer senses out of the whole context [3]. It can fully be shown in a specific “jargonization” of modern language which predicates forthcoming of such a phenomena as transnational jargon.

For the purpose of discovering the strategies used by native speakers when identifying jargon expressions, we carried out an experimental research. In the course of the research a working hypothesis was made, according to which modern society contributes towards appearing of new jargon expressions, which creates a certain way of viewing the world determined by society, culture and personality. We chose a number of jargon expressions from thematic forums, listings of ICQ program, blogs and some jargon dictionaries, then analyzed chats and public messages on web sites www.vk.com, www.facebook.com, www.sprashivay.ru, www.odnoklassniki.ru, in messaging programs ICQ, IAM, in chats http://chat.kursknet.ru and http://spchat.ru. The analyzed items included: ЧАТ (chat; a chat), МИТИНГ (miting; a meeting), ДРИНК (drink; a drink), ДУ ХАСТ (du khast; du hast), БАБКИ (babki; money), СИСАДМИН (sisadmin; IT systems administrator), АВАТАР (avatar; an avatar), ТУСОВКА (tusovka; a party), АССИСТ (assist; an assistant), ДУМЕР (dumer; DOOMer, a fan of DOOM computer game), ЛАЙКАТЬ (laikat’, to like), ПОСТИТЬ (postit’, to post), ТВИТНУТЬ (tvitnut’, to tweet), УЛЁТНЫЙ (ulyotnyi, cool),  ЗАБАНИТЬ (zabanit’, to ban), ПРИКОЛ (prikol; a hoax).  Most of the items are loanwords.

The research was carried out with the help of free associative experiment (AE further), which means that the tested were asked to write down spontaneous reactions, that appeared in accordance with this or that word. As a result, verbal reactions, drawings and associative definitions were received. The first stage of data processing is the so called “vertical analysis”, which means fluent overview of filled forms and aims at excluding those being inapplicable for future analysis (for example, the ones with unreadable words). During the statistical processing grammatical forms of one word were counted as one. All the experimental forms were claimed to be suitable for the analysis.

We have to limit the presentation of the experiment results to its most significant part as due to the size of the thesis it seems to be impossible to introduce all the data received. Two main conceptions laid in the theoretical basis for the analysis are A.A. Zalevskaya’s conception about the variety of strategies used when perceiving a word depending on the specificity of the material shown [4] and the conception of T.Y. Sazonova, who assumes that the research of peculiarities of the word identification process presupposes modelling of operations and mechanisms, serving the goal of perceiving a word and searching it in memory as well as solving cognitive tasks [9, P.15].

The first identification strategy is the strategy of referring a word to a certain situation. The microcontexts received from the tested are supposed to be the actualization of a situation, where a stimulus is included into a well-known context. This strategy has a leading part among others; the situation here is coded by a stimulus word. Thus, for the overwhelming majority of the tested, the stimulus ЧАТ is strongly connected with friendly communication via a computer mostly at home: друг (a friend) (8); болтать (to chat) (6); диван (a sofa) (4); дом (home) (4); чатиться (to have a chat online) (4); ночь (night) (4); свободное время (free time) (3); сижу и смотрю (I’m sitting and watching) (2) and so on. Some of the tested have the situation actualized through such reactions as: МИТИНГ – площадь (a square) (7); Пушкинский (Pushkinskyi shopping centre, the biggest shopping centre in Kursk city, where the experiment was carried out) (4); кино (a movie) (5); весна (spring) (3); флаги (flags) (2); попкорн (popcorn) (2); очки (glasses) (2) and so on. Other tested showed the connection between a stimulus and a computer game, for example: ДУМЕР – играть (to play) (4); азарт (gambling thrill) (6); вперёд (to go forward) (3); побеждать (to win) (2) and so on. The analysis of the reactions received proves that a certain experience, whether it`s frequent or significant for a person, is fixed as a reaction, and this frequency or significance can be of different type and origin, for example, ДРИНК – друг (a friend) (7); шампанское (Champaign) (4); БАБКИ – развитие (development) (4); доступ к информации (access to information) (7); результат работы (result of certain work) (2); усталость (tiredness); шум (noise). In our opinion, the examples given above show that while identifying the given stimuli the tested used their knowledge as a footing; the knowledge which stands behind any lexical item and which is important for them in “for me, here and now” situation.

The next identification strategy is the strategy of generalization. The strategy of generalization is seen by us as distraction from differential characteristics which leads to a higher level of generalization.  We assume that despite modern language jargonization process, it can hardly be said that we know the exact definition or the source which a given word derives from, that’s why the tested tried to understand the sphere of functioning a stimulus can be referred to. For example, ТВИТНУТЬ – поделиться информацией с друзьями (to share information with friends) (6); общение в твиттере (communication in tweeter) (5); предоставить информацию (to provide information) (4); АВАТАР – фотография, иллюстрация/ картинка (a photograph, illustration/ a picture) (34); социальные сети вконтакте/ фейсбук (social networks) (13); изображение (a picture)(6); маска (a mask) (5); портрет (a portrait)(4); СИСАДМИН – работа в компании (work in a company)(5); должность работника (an employee’s position) (9); ДУ ХАСТ – не знаю, что это такое (don’t know what’s that) (6); слова иностранные (foreign words) (4); надо знать английский, чтобы понять (one needs to know English to understand the meaning) (3) and so on. ПОСТИТЬ – фото (a photo), новости (news), музыка (music), видео, публикация (a publication), запись (a message) (12); размещать/ помещать/ выкладыватьt (to put, to put online) (11); писать, делиться, рассказывать, отсылать (to write, to share, to tell, to post) (7); социальные сети, интернет, стена, блог (social networks, the Internet, a wall, a blog) (9); ЗАБАНИТЬ – парить, веник, баня (to scald, a besom, banya)(4); бесит мат, неприлично (swear words outrage me, indecent) (2) and so on.

One more identification strategy was named the strategy of direct definition. Apparently, the tested were to some extend sure that they know the given words and are quite able to define them. For example, ТВИТНУТЬ – выложить, поделиться, написать, записать (to put online, to share, to write, to write down) (10); новость, событие, комментарий (news, event, comment) (7); рассказать (to tell) (5); нажать «мне нравится» (to press “Like”) (4) and so on; ЛАЙКАТЬ – ставить значок «мне нравится» (to put a sign “Like”) (11); выражать симпатию (to show liking) (5); показывать хорошее отношение (to show good attitude) (4). МИТИНГ – встреча (an appointment) (9); собрание (a meeting) (5); большая топа народа (a large crowd of people) (4) and so on. We also single out such a strategy as identification of a stimulus through a similar synonym. When looking through synonym rows we noticed that there can be words denoting the same thing along with the words just similar in sounding. ЗАБАНИТЬ – запретить доступ (to deny access), заблокировать (to block) (19); добавить в чёрный список (to add into black list) (6); СИСАДМИН – системный администратор (IT systems administrator) (9); человек, работающий на компьютер (a person working for a computer) (6) etc. It`s necessary to add that the associations received tend to be stereotypic and are mostly based on imaginative conceptualizations, which are widely accepted in this or that speech community, e.g. the youth in our case.

We suppose that a person’s knowledge can be considered as a system of concepts defined as “…constantly stated system of information (opinions, ideas) about the real or imaginary world a person possesses” [7, P. 280].

The next strategy singled out is the strategy of guiding by letter-sound complex of a word which happened to occur with some of the tested, for example, ДУМЕР – гумер (gumer; probably, a Turk name) (7); ПРИКОЛ – УКОЛ (ukol; an injection) (3); ПОСТИТЬ – ГОСТИТЬ (gostit’; to be a guest) (2); быть на посту (byt’ na postu; to hold a fort) (2); ЗАБАНИТЬ – баня (banya; a Russian sauna) (2). It’s interesting to mention that, being the basis for identifying an impetus, a morphological form and letter-sound complex of a word direct the process of identification further according to the course given by the reaction to that stimulus. For example, the word баня, being the reaction to the stimulus ЗАБАНИТЬ, caused in mind such an associative row: мыло (a soap), парная (a room in a Russian sauna), друзья (friends), париться (to scald).

 The most diverse reactions were received for the stimuli DU KHAST and ULYOTNIY, which can be explained by a high level of imagery the origin of these lexical items. Remarkably, among different reactions to these stimuli there were a lot of drawings. It let us talk about the identification strategy of visual image actualization. For example, УЛЁТНЫЙ – летит самолёт высоко (a plane is flying high) (7); высокое синее небо (high blue sky) (6); белые облака (white clouds) (4); ДУ ХАСТ – бежит быстро (he runs fast) (5); падение (a fall) (4); спешка (a hurry) (3); бег (running) (3), человек куда-то спешит (a person is hurrying somewhere) (2). When singling out this strategy we were guided by concrete conceptual framework of a stimulus and used such terms as “specificity – abstractedness of individual conceptual framework” [11, P. 89].

It’s necessary to say that the stimulus words chosen for the experiment refer to different thematic fields, but all of them are widely spread in internet mediated communication of the youth. They denote diverse range of things and events of real and imaginary world, for native speakers they are substances of different type, so it was only natural to expect a variety of associations with prevailing traces of social and age-related experience. That’s why there were some reactions quite difficult to explain and that allowed us to mark out the strategy of guiding by social experience. For example, ПОСТИТЬ – помощь (help), выходить в свет (to go out); сопливую ваниль (a three-hankie cutie stuff); АВАТАР – фильм «Аватар»; лицемерие (hypocrisy), флирт (flirting), понты (showing off), очки (glasses); СИСАДМИН – телевизор (a TV), женский доктор (a women’s doctor), чувак (a pal); ЛАЙКНУТЬ – зря добавили эту функцию (this function is useless), редко (rarely), собака (a dog); ТВИТНУТЬ – голубой цвет (a blue colour), птичка (a bird, some external traits of Tweeter social network), “собака” (@ sign); реклама (advertisement) and so on.

The comparative analysis carried out reveled some common as well as specific traits of youth jargon. The differences in perceiving the given stimuli were determined first of all by cultural and social peculiarities quite usual for a human, and also by personal experience, knowledge and current mood of every single person tested. The experiment allowed us to single out the following strategies of identifying youth jargon: the strategy of referring a word to a certain situation, the strategy of generalization, the strategy of direct definition, strategy of identification through a similar synonym, the strategy of guiding by letter-sound complex of a word, the identification strategy of visual image actualization, the strategy of guiding by social experience. Rapid development of youth jargon is rather undulating that constant, it is usually predicated by some significant events in the life of society. The last wave of active youth jargon development is the one connected with global computerization of society. Today’s opportunities offered by device market and rapid development of the Internet as means of mass communication make cross cultural communication available for everyone. Youth jargon has already crossed the borders of one language, the same jargon expressions are used in many cultures at once, but it`s important to say that under the influence of certain cultural factors a word tends to get different shades of meaning. Sometimes for representatives of different cultures one and the same jargon expression can get new meanings which easily move aside its original unified definition. Along with cultural peculiarities which can influence the process of perceiving a certain word, there are some personal characteristics of different individuals which also take part in the process of forming ideas of phenomena.