Summary
%e article discusses slang language from two perspectives. %e author first looks at how slang 
functions in society, that is, at its very important role of either including or excluding an 
individual from their closest social environment. As an example of the role that slang plays in 
various social networks, the author discusses the social networks of adolescents. Besides the more 
sociologically oriented aspects of slang language, the article also pays attention to a linguistic 
phenomenon frequently occurring in slang, that is, relexicalization of lexical items. And since 
slang language, despite what its creators and users might wish, cannot be entirely cut off from the 
rest of language, the article places slang into the wider scope of language. Further on, the article 
deals with how slang and offensive expressions are dealt with in dictionaries, be they monolingual 
or bilingual. Finally, a short discussion of the dictionary treatment of a sample selection from 
slang and offensive expressions follows, based on a previous longer analysis of lexical items of this 
type carried out by the author.
Key words: slang, social networks, relexicalization, dictionary treatment, labelling
 Povzetek
Prispevek obravnava sleng iz dveh zornih kotov. Avtorica najprej opiše, kako sleng deluje v okviru 
družbe. Opisana je izjemno pomembna vloga, ki jo igra sleng – raba slenga lahko posameznika namreč 
obdrži v njegovem najožjem družbenem okolju, ali pa, na primer ob neustrezni rabi, povzroči, da je 
posameznik iz svoje družbene mreže izločen. Kot primer vloge, ki jo ima sleng v različnih družbenih 
mrežah, se avtorica posveti družbenim mrežam adolescentov. Poleg bolj sociološko usmerjenih vidikov 
slenga, je v članku opisana tudi releksikalizacija, jezikovni pojav, ki je v slengu pogosto prisoten. In ker 
sleng – ne glede na to, kaj bi si njegovi ustvarjalci in uporabniki morda želeli – ne more biti povsem 
ločen od ostalih ravni v jeziku, članek umesti sleng v širši, splošnejši okvir jezika. V nadaljevanju 
beremo, kako so slengovski in žaljivi izrazi obravnavani v slovarjih, tako enojezičnih kot dvojezičnih. 
Na koncu pa avtorica povzame ugotovitve, do katerih je prišla na podlagi poprejšnje daljše analize 
slovarske obravnave naključnega izbora slengovskih in žaljivih izrazov.
Ključne besede: sleng, družbene mreže, releksikalizacija, slovarska obravnava, raba kvalifikator-
jev
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.7.2.27-44

%e following article deals with a linguistic phenomenon occurring in all languages, namely 
slang as well as with the phenomenon of social networks. Social networks, as we shall see, are 
exactly that form of social groups which provides the necessary conditions for the development 
of slang language. Even though social networks exist on all levels of society, I focus only on an 
example of a social network in the article, that is, on teenage social networks.
Like other levels of language, slang vocabulary receives much attention from lexicologists and 
lexicographers. It is, however, far from easy to capture slang and confine it to a dictionary, since 
one of its basic characteristics is its ever-changing nature. While compiling a dictionary of slang, 
we are constantly faced with the danger that the slang vocabulary we include in the dictionary 
and try to bring close to the dictionary user will already fall out of use by the time our dictionary 
(especially if published in book form) sees the light of day. 
Apart from specialized dictionaries of slang, slang vocabulary also finds its place in general 
monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, though of course in a much narrower scope than in 
specialized dictionaries. %e article discusses the difficulties occurring predominantly in the 
labelling of slang and offensive expressions in general monolingual (learners’) dictionaries and in 
finding suitable translation equivalents in Slovene. I include some conclusions which were arrived 
at in the course of a longer analysis of a sample selection of slang and offensive expressions.
 A fact which was discussed among others by the father of sociolinguistics, William Labov, is that 
people behave differently if they talk to a perfect stranger than if they have a conversation with 
someone they are better acquainted with. %e effect a social group has on an individual was also 
discussed by J. K. Chambers in his work Sociolinguistic #eory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social 
Significance. Chambers (2009, 74–86) points out that even though social class is one of the 
primary social variables in sociolinguistics, linguists are aware that some social groups belong to 
the same social class but are nevertheless linguistically different. In tightly-structured, relatively 
homogenous social clusters or social networks, such as neighbourhoods or parishes, individuals 
nevertheless stand apart if we compare their patterns of linguistic variation. %e social function 
of networks can be essentially seen as “a norm-enforcement mechanism” – if a person is loyal to 
a given network, they will conform to the collective values of the network. 
Speaking in terms of sociolinguistics, we can find a parallel to the compliance with a network’s 
‘rules’ if we realize that people adapt their linguistic behaviour to that of their environment. 
%e closer an individual’s ties within a network are, the more their language will approach the 
“localized vernacular norms”. Just as an individual’s connection with a network may be stronger 
or weaker, their level of conforming to the local language may vary and the two phenomena 

are definitely connected with each other. Studies of social networks consistently come to the 
conclusion that those individuals who are the most integrated into a network, that is, its core 
members, are also the ones who use local linguistic variants most often. %is conclusion is not 
surprising, but is the best proof that factors below the level of such variables as social class, age, 
sex and region are nevertheless important in determining one’s speech.
In the work Language and Society, William Downes (1998, 223–29; 255, 256) also discusses 
the topic of social networks. Speakers of vernacular languages who have strong network bonds 
allow the introduction of a new linguistic element into their language only when this element is 
not related to an essential characteristic of their network. %is means that, as far as a given trait 
is concerned (the literature I consulted discusses mainly linguistic variables on the level of the 
pronunciation of sounds such as, for example, (ng), (th), (r), (V), and (A)), the link between the 
language and the network has to be weakened. If that is the case, a new characteristic can slip 
through the net of norms oriented towards solidarity and conservatism, since speakers do not 
connect it with loyalty to the group.
Downes also discusses a specific type of social networks, that is, social networks among teenagers. 
Peer-groups of young people exert immense normative pressure on their members and are 
therefore less sensitive to the general norms of society, transmitted by the institutions of the 
adults and the outside world, for example, schools.
%e speech of children and teenagers is closer to the speech of their peers than to that of their 
parents. As far as the mechanisms of the acquisition of the vernacular language are concerned, 
linguists are not uniform in their opinion; Labov (1972, summarized in Downes 1998, 225), for 
example,  distinguishes three stages. At the first stage, between two to three years of age, a child 
gets his or her first experience with speech production. At this stage, the relevant social network is 
represented by the child’s closest family members. At the second stage, between the ages of four and 
thirteen, the basic vernacular language is created. %e most important normative pressure at this 
stage comes from the social network of peers. However, hypercorrection shows us that the speech of 
parents nevertheless still serves as a model. As a possible example of this ‘battle’ between the parents’ 
and peers’ influences, I summarize a part of a conversation taking place between two teenage girls 
on a Ljubljana bus. One of them, explaining her plans for the day to the other, said: “Veš, pol grem 
pa še z mami v trgovino… no, mislm, z matko.” %e fact that she first described her mother by using 
an expression used in general informal language (mami), but then ‘corrected’ herself to the more 
slangy expression (matka) is probably a reflection of the basic influence of parents being replaced 
by the more invasive influence of the speaker’s peer-group. At the third stage, between the ages of 
fourteen and seventeen, an individual acquires the norms of the broader community and, after the 
age of sixteen, the production of prestige (i.e. standard) forms begins. %e networks that influence 
an individual at this stage are also very important for the enforcement of norms, but, in general, 
their structure is less closely-knit than with teenage peer-groups.
 Communities differ in the extent to which they stigmatize the newer forms of language, but I have 
never yet met anyone who greeted them with applause. Some older citizens welcome the new music 

and dances, the new electronic devices and computers. But no one has ever been heard to say, “It’s 
wonderful the way young people talk today. It’s so much better than the way we talked when I was a 
kid.” (Labov 2001, 6)
As was already explained, the period of adolescence, of teenage years, is connected with close 
relationships with peers and gradual separation from the parents’ influence. J.K. Chambers 
(2009, 182–4) states that the passage from childhood to adulthood is often, almost typically, 
accompanied by extremism. On the surface, rebellion against old norms takes on obvious outer 
sings, for example, vividly coloured hair, piercing, torn jeans. Also linguistically the rebellion 
is marked through the use of distinctive slang
1
 vocabulary. Expressions which are ‘in’ serve as 
markers of group membership. However, since the majority of expressions quickly become 
dated, those individuals who keep using them are easily labelled as outsiders not belonging to 
the group. Among expressions which come to mind as dated in Slovene (teenage) slang are 
džazno, špon(sko), mega. Unlike these expressions, there are ful and kul, which have become 
well-integrated into Slovene informal language and cannot be said to serve as markers of group 
membership anymore.
In order to serve their social purpose, the outer signs must fulfil two requirements. First, elders 
have to perceive them as frivolous and extravagant (or, as teenagers would say, they have to be 
far out, crazy, the max. In Slovene, we could say they have to be odštekani, nori, super.) As far as 
using slang language as an outer sign of rebellion is concerned, it is essential that elders not have 
access to the ‘inner circle’, that they do not understand teenage slang expressions. If the markers 
gain general acceptance, teenagers have no other choice than to change their style and their 
vocabulary. People in authority are typically regarded with suspicion and teenage slang abounds 
in derisory terms for them. Chambers lists for example, pigs for the police and peeps for parents, 
which have parallel expressions in Slovene, such as, kapsi (for the police), tastari (for parents) and 
we can also add prfoksi as a term for teachers.
Second, it is essential that the outer signs be approved of and shared by other teenagers. T eenage 
slang always has many terms for peers who do not conform (among others, Chambers lists dork, 
nerd and jerk. Slovene equivalents used in this context of not conforming could be bednik, luzer 
and papak). Adolescents are typically preoccupied by only a few narrow areas, one of them being 
school and relationships with schoolmates. And since it is not ‘cool’ to be seen as a hard-working 
student, the vocabulary of teenagers is rich in expressions for those learners who work hard 
and cooperate. Chambers lists expressions such as suck-holes and brown nosers, obviously having 
to do with such learners being liked by teachers (or at least wanting to be liked). He lists also 
expressions for notably gifted learners, who get called such names as brainiacs or cram-artists. 
Slovene teenage slang does not lag behind in this field – the successful learners are described 
as piflar or dudlar. I have also heard the expression gik being used, obviously coming from the 
English word geek.


Another area which commonly occupies adolescents is various ways of getting intoxicated. 
%erefore it is not surprising that we find a number of slang expressions also in this field. Chambers 
mentions, for example,  being baked, blasted or stoned. In Slovene, we can come across terms such 
as zadet, pribit, počen and nabasan, which come about as a consequence of using for example, 
alko (for alcohol), pir (for beer), gandža or džoint (for marihuana) and čik (for cigarette).
2
Music, in all its forms, is very much part of the life of adolescents, so much so that different 
styles of music give rise to entire subcultures. %ese subcultures predictably also have their own 
slang languages, the main aim of which is to separate the insiders from the outsiders. However, 
important as it may seem to teenagers at the time, the main feature of teenage style, including 
teenage slang, is its being relatively short-lived. More important than fashion itself is the fact that 
one follows fashion. As Chambers observes, adolescent networks, unlike the more stable social 
networks (neighbourhoods, parishes), require active, on-going involvement. %e membership is 
not guaranteed, in order to keep it, one constantly has to be up-to-date.
An analysis of the field of teenage slang and adolescent social networks was carried out by Tina 
Cvijanović as part of her work for her Master’s degree. In the thesis titled Slengizmi v jeziku 
mladostnikov (Slang expressions in the language of adolescents), she analysed the speech of 
adolescents. She taped it under different circumstances, that is, in a guided conversation, and in 
spontaneous conversation when the teenagers did not know they were being recorded. Her goal 
was to see when adolescents are most authentic in their speech.
It turned out that when a teenager’s speech is most authentic depends to a large extent on each 
individual situation. If they are talking to a group of peers they do not know well, or are a passive 
member in the group, adolescents, wanting to be noticed, to gain recognition or to shock, will 
overdo the use of slang expressions and especially vulgar expression. In that case, one cannot claim 
their speech is authentic. After having talked to a number of adolescents, Cvijanović (2007, 70) 
came to the conclusion that teenagers are most relaxed and authentic when they are talking 
to their best friends. In such situations, they do not have to try to make a special impression. 
Cvijanović also writes that the majority of adolescents found the reason for their relaxedness in 
talking to their best friend also in the fact that their friend knows them so well that he or she 
would know if they were ‘faking it’ with unusual, forced expressions. Cvijanović’s work shows 
that the general sociolinguistic findings also hold true for Slovene teenagers. %e adolescent 
social networks have a powerful normative influence upon their members – friends would know 
when one among them is pretending or trying too hard by using unusual expressions; at the 
same time these networks are removed from people in authority – when talking to parents and 
especially when talking to teachers, teenagers do not use their typical slang language to the extent 
they would otherwise.


Another Slovene author who deals with the field of slang or, as he terms it, the excessive sociolect, 
is Andrej E. Skubic. In his work titled Obrazi jezika, he says that the fact that slang expresses 
an individual’s membership in a group does not make slang that much different from all other 
identifying types of language. All language which socializes an individual into a specific social 
group has the characteristic of expressing group membership – however, when people use slang 
language, the membership in a particular group is stressed, which is one of the key reasons for the 
existence of slang in the first place.
In Obrazi jezika, Skubic (2005, 214, 215) presents a detailed analysis of the phenomenon of 
relexicalization which is typical of excessive sociolects.
3
 In excessive sociolects relexicalization is 
used as a tool to call attention to certain aspects of human existence – typically those which the 
dominant culture shuns. Usually these aspects are connected with hedonism (sex, intoxication, 
consumption and excretion of food) and the dominant culture is quick to find euphemistic 
terms for them. Another area where relexicalization can typically be found are specific aspects of 
the subcultures themselves (music, dance, semiotics of the body and clothing, etc.). In all these 
areas a profusion of lexemes appear, which enter into complex relationships with one another 
and with the cultivated lexemes of the dominant culture:
 the expression used in the excessive sociolect can have an opposite sense to when it is used 
in the non-excessive sociolect (for example,  the Slovene hud (angry) can mean dober (good) 
or even lep (beautiful));
• the expressions in the excessive sociolect can be very broad in meaning; therefore, every 
time we use them, their exact meaning depends on the context of use or on the way they 
are pronounced; as above, hudo can have either a negative or a positive connotation; kul, 
derived from the English cool, can denote either that a person is calm (ostal je čisto kul, 
‘he remained completely cool’), that a thing is likeable (kul jakna, ‘a cool jacket’) or that 
somebody is good or fair to someone else (do mene so bili zelo kul, ‘they were very cool to 
me’);
• the expressions within the excessive sociolect enter complex relationships of partial 
synonymy – this points to the pleasure the speakers get from having a rich vocabulary and 
from the subtle differences in meaning which are often difficult to capture and which also 
change very quickly.
In the renaming of the expressions belonging to the broader community, the sub-community 
can resort, for example,  to words borrowed from other languages (Skubic lists ludnica, izi and 
iber as examples, entering Slovene from Croatian, English and German respectively) or from 


dialects not otherwise used by a given community (for example,  kažin, žganjica or špinel). Other 
sources of renaming are the use of archaic expressions (such as the dated Slovene expression 
bojda (‘supposedly’)), the use of innovative neologisms (for example,  džazno (‘very good’)) or 
the use of metaphor or metonymy to denote words from the general language (for example,  teta 
for a woman, or pička for an attractive woman). %e sub-community relexicalizes in accordance 
with its value system or simply for the sake of innovation itself. %e swift innovations and also 
the above illustrated complexity of sense relationships demand that a group member constantly 
pay attention to linguistic development: the group-membership requires constant attention, 
otherwise one can quickly fall behind. %erefore innovation has two functions: it reflects the 
value system of a particular sub-group of society and serves as an immediately recognizable sign 
of those members who are ‘in’, that is, who use the innovative forms correctly.
Another area where Skubic (2005, 221) finds differences between excessive sociolects and 
cultivated sociolects is orthography. %e orthography of slang languages often matches the level 
of spoken language. While the orthography of the hypercorrect sociolect follows the standard 
norm, the excessive sociolects refuse to accept this norm and try to bring their orthography 
close to the spoken, locally used language. Moreover, not only is the orthography of excessive 
sociolects different from the standard norm, it is not regulated even within the excessive sociolect 
itself – the written form of an excessive sociolect is unsystematic and a given lexical item may 
have more than one spelling, even with just one writer and in one piece of text (Skubic lists, 
among others, malo and mal (as variant forms of the spelling of ‘little’), and zjutraj, zjutri and 
zutri (as possible spellings of ‘in the morning’)).
Besides orthography, excessive sociolects differ from the standard norm also in their grammar 
and syntax; however, as Skubic (2005, 216) writes, excessive sociolects nevertheless do not 
diverge critically from the cultivated sociolects. After all, slang language is always the sociolect of 
resocialization, that is, of new and conscious alternative self-placement into the society. %is self-
placement follows the initial, unconscious socialization into the sociolect of one’s environment. 
%e initial unconscious socialization forms a sound foundation of language on all levels; slang, 
however, influences predominantly the surface level of language, that is, its vocabulary. %at is 
why Skubic is of the opinion that people have an unnecessary fear that foreign words brought 
into Slovene via slang languages (for example,  skenslati (‘odsloviti’), based on the English verb 
to cancel or bejba (or even bejb) (‘lepo, privlačno dekle’), based on the English noun babe) might 
achieve dominance over the Slovene vocabulary – elements of slang languages are often temporary 
and in use only while they are perceived as novel and original. Slang expressions that are in use 
for a longer time (as, for example,  ful, kul, šit, bed, mega and stari used in Slovene adolescent 
slang) are more an exception than a rule, whereas the Slovene lexical basis is a constant feature 
one can rely on.
 %e slang words listed as exceptions which ‘outlive’ their counterparts somehow negate one of 
the basic characteristic of slang language, that is, the generally short lifespan of slang vocabulary. 
A question which arises at this point is whether such persistent slang words would not fit better 

into another category of lexical items, namely, colloquial or informal words. Linguists divide the 
two spheres following a basic rule of thumb: the term slang is used with informal (and typically 
ephemeral) words used by a specific social group (for example,  teenagers, soldiers, or criminals). 
Slang cannot be equated with colloquial language, that is, the informal, relaxed speech used by 
all speakers. Even though slang expressions are often used in informal speech, not all informal 
words can be termed as slang. In determining whether a word has its place in informal language 
or in slang language, corpora provide invaluable information. %rough the use of corpora, one is 
able to assess typical contexts and text genres in which a word appears. However, there is no sharp 
boundary between the spheres of slang and informal language – the division would be better 
described as a continuum. Even though the majority of slang expressions are short-lived and 
quickly replaced by new words, some, such as the above-mentioned ful, kul, šit, and bed (used in 
Slovene adolescent slang), rise from the sphere of slang and join the general informal language.
%e following diagram, taken from #e Oxford English Dictionary, provides a useful illustration 
of where in the vocabulary slang and colloquial lexical items have their place.
             
 %e accompanying explanation of the diagram is as follows:
“[…] %e centre [of the diagram] is occupied by the ‘common’ words, in which literary and 
colloquial usage meet. ‘Scientific’ and ‘foreign’ words enter the common language mainly through 
literature; ‘slang’ words ascend through colloquial use; […]. Slang also touches on one side the 
technical terminology of trades and occupations, […] and on another passes into true dialect. 
[…]” (Simpson and Weiner 1989, xxiv)
In the introductory text to #e New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 
T om Dalzell and T erry Victor quote Partridge’s distinction between technical terminology/jargon 
and slang:

“%e specialization that characterizes every vocation leads naturally to a specialized vocabulary, 
to the invention of new words or the re-charging of old words. Such special words and phrases 
become slang only when they are used outside their vocational group and then only if they 
change their meaning or are applied in other ways […] But, whatever the source, personality 
and one’s surroundings (social or occupational) are the two co-efficients, the two chief factors, 
the determining causes of the nature of slang, as they are of language in general and of style.” 
(Partridge quoted in Dalzell and Victor 2006, xv)
In the Introduction to Chambers Slang Dictionary, Jonathon Green, a leading lexicographer in 
this field, gives a colourful description of slang:
“Slang is the language that says ‘no’. No to piety, to religion, to ideology and all its permutations, 
to honour, nobility, patriotism and their kindred infantilisms. […] Unlike its Standard English 
‘cousin’ – which, like slang, is just one more variety of the greater English language, albeit of 
an alternative register – its words are coined at the society’s lower depths, and make their way 
aloft. […] [I]t is sexist, racist, nationalist, prejudiced and welcoming of the crassest stereotyping. 
[…] In comparison with the Standard English lexis its vocabulary covers a tiny waterfront, but 
in what depth: 3000 drunks, 1500 copulations, 1000 each of penises and vaginas…a glorious 
taxonomy of the flesh and its indulgence.
For this and other sins it remains a target: reviled, censored, the repository of sneers, dismissals 
and condemnations. Slang is unmoved. […] It is the great re-inventor: its themes – sex, money, 
intoxication, insults (racial, national and personal), bodily parts and their functions – may not 
have changed in half a millennium of its collection, but like the alphabet that underpins it, it is 
capable of a seeming infinity of variations.” (Green 2008, xi) 
Not only is the nature of slang such that it sets it apart from the general language, there are also 
special reasons or circumstances under which people choose to use slang language. Partridge 
(quoted in Dalzell and Victor 2006, xvi, xvii) offers a list of thirteen reasons:
• In sheer high spirits; ‘just for the fun of the thing’.
• As an exercise in wit or humour.
• T o be ‘different’ – to be novel.
• T o be picturesque.
• T o be startling; to startle.
• T o escape from clichés and long-windedness.
• T o enrich the language.
• T o give solidity and concreteness to the abstract and the idealistic, and nearness to the 
distant scene or object.
• T o reduce solemnity, pain, tragedy.
• T o put oneself in tune with one’s company.
• T o induce friendliness or intimacy.
• T o show that one belongs to a certain school, trade or profession, intellectual set or social 
class. In short to be in the fashion – or to prove that someone else isn’t.
• T o be secret – not understood by those around one.

Slang, as can be understood from the above descriptions, as well as from previous discussion on the 
role of slang in social groups/networks, is therefore a part of the (English) language that deserves special 
treatment, a fact which is supported by quite some specialized dictionaries of slang, be it in book form 
(for example, #e New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, based on the work 
of Eric Partridge, but thoroughly revised and expanded, and Chambers Slang Dictionary, the work 
of Jonathon Green) or available on the Internet (for example, the Urban Dictionary and the Slovene 
Razvezani jezik, prosti slovar žive slovenščine). %at is not to say, however, that slang expressions are 
collected only in specialized dictionaries and not included also in general monolingual dictionaries. 
%ey are included, but prove to be quite problematic when it comes to labelling individual lexical 
items. In Dictionaries, #e Art and Craft of Lexicography, Sidney Landau states:
Slang deserves a category all by itself. It is sometimes grouped with the style labels (formal/
informal) and sometimes with the status labels (standard/nonstandard), but it does not fit 
comfortably with either. Slang does not represent a vocabulary that one can adopt to suit a 
social situation, as one can with terms on the formal/informal index. In fact, when slang is used 
appropriately it is on the way to becoming standard speech. Unlike other words restrictively 
labeled, slang is deliberately nonstandard. Much slang has been introduced by criminals, 
hucksters and gamblers; […] Much slang derives also from the cant of musicians and soldiers 
and other groups that feel isolated or beleaguered. %eir private vocabulary percolates through 
layers of language to become tomorrow’s slang, then routinely peppers the conversations of 
young people everywhere. Some dictionary users mistakenly suppose that slang is necessarily 
in the category of taboo words. Although much slang deals with off-color subjects, taboo 
words are not necessarily slang and most slang words are not taboo. %ere is only an incidental 
correspondence between the categories.
[…] Since there are no agreed external criteria for identifying slang, we must support efforts to 
establish them; but in the meantime we must rely on subjective criteria lacking in any authority 
save that of informed and educated people trained to be sensitive to language style. In day-to-day 
decisions, words are labeled slang by lexicographers or their advisers because the words are deemed 
to be extremely informal. %is is unsatisfactory; slang is not simply very informal usage. But until 
we have agreed criteria by which to judge them, slang and informal words will appear in more or 
less free variation in dictionaries. (Landau 2001, 237, 240)
A similar confusion exists when it comes to deciding which usages should be labelled to warn 
the dictionary user that an individual item might be perceived as offensive. Landau (2001, 
232–4) says that when dictionaries apply labels concerning insult, they follow political and 
moral guidelines. %ey warn the dictionary user against using terms which could be perceived as 
insulting towards, for example, homosexuals, women, racial and ethnic groups, etc. Dictionary 
labels are therefore chosen on the basis of both the lexicographers’ personal opinions and ‘the 
official views of the government under whose laws the business that produces the dictionary 
operates’ (Landau 2001, 232).
Further on, Landau states an important fact which reveals why it is so difficult to label terms of 
insult appropriately:

Unfortunately, there are no agreed-upon criteria for finding some usages offensive or contemptuous 
or abusive. %ere are few studies that shed any light on the degree of offensiveness of specified terms 
under specified conditions. What matters is the relationship between the speaker and the spoken 
to, and between the speaker and the spoken about. Do they know each other well or not at all? Are 
they members of the same in-group? […] %is kind of analysis depends upon usage notes, which 
dictionaries do try to include wherever possible. Labels cannot tell the whole story.
Insult can be affectionate. %ere is no basis for the flat assertion that any term is insulting under 
all conditions, no matter how offensive it may be under some. In practice dictionaries’ labels of 
insult are based on the assumption that the speaker does not know the person spoken to well or 
that both do not belong to the same in-group. %e advice is only about public behavior, […]. 
(Landau 2001, 233)
Another issue that Landau touches upon is the way labelling changed through time: 
If, in the past, dictionaries were too slow to label terms of insult, they now seem too quick to 
do so. Many hundreds of terms are now labeled as disparaging, contemptuous, or offensive in 
dictionaries, often on the strength of dubious evidence but out of fear that they will be taken as 
insensitive to some group. (Landau 2001, 234)
Henri Béjoint discusses the topic of usage labels in his Modern Lexicography: An Introduction. 
According to Béjoint, we can learn a lot about the (intended) user of a particular dictionary by 
looking at the usage labels applied, “since any deviation from the norm is signalled by a label. 
Labels stigmatize the deviations from the portrait of the average user” (Béjoint 2000, 110). 
However, as we saw with Landau above, also Béjoint warns that the conclusions we might draw 
about dictionary users based on the usage labels applied to individual lexical items could prove 
to be deceptive since “they allow conclusions about the dictionary users as the lexicographers see 
them, not necessarily as they are” (Béjoint 2000, 110).
Nevertheless, if we set aside the fact that the criteria for deciding what to label as a slang expression, 
an insulting expression or a colloquial expression are somewhat unreliable, we must admit that 
usage labels are useful. In monolingual dictionaries intended for (foreign) learners, usage labels 
and usage notes are indispensable since they act as a security measure to help prevent dictionary 
users from inadvertently using inappropriate expressions.
 In A Handbook of Lexicography: #e #eory and Practice of Dictionary Making, Bo Svensén 
discusses the topic of dictionary labelling or marking. Lexical items which are furnished with 
a label do not entirely fall in with the majority of items described in a dictionary – their use is 
restricted in one way or another.
Svensén states: 
%e labelling system of a dictionary consists of a number of part-systems, each of which is 
concerned with a certain type of characteristic of the lexical items. Each part-system can be 

viewed as an area with a centre and a periphery, where different items can be located at different 
distances from the centre. […] A labelling system transforms a continuum to a set of degrees on 
a scale (e.g. ‘colloquial’, ‘popular’, ‘vulgar’). %erefore, it is essential always to keep in mind that 
a label represents an area that has a certain extension somewhere between centre and periphery. 
For instance, expressions belonging to the area ‘colloquial’ can be colloquial to varying degrees, 
i.e. be located at varying distances from the unmarked area or from the one characterized as 
‘popular’. (Svensén 2009, 315, 316) 
Criterion Type of marking Unmarked centre Marked periphery Examples of labels
1 Time diachronic
contemporary 
language
archaism 
– neologism 
arch., dated, old use
2 Place diatopic standard language
regionalism, dialect 
word
AmE, Scot., dial.
3 Nationality diaintegrative native word foreign word Lat., Fr.
4 Medium diamedial neutral spoken – written colloq., spoken
5 Socio-cultural diastratic neutral sociolects pop., slang, vulgar
6 Formality diaphasic neutral formal – informal fml, infml
7 Text type diatextual neutral
poetic, literary, 
journalese
poet., lit.
8 Technicality diatechnical general language technical language
Geogr., Mil.,  
Biol., Mus.
9 Frequency diafrequential common rare rare, occas.
10 Attitude diaevaluative neutral connoted
derog., iron., 
euphem.
11 Normativity dianormative correct incorrect non-standard
 Even though the labels in comparable dictionaries may seem identical at a glance, a closer 
inspection of their explanations reveals that there tend to be at least subtle differences among 
them. Svensén also discusses this problem:
Comparing the marking information provided by different dictionaries is often difficult. %ere are 
several reasons for this. Different dictionaries may use different labels, and the categories represented 
by the labels may have different ranges in different dictionaries. Moreover, there may be differences 
in labelling practice, so that, in one dictionary, fewer or more lexical items are regarded as formal or 
informal, correct or incorrect, etc., than in another one […]. (Svensén 2009, 316)
In order to see what is meant by individual labels, I looked up their definitions in three widely 
used learner’s dictionaries, that is, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Wehmeier, McIntosh, 

and T urnbull 2005; henceforth OALD7), Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners 
(Rundell 2007; henceforth MED2) and Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Woodford 
and Jackson 2003; henceforth CALD2). %ey provide the following explanations for the labels 
most closely connected with the slangy, offensive lexical items that are the focus of this article:
→ informal: 
• OALD7: informal expressions are used between friends or in a relaxed or unofficial 
situation. %ey are not appropriate for formal situations.
• MED2: informal – more common in speech than in writing and not used on a 
formal occasion
• CALD2: informal – used in ordinary speech (and writing) and not suitable for 
formal situations
→ offensive:
• OALD7: offensive expressions are used by some people to address or refer to 
people in a way that is very insulting, especially in connection with their race, 
religion, sex or disabilities […]. You should not use these words.
• MED2: offensive – extremely rude and likely to cause offence
• CALD2: offensive – very rude and likely to offend people
→ slang / very informal:
• OALD7: slang is very informal language, sometimes restricted to a particular 
group of people, for example, people of the same age or those who have the same 
interests or do the same job
• MED2: very informal – used only in very informal situations and mainly among 
people who know each other well. Some dictionaries use the label slang.
• CALD2: slang – extremely informal language, used mainly by a particular group, 
especially young people
Besides these labels, OALD7 often applies also the label taboo (“taboo expressions are likely to be 
thought by many people to be obscene or shocking. You should not use them.”), while MED2 
quite frequently employs the label impolite (“impolite – not taboo but will certainly offend some 
people”).
 We can see that the labels have similar, yet not identical explanations, thus confirming Svensén’s 
findings. In an analysis of lexical items belonging to slang and offensive sphere of language, I 
looked at the dictionary treatment of approximately 50 lexical items.
4
 I primarily wanted to see 
how the three learner’s dictionaries solve the labelling of individual items and what information is 


conveyed to the dictionary user via labels. Secondly, I looked at the definitions and the examples 
of use provided. And finally, as a native speaker of Slovene studying English, I wanted to see how 
well English slang or offensive expressions are represented in three English-Slovene dictionaries, 
that is, the Veliki angleško-slovenski slovar (Grad, Škerlj, and Vitorovič 1978; henceforth VASS), 
the Veliki angleško-slovenski slovar Oxford (Krek 2005-2006; henceforth VASSO) and the 
Angleško-slovenski slovar (Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2009; henceforth ASS). Since I obviously cannot 
include all the material I gathered for the research here, I can only refer the reader to the entries 
for the lexical items (listed in footnote 4) in the three learner’s dictionaries and the three English-
Slovene dictionaries.
In the analysis of the randomly chosen sample lists of lexical items, the following results were 
obtained. As far as the comparison of labels used with the lexical items in the sample selections 
is concerned, there are the following relationships among the three learner’s dictionaries: with 
some of the lexical items chosen for the analysis, what is labelled as slang in CALD2 bears 
the label informal in the other two dictionaries. %e three dictionaries therefore situate these 
items at varying distances, so to speak, from the general, non-marked English language. CALD2 
treats them as being farther removed from the general language than OALD7 or MED2. Some 
examples of this kind are the lexical items bent, klutz, lush and mug shot.
With some other examples, such as choppers, cottaging, nosh and wasted, two of the dictionaries 
(mainly CALD2 and OALD7) treat the lexical items as belonging to slang language. %e third 
dictionary (mostly MED2) applies the label informal, therefore again bringing the items closer 
to general language than the other two dictionaries do.
Examples such as eliminate, hot, shooting gallery or play chicken are all similar in the fact that the 
three learner’s dictionaries use very different labels to mark them. With eliminate, in the sense of 
‘to murder’, CALD2 provides the label slang, OALD7 the label formal whereas MED2 provides 
no label. With hot and shooting gallery, OALD7 is the one to give no label, while CALD2 labels 
the items as slang and MED2 as informal. Play chicken is an example where CALD2 provides the 
label slang and the other two dictionaries give no label at all.
MED2 differs from the other two dictionaries in some examples as it provides a warning attitude 
label (i.e. impolite, offensive) where they provide a usage label (slang or informal). Among these 
examples are take a leak, shut your mouth and knock sb up. However, it has to be said that with 
at least some of the examples, the other two dictionaries convey the warning, transmitted by the 
label in MED2, as part of the definition.
%e three dictionaries are in agreement, that is, all provide the label slang or its equivalent label, 
very informal, in only one case in the sample selection, namely, gag. In this case, however, the 
sample selection paints a very misleading picture – if we check the entire entry lists of the three 
learner’s dictionaries and focus on the two corresponding labels (slang and very informal), we 
can easily see that the overlap between the three dictionaries is much greater and that they are in 
agreement in quite some cases.
%e sample selection based on the label offensive in CALD2 also revealed some similarities and 
some differences among the three learner’s dictionaries. A number of lexical items have the 

following combination of labels – CALD2 and MED2 label them as offensive, whereas OALD7 
provides the label taboo, slang. Some such examples are arsehole, cunt, frigging, retard and spade. 
OALD7 therefore treats these examples as obscene and shocking and conveys its strongest 
warning against their usage.
Another combination of labels also appears quite often in the sample selection, that is, CALD2 
marks the item as offensive, OALD7 as taboo, slang and MED2 only as impolite. Examples with 
this combination of labels are certain senses of the items bugger, piss, shit and the item get your 
rocks off. In these cases, MED2 apparently perceives the lexical items as causing milder offence 
and consequently its warning is not as pronounced as with the other two dictionaries (another 
explanation for the difference in labels applied is that MED2 label impolite is broader in application 
and thus covers also offensive/taboo senses). It has to be said, however, that MED2 is sensitive to 
the seriousness of offence an item might cause with lexical items which in one of their senses refer 
to a person. Such examples are prick, shit and turd, where the senses referring to people are marked 
with the label offensive even though the other senses carry the milder label, impolite.
Considering the definitions and examples of use the three learner’s dictionaries provide for the 
lexical items in both sample selections, one can see that they are efficient in conveying and 
illustrating the meanings of the chosen lexical items. It is true that with individual lexical items 
one dictionary may be more efficient or successful in transmitting the meaning than the other 
dictionaries. It is also true that some examples of use are more useful or crucial for the correct 
understanding of a given lexical item than others. However, since all three dictionaries are 
composed by well-versed lexicographers, it is only to be expected that the definitions and the 
examples of use are individually of high quality, though some might be better than others when 
placed side by side in the comparison.
%e last substantial part of the comparison of dictionaries was the comparison of translation 
equivalents entered for the items in the two sample selections, in three English-Slovene dictionaries.
5
 
Generally speaking, VASS was the least successful in providing suitable translation equivalents. 
A number of items chosen for the two sample selections have no translation equivalents in this 
dictionary, for example,  lush, wasted, cock sth up, cunt, frigging, knob or slapper. In some other 
cases, VASS provides translation equivalents only for the general-language senses, for example, 
for bent (translated as upognjen, skrivljen) and arsehole (only the anatomical sense is translated as 
ritnik). %ere are also cases where VASS provides translation equivalents which do not match the 
original expressions stylistically – they can be seen as too formal (e.g. prick translated as penis), 
too neutral (plug translated as udariti s pestjo, streljati, ustreliti) or old-fashioned (dog translated as 
ničvrednež, zagovednež; sock translated as biti, pogoditi koga (s kamnom); bitch as vlačuga). %at is 
not to say, however, that VASS does not provide any usable translation equivalents, but they are 
fewer in number if compared with the other two English-Slovene dictionaries.
%e two ‘new’ English-Slovene dictionaries, especially VASSO, have to be complimented on 
their treatment of slang and offensive expressions. %ey clearly reflect the change in mentality of 
dictionary-making that obviously occurred in the time from when VASS was created. VASSO 


and ASS do not try to hide the potentially repulsive, insulting nature of slang and offensive 
expressions and give the dictionary users a fair presentation of these spheres of language, 
controversial as they may be. 
Given the difference in size of the two dictionaries, it is not surprising that VASSO provides 
translation equivalents for a larger number of lexical items in the sample selection than ASS 
does. %is, however cannot be taken simply as a disadvantage of ASS, but as an important 
piece of information an attentive dictionary user should not miss – since ASS is based on the 
40,000 most frequently used words, one can quickly see which slang/offensive lexical items 
or which senses of individual lexical items belong to this ‘pool’ of words. One could therefore 
conclude that lexical items which have translations equivalents only in VASSO are a) either 
too controversial or too recent to be included in VASS and b) not used often enough to be 
part of the 40,000 most frequently used lexical items and thus included in ASS. %e sample 
selection included a number of such lexical items, for example,  bottle (in the sense of ‘courage’), 
choppers, cottaging, klutz, shooting gallery, knock sb up, cunt, frigging, slapper, whitey and get your 
rocks off. T wo of the lexical items listed, cottaging and shooting gallery, are included in VASSO, 
but have only descriptive translation equivalents (‘homoseksualna srečanja na javnem stranišču’ 
and ‘[med uživalci mamil] kraj, kjer si narkomani kupijo in vbrizgajo heroin’ respectively). %e 
descriptive translation equivalents are a good example of how difficult translating slang and 
offensive expressions can be. In some cases, a translator has little choice but to depart from the 
style level of the original expression (for example,  the slang expression choppers has two rather 
neutral translation equivalents in VASSO, namely, zobje, proteza; another such example is mug 
shot, translated as ‘slika obraza (zlasti za policijsko zbirko)’ in VASS and as ‘1 (Am.) [v policijski 
kartoteki] fotografija obraza 2 (šalj.) fotografija’ in VASSO) or even explain rather than translate 
(see the translation equivalents for cottaging and shooting gallery).
As was said before, colloquial and especially slang expressions often prove to be quite elusive and 
ephemeral. However, underlying concepts, for example, relationships among peers, sexuality, 
leisure activities, etc. being described in slang terms are relatively constant. %is means that even 
if dictionaries do not manage to provide a translation equivalent that suits a text completely, 
they are invaluable in pointing a translator in the right direction in their search for a suitable 
translation equivalent. %e translation equivalents provided by VASSO and ASS for the lexical 
items in the sample selection are for the most part suitable; some, however, could be further 
‘colloquialized’ to suit the sphere of contemporary slang language better. T wo such examples are 
the translation equivalents for the slang sense of bottle (translated in VASSO as ‘korajža, pogum’) 
and to knock sb up (translated in VASSO as ‘narediti otroka’). It is not difficult to imagine 
contexts which would call for ‘dirtier’ translation equivalents – the first lexical item could thus 
be translated also as ‘jajca’, whereas the latter could be translated as ‘napumpati’. Even descriptive 
translation equivalents, though perhaps less directly usable in a text, can be used as a starting 
point for creating a translation equivalent. For example, taking into consideration the definition 
of shooting gallery (‘a place where addicts congregate to buy and inject drugs’, entered in #e 
New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English) and its descriptive translation 
equivalent from VASSO ([med uživalci mamil] kraj, kjer si narkomani kupijo in vbrizgajo heroin), 
a translator could form a slangy translation equivalent in Slovene. Since the original expression 

is an extended meaning of ‘a shooting range’, one might attempt a similar derivation also in 
Slovene. Taking ‘strelišče’ as the staring point, one could create something like zadevališče, which 
would include the form of the base word (‘strelišče’) and apply to it the informal verb connected 
with shooting up drugs, zadeti se.
%e final issue to be looked at is some of the usage labels applied to the chosen lexical items by 
the three English-Slovene dictionaries. As with the translation equivalents provided, also here the 
change in the perception of certain lexical items can be noticed. For example,  take/have a leak and 
cow, which are labelled as vulgar in VASS, bear milder labels in VASSO (pogovorno and pogovorno, 
slabšalno respectively). On the other hand, spade, which is labelled colloquially in VASS, has two 
labels in VASSO, namely, pogovorno and žaljivo. %ese two examples show how the perception 
of what is taboo changes through time – if terms of excretion were considered vulgar at the time 
when VASS was published, they are now obviously perceived as causing milder offence. Contrary 
to this, potentially racist terms are now labelled as offensive and the dictionary user is warned 
against their usage. Another difference in the usage labels applied exists between VASSO and 
ASS. With some lexical items, VASSO applies the label pogovorno whereas ASS applies the label 
sleng – some examples of this difference are the entries for dog, hot and bitch. %e two dictionaries 
provide the same or very similar translation equivalents (pes(jan) and pes for dog; pretihotapljen and 
tihotapski for hot; psica, used in both dictionaries for bitch), however, the difference in the usage 
labels applied situates the lexical items at different distances from the unmarked core vocabulary 
and might prove to be confusing to dictionary users. At the same time, this very difference is an 
example of the difficulty of the task of labelling slang/colloquial vocabulary, as well as of the issue 
discussed by Svensén, that is, the fact that an individual label can be ‘stretched’ and can cover a 
different scope of vocabulary in one dictionary than it does in another.        
 All in all, I have to say that this journey through the colourful world of slang has been an interesting 
and enlightening one. It revealed just how important the role of slang is in people’s lives, especially 
in their teenage years when it may prove to be one of the deciding factors in whether a person is 
accepted in their peer network or not. Slang, inconstant as it may be if we focus on individual 
expressions, is therefore nevertheless an ever-present phenomenon in all societies.
Another aspect of slang which revealed itself is how difficult, not to say impossible, it is to capture 
the nature of slang expressions in dictionaries and to provide uniform labels. As was observed 
with the lexical items eliminate, hot, shooting gallery or play chicken, dictionaries sometimes vary 
widely in their choice of labels. Such differences in labelling are clearly problematic, since the 
information conveyed to the dictionary user differs quite considerably. At the same time, these 
differences are a reflection of the difficulty of applying a uniform label to lexical items belonging to 
the elusive field of slang. Even when we try to look at slang and offensive expressions in isolation, 
we are quickly faced with the fact that we simply cannot analyse them without considering the 
effect they have when used in real life. It is much more difficult to be completely certain that one 
has taken into consideration all senses and especially all connotations when dealing with this sort 
of vocabulary, than if, for example, analysing vocabulary belonging to technical language. 

Slang expressions and offensive expressions all have their special appeal – the former for their 
ever-changing, often witty nature which does not let the reader or the listener ever be bored and 
the latter for the fact that nothing ever is black and white and that what some may perceive as 
extremely offensive may even be considered affectionate in other circumstances. %ese spheres of 
language definitely are worth exploring and it is not difficult to see why some lexicographers and 
sociolinguists devote much of their time to research of this kind.
 Béjoint, H. 2000. . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chambers, J.K. 2009. . Oxford: Blackwell.
Cvijanović, T. 2007. Slengizmi v jeziku mladostnikov. M.A. thesis, University of Ljubljana.
Dalzell, T., and T. Victor, eds. 2006.  London and New York: Routledge.
Downes, W. 1998. . 2
nd
 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grad, A., R. Škerlj, and N. Vitorovič. 1978. . Ljubljana: DZS.
Green, J. 2008.  Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. . London: Edward 
Arnold.
Krek, S., ed. 2005-2006.  2 vols. Ljubljana: DZS.
Labov, W. 1972.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
–––. 2001.  Oxford: Blackwell.
Landau, S.I. 2001. . 2
nd
 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rundell, M., ed. 2007. . 2
nd
 ed. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Simpson, J.A., and E.S.C. Weiner, eds. 1989. . 2
nd
 ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Skubic, A.E. 2005. . Ljubljana: Študentska založba.
Svensén, B. 2009.  . Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Vrbinc, A., and M. Vrbinc. 2009.  Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.
Wehmeier, S., C. McIntosh, and J. Turnbull, eds. 2005. . 7
th
 ed. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press.
Woodford, K., and G. Jackson, eds. 2003. . CD-ROM. Version 1.0. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slang
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argot
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jargon
http://www.sketchengine.co.uk/