Eric Partridge was the leading English language slang lexicographer of the 20th century. His Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English appeared in 1937 and editions continued to appear until the posthumous edition of 1984.
Partridge cut his lexicographical teeth in 1933, when he published this history of slang, Slang To-Day and Yesterday. This book is not just his own first essay into the subject, but also the first attempt at slang lexicology since John Camden Hotten’s comprehensive history and explanation of slang appeared in 1859.
Partridge begins by offering a discussion of the linguistic phenomenon that is slang. Then he puts forward his own opinion on the etymology of the word “slang”, and suggests what constitutes a slang word – he gives 17 qualifications – as opposed to a colloquial or standard English one. He follows these theoretical chapters by a succession of chronological ones, in which he lays out both the major slang lexicographers from the 16th century onwards and the authors who up until the date of his writing had made the greatest contribution to the recording of slang vocabulary.
For me, of course, Partridge is the great mentor. I may not agree with everything he did, and as his successor I have naturally tried to improve on his foundations. But without his example I would have never even considered that slang was something to which I could enthusiastically devote my professional life.
His work was very much informed by his World War One experiences, and there is a lot of military slang in his book.
Yes, there is a lot of military slang. Partridge was a young man in New Zealand on a sheep farm, went to university there, and came to Europe like a lot of other Antipodeans to fight in World War One. He said he was absolutely fascinated by the working class, particularly cockney Englishmen and their language, which he had never encountered before. I think this is the great formative moment for him. He certainly claimed so.
He has been described as an eccentric, and occupied the same desk at the British Library every day for 50 years. Slang does seem to attract some interesting characters.
Yes. I do look in the mirror and wonder. You get up, open up yet another book, read it, look for the slang. Then you do it again. There is a degree of eccentricity. Let’s be kind and call it an odd job. It is slightly strange.
Next up is Julie Coleman’s A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. This is a substantial academic work published in four volumes by the Oxford University Press.
I’ve put Julie Coleman in because she does stand out in the relatively small circle of slang experts. I will be the first to acknowledge that they are not easy books. There is a great deal of statistical material but she has covered pretty much everything. I would be very surprised if there is something she hasn’t covered. It is very useful. The important thing about her is that she gives an unrivalled coverage of the dictionaries in the field of slang from the very first in 1531 through to the most recent. And it’s not just mainstream dictionaries. She offers information on enormous amounts of supporting slang – truckers’ slang, college slang and all that kind of thing. It’s a superb collection. If you want to see what has been done in the way of writing of slang lexicography for 500 years, then this is the place to go.
She touches on the general fascination that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries with criminals, and writes at length about the language they used. Why is that?
The very first collections of slang were criminal cant. Criminal cant is the spine of all slang. If the environment of slang is always the city, then its central preoccupation is invariably crime. So obviously there are a lot of crime-related books which she covers.
Your next book is something quite different. Set in the 1990s, it’s a true account of a West Baltimore family destroyed by drugs, co-authored by David Simon who went on to create the critically acclaimed HBO drama The Wire. Why did you choose this book?
I wanted to choose a book that showed slang on stage or, as one might say, “live”. The Corner is a view that you could only get through a great deal of patience and supreme reportorial skills. The authors spend a year with a family who use crack cocaine, and you watch the whole world of selling the drug. On one level it’s a soap opera – you could say it’s a crack soap opera. You become fond of the characters in it. You follow them. But it’s also a great tragedy, because no-one comes out happy.
What can you tell us about the slang they use?
It’s full of slang. There are 350 different uses of slang in it, which is a lot for a single book and that makes it exciting to me. It’s also slang that I haven’t come across before in many cases, and it’s slang of a certain culture. As a slang lexicographer one is an appalling voyeur. And there’s no doubt that if you’re white, middle class and live in England, then reading The Corner is a very voyeuristic experience. I have varied opinions at different moments about how I feel towards the voyeuristic side of what I do, but The Corner is a fascinating book because of the language that is used. There is no artificiality, there is no putting slang in for its own sake. This is how the characters are speaking.
The book is set in Baltimore. If you went to another American city where there are people selling drugs on corners, would the slang be radically different?
Radically different no, different yes. Even within a city like London there are differences in slang words used in Tottenham and Brixton, so there are definitely going to be differences between Baltimore and, say, New York. I don’t like to say this in a way as a lexicographer, but there are limits and you chase slang as far and as fast as you can. But there’s a level of fine-tuning that you have to miss. There just isn’t the space, nor the time.
Your final book is not as crude and vulgar as the title might suggest. There can’t be many words that have whole books written about them.
Everybody should look at this and see how lexicography should be done, because it is a superb piece of work. It’s not a grubby book, or a meretricious book, it’s an amazing piece of scholarship.
There is a substantial introduction which covers the etymology of “fuck”, the censorship it has received, and the way in which the word has emerged into wider usage from having been absolutely taboo. Then there are a couple of hundred pages dealing with every instance of the word, be it a derivation like “fuckster”, a compound like “fuckwit” or a phrase such as “get fucked”. There are hundreds of them and, just like the Oxford English Dictionary, it has a body of supporting citations. So you’ve got depth of scholarship, depth of knowledge, depth of information and a formidably large number of f-words.
I was surprised that the f-word has been around for so long.
The first usages are from around 1500. There was a form of ritual poetic insults called “flytings” and that’s where it starts being used. It’s found quite consistently after that, slipped in by many people. Whether we like it or not – and I have no problem with it – it’s a fascinating word. I don’t think there is a single one like it. It certainly has the most pages devoted to it in the slang dictionaries.
The f-word once had real shock value. Is it as offensive as it was 50 years ago, or is it being absorbed into everyday speech?
For some people it is, and for many more it is not. Think of the hoo-ha raised following the use by a politician in public of the word “fuck”. It may be fanned by TV, newspapers and the Internet, but the hoo-ha is there every time. I know, because I get rung up to comment on it. Perhaps it doesn’t have the kind of shock value it once did, but there is a hoo-ha every time and I can’t see that going away anytime soon.
More The Browser
The historian tells us about the diverse influences on his work, and explains why he sees the world as a complex pals on the edge of chaos
The author of The Architecture of Markets” explains the importance of understanding social aspects of economic behavior, particularly when crises reveal shortcomings of rational choice theory