Word-formation processes in English slang

Lucia Gallová, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice

This article examines the word-formation processes which are used in English slang.
It does so by analysing a sample of words selected from the online Urban Dictionary.
The article first of all briefly describes slang from the point of view of its word-
formation. Subsequently, the methodological outline is presented, followed by the
analysis of the sample of words. The analysis is focused on finding out which word-
formation processes are used to coin the selected words. Another objective is to
compare the use of word-formation processes in slang and in Standard English. The
results propose an overview of the individual word-formation processes occurring in
the sample. They also suggest that, to some extent, slang uses word-formation processes
in the same way as Standard English, however, in certain cases, it diverges from the
language’s traditional use.

Keywords: slang, word-formation processes, Standard English, comparison

1 Introduction

“Slang is easy enough to use, but very hard to write about with the facile convincingness that
a subject apparently so simple would, at first sight, seem to demand” (Partridge, 1933: 1).
Partridge forethoughtfully called the issue of slang “that prize-problem word” (ibid.: 2), and it
is often highlighted that “annoyance and frustration await anyone who searches the
professional literature for a definition or even a conception of slang that can stand up to
scrutiny” (Green, 2015: 15). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) understands slang as a
“language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated
speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special
sense”. As far as the users of slang are concerned, Lighter (2001: 220) proposes the following:
“it is often associated with youthful, raffish, or undignified persons and groups; and it conveys
often striking connotations of impertinence or irreverence, especially for established attitudes
and values within the prevailing culture”. To compare, Green (2015: 6) argues that even though
slang was and still is “linked to the lower depths, the criminal, the marginal, the unwanted or
even persecuted members of society” it is at the same time also “vibrant, creative, witty, and
open to seemingly infinite re-invention”. Throughout the publications about slang the opinions
towards it vary: as it is obvious, there are those who argue in favour of slang’s use, and there
are also those “champions of Standard English” (StE) who hold the opposite view (Coleman,
2012: 1). Interestingly, the majority of authors focus on the sociological properties of slang and
the description of its history and the etymology of the word itself, while its word-formation
characteristics remain discussed only marginally. Therefore, apart from analysing the available
data on slang and aiming at a balanced description of it, much more attention should be paid to
its word-formation aspects.
“Slang exploits existing forms and their current meanings in various ways, drawing on
and often mixing resources from the sound system, the word-building processes, paradigms
and the speakers’ knowledge of the culture” (Eble, 1996: 26). The word-building processes
used in slang are described, inter alia, by Eble (1996), Mattiello (2008, 2013), and Kularni and
Wang (2018). Partridge (1933), Adams (2009), Coleman (2012), and Green (2015) mention
this topic in passing. The word-formation processes of slang that recur in the mentioned works

17
comprise compounding, affixation, conversion, shortening, blending, reduplication and back-
formation.
Compounding represents a major source of new words in slang (Eble, 1996: 29).
Partridge (1933: 16) highlights the ability of compounds to express irony and points to the fact
that “compounds […] have qualities that cannot – to the same high degree, at least – belong to
the single words”. In slang, “both head and non-head positions may be occupied by a variety
of classes, the most unusual being particles (i.e. prepositions, numerals and pronouns)”
(Mattiello, 2008: 73). The largest group of slang compounds are compound nouns (ibid.: 74).
There are various patterns that are combined to form a compound noun, but the N + N
combination is the most richly represented, for instance the endocentric doss house ( doss ‘a
bed’) ‘a common lodging-house’ or the exocentric gobstick ( gob ‘the mouth’) ‘a clarinet’
(ibid.: 76). Compound verbs can be represented by combinations such as V + N, as in the
exocentric kick ass ‘act roughly or aggressively’, or N + V, which are usually endocentric, for
instance skin-pop ‘inject a drug subcutaneously’ (ibid.: 83). Within compound adjectives, of
interest are the unusual combinations, which include prepositions, such as in pod ‘pregnant’,
or two adverbs, such as way-in ‘conventional; sophisticated’ (ibid.).
As for affixation, Eble (1996: 32-33) mentions suffixation and prefixation as occurring
the most frequently within English slang. Additionally, Adams (2009), Coleman (2012) and
Mattiello (2013) also describe various types of infixation which recur in English slang. In the
case of prefixation, “slang uses many of the same prefixes […] as general-purpose English
does but sometimes with greater freedom and slightly different meanings or grammatical
consequences” (Eble, 1996: 32). Prefixes that recur in slang include de- (delouse ‘free from
something unpleasant’), re- (reup ‘re-enlist’), schm-/shm- (child schmild), un- (uncool
‘unrelaxed; unpleasnat’) and under- (underfug ‘an undervest; also, underpants’) (Mattiello,
2008: 91), while Coleman (2012: 37) also mentions super- (superfly ‘very good; excellent’)
and Eble discusses mega- (meganap) and perma- (permanerve) as being recurrently used in
college slang. Notice that these last two are rather combining forms, used also in StE. The first
one is associated with the meaning ‘very large’ while the second one is forming nouns with the
sense ‘permanent – –’ or adjectives with the sense ‘permanently – –’ (OED). As visible on the
examples above (meganap, permanerve), the same meanings are applied within college slang.
From the list of the prefixes mentioned above, Matiello (2008: 91) emphasizes that it is only
the prefix schm-/shm- which deserves to be mentioned individually because it is the only one
which cannot be found in StE; it originated in colloquial speech and is used to convey
deprecatory meaning, as in reduplicatives like child – schmild, Trotsky – Schmotsky. Other
prefixes “offer no case study of slang extra-grammaticality” (ibid.).
Suffixation is represented more richly in slang, and the suffixes which recur in slang
are -able, -ation, -dom, -ed, -er, -eroo/-aroo, -ette, -ful, -ie/-y, -ify/-fy, -ing, -ish, -less, -ly, -
ness, -o, -ock, -s and -ster (Mattiello, 2008). Adams (2009) also discusses the suffixes -age and
-y, Coleman (2012) mentions -aroonee, -ati, -io and -tard, and Eble (1996) adds -aholic and -
fest. Among the mentioned suffixes, some of them “behave regularly and attach to standard
bases to form new words” (Mattiello, 2008: 93). For instance, there is the suffix -ation/-ion
which in StE forms nouns of action from verbs (pollute>pollution) (Mattiello, 2008: 94). In
slang, it can be used in the same way, for instance connection ‘a supplier of narcotics; the action
of supplying narcotics’, derived from the verb connect ‘meet in order to obtain drugs’ (ibid.).
But there are also suffixes that attach to irregular bases of slang origin, as in ear-basher
‘a chatterer; a bore’ (from ear-bash ‘talk inordinately’) (ibid: 99). Then there is also a special
group of suffixes which do not create new words in slang “but connote existing ones by adding

18
nuances of jocularity, humour, playfulness, etc.” (ibid.: 94). For example, -age, as in aceage
( ace) ‘excellent’, or drinkage ‘drink/drinking’ (Coleman, 2012: 35).
As far as infixation is concerned, there are no clear instances of infixation in StE, but
in slang there is “a marginal process which comes very close to infixation” (Szymanek, 1989:
65) and which is called expletive infixation. Notice that Zwicky and Pullum (1987) also
mention expletive infixation, as the phenomenon belonging to what they call expressive
morphology. One of the crucial characteristics of Zwicky and Pullum’s expressive morphology
is its pragmatic effect (ibid., p. 335). “Expressive morphology is associated with an expressive,
playful, poetic or simply ostentatious effect of some kind [which is] lacking in plain
derivational morphology” (ibid.). This pragmatic effect is definitely observable in slang
expletive coinages. Expletive infixation includes the insertion of an infix “before the syllable
of the base that bears the lexical stress” (Bauer, 1983: 90). To exemplify, handi-bloody-cap or
im-f***ing-possible (ibid.). Aside from this expletive infixation, Mattiello (2013: 189) also
explicitly distinguishes between other types of infixation, namely Homeric/ma-infixation
(saxo-ma-phone), diddly-infixation (wel-diddly-elcome) and hip-hop/iz infixation (h-iz-ouse).
The last one is also mentioned by Coleman (2012: 37), who adds that the infix -iz- may
occasionally include the nasal n, as in -iz(n)-, exemplified by biznatch ‘bitch: an unpleasant
person’ or shiznit ‘shit’.
In Eble (1996: 33), the term functional shift is preferred, in Coleman (2012: 33), it is
change in function, and Mattiello (2008: 124) calls the same process conversion, which is going
to be used here, as well. Mattiello explicitly distinguishes between converted verbs, nouns,
adjectives and adverbs (ibid.), and some concrete examples will be mentioned to exemplify the
various patterns of conversion. For instance, the N>V scope ‘look for members of the opposite
sex’ (Eble, 1996: 34), the V>N skips ‘tennis shoes’ (ibid.), the N>A cuckoo ‘crazy’ (from
cuckoo ‘a silly person’) (Mattiello, 2008: 128), and the A>Adv dead ‘utterly, completely’
(ibid.). Rather infrequent patterns of conversion that occur in slang are more peculiar, such as
numeral>N forty ‘a thief, sharper’, prefix>N ex ‘a former husband, wife or lover’, or combining
form>A mega ‘huge, great, substantial’ (ibid.).
Within shortening in slang, there are distinctions between clippings, acronyms and
initialisms (Kulkarni & Wang, 2018: 1425), which are also mentioned by Mattiello (2008) and
Eble (1996). In this case it is necessary to bring up the issue of different viewpoints on the
regularity or rather irregularity of these formations. For instance, Aronoff (1976: 20) calls them
oddities and points that they have “no recognizable internal structure or constituents” which
makes them opaque (ibid.). On the other hand, Bauer (1983: 232) highlights that in English,
they are very common and therefore cannot be considered “out of the ordinary”. However, he
acknowledges that “it is by no means clear that the forms of these words can be predicted by
rules without appealing to such ill-understood notions as euphony” (ibid.). Moreover, for
instance Štekauer (1998: 33) mentions that a process like clipping cannot be considered as
word-formation process because it does not create new meaning and “for a unit to be included
in word-formation it must differ from the motivating unit both in its semantics and form” (ibid.:
23). Within slang, Mattiello (2008: 65) classifies them as “extra-grammatical formations” and
despite their irregularity, they deserve to be mentioned here because “extra grammatical
phenomena are frequent slang formations” (ibid.).
In the case of clipping, the distinctions are between back-clipping (brill ‘brilliant’),
fore-clipping (choke ‘artichoke’), and compound clipping (adman ‘advertisement man’)
(Kulkarni & Wang, 2018: 1425). Mattiello (2008: 145) also mentions an unusual type of slang
back-clipping where only the first letter of the base word is retained, as in H. ( heroin).

19
Interestingly, this phenomenon surely lies on the borderline between clipping and the formation
of initialisms, since it is only one letter which represents the whole word. Additionally, there
is the so-called middle-clipping, exemplified by script ( prescription, esp. one for narcotic
drugs) (ibid.). The formation of initialisms may be represented by examples such as DHC
‘deep, heavy conversation’ (Eble, 1996: 36), while YOLO ‘you only live once’ is an example
of acronymization (Kulkarni & Wang, 2018: 1425).
Finally, the formation of blends can be divided into prototypical blends and partial
blends. Within prototypical blending, the blends “consist of the head of one word and the tail
of another one” (Mattiello, 2008: 139), as in glumpy ( gloomy + grumpy) (Partridge, 1993:
281). As far as partial blends are concerned, they are instances where one of the bases remains
unchanged, such as fugly (f***ing + ugly) (Coleman, 2012: 37).
Following this short description of the data which are available in the literature on slang
word-formation, it is now possible to move the discussion forward and to present the research
on which this paper is based.

2 Methodological outline and sample

The main goal of this research is to examine which word-formation processes were used in the
coining of the words chosen from the online Urban Dictionary (UD) and to provide a detailed
analysis of those words. Next objective is to consider possible differences between how slang
uses word-formation processes and how StE uses them. Similarly, like previous works on this
topic, this one also concentrates on the examination of words from particular semantic groups,
namely the semantic groups COLLEGE, FOOD and DRUGS. To compare, Eble (1996) primarily
analyses slang spoken in the college environment, while Mattiello (2008) covers a broader
range of semantic groups.
The process of attaining the goals set out above was divided into three steps. The first
step was based on the selection of slang words from Urban Dictionary (UD), an online
dictionary of slang words and phrases which can be freely added to by laypeople. The words
and phrases in UD may be searched by first letter, by semantic group (COLLEGE, DRUGS, FOOD,
INTERNET, MUSIC, NAME, RELIGION, SEX, SPORTS, WORK), or by entry. Our research concentrates
on the first three of these semantic groups, namely COLLEGE, DRUGS and FOOD. The number of
words that appear in UD per group is 140, which means that in the first step, the total number
of words from the three selected groups was 420.
As far as the material from UD is concerned, it was chosen on purpose mostly because
of its authentic character. There is no doubt that UD is compiled by lay users of language,
however, in this case it may be considered as an advantage, since slang thrives in informal
settings. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the scientific unreliability of UD, the presence of slang
formations from UD was checked in Green’s online Dictionary of Slang (GDS). The words
which were listed also in GDS can be considered as attested examples of slang, while those
which were not present in GDS and appeared only in UD should be taken with caution.
The second step was based on sorting out the 420 words. This was necessary because,
as mentioned above, UD is freely editable by laypeople and there was a high probability of
finding words that were not relevant for further analysis within the framework of slang word-
formation. Therefore, the 420 words were filtered with the aim of eliminating irrelevant cases.
These were grouped into seven non-inclusive groups:

20
 • Words representing idiolect – this group includes words which were in UD listed only
once within the respective semantic group, for instance sushilize ‘to socialize over
sushi’.
• StE words with changed meaning – this group includes words which were coined in
StE and in slang they only acquired new additional meaning, while there was no change
of the word class, as in rails ‘lines of the drug cocaine, which are then snorted’.
• Tokens – this group includes all words occurring more than once in the sample of 420
words. To exemplify, in the semantic group FOOD, the word brunch appears two times
on the list of words occurring in this group.
• Words whose meaning is not related to the semantic group – this group includes all the
words whose meanings are not related to the semantic group within which they are
listed in UD. For example, pizza face was listed in the semantic group FOOD, however,
its meaning: ‘an offensive term telling people that they have bad acne’ is in no way
related to food.
• Phrases – are not relevant for the study of word-formation because they are basic units
of syntactic analysis. To exemplify, Smoke a Bowl ‘the act of smoking a bud of
marijuana in either a bong or a pipe’.
• Monemes – are not included because they are not created by productive word-formative
processes. Here, the group of monemes consists mostly of words which are of foreign
origin and in UD they all appeared within the semantic group DRUGS, for instance
pakalolo ‘Hawaiian slang for marijuana or weed’.
• Words that are unanalysable for anything other than the above-listed reasons – this
group of unanalysable words includes numerals (424/7 ‘smoking Weed 24/7 (420)’),
misspelled constructions (cheif ‘when smoking weed, taking more than an appropriate
number of hits of a blunt), and StE words with standard meaning (legalization ‘to make
something legal’).
As a result, the number of words decreased considerably from 420 to 65. What remained were
slang formations not belonging to any of the above-mentioned non-inclusive groups from the
second step.
The third step was an analysis of the word-formation processes underlying the
remaining sample words.

2.1 Word-formation processes in the sample

Table 1 lists all the word-formation processes used in the coining of the words from the sample.

Table 1: Word-formation processes used in the sample

Word-formation process Number of words Percentages
Compounding 30 46%
Shortening 12 19%
Suffixation 11 17%
Blending 6 9%
Conversion 6 9%

In order to examine the selected sample of slang formations in detail, concrete examples
representing each word-formation process occurring in the sample will be provided in the

21
following sub-sections. The words occurring in the tables below are always listed in alphabetic
order, in orthographic form, and with the definition provided in UD. In some cases, more than
one definition per one word is provided in UD. To exemplify, the word brenner listed within
the semantic group FOOD includes 6 definitions, out of which only 3 are related to food.
Naturally, the unrelated meanings are ignored, while the related ones are taken into
consideration. It is focused on whether the meanings are identical or there are some differences
between them. If they are identical, the meaning which is the shortest and the most coherent is
chosen as a representative. If there are, for example, two different meanings, these are
mentioned in the text and subsequently analysed.
It is also important to mention here that in the upcoming analysis, the use of word-
formation processes in slang will be compared with their use in StE, and the focus will be on
possible similarities or differences between the two. However, it should be emphasized that the
observations and findings presented below are based on a sample of 65 slang words. Given the
limited size of the sample, any conclusions on the trends in English slang word-formation must
be taken with caution and will have to be verified and/or completed by future studies.

2.1.1 Compounding
As indicated in Table 1 above, compounds represent the largest group with 30 words. It is a
well-known fact that “there is hardly any universally accepted definition which unambiguously
defines this word-formation process” (Kavka & Štekauer, 2006: 53). Nevertheless, it was
necessary to apply some criteria for the delimitation of compounds in order to sort out the
sample of slang formations. The three main criteria which were used in this case are syntactic
ones, as described in Lieber and Štekauer (2009: 13): “inseparability, the inability to modify
the first element of the compound, and the inability to replace the second noun of a nominal
compound with a pro-form such as one”. Table 2 provides a list of all compounds occurring in
the sample of 65 slang formations.

Table 2: Compounds
DRUGS FOOD COLLEGE
bongload death burger College night
booze jockey food box dorm storm
cannabis club Gay bacon hallway hobo
Cocoa Puffin pizza daddy
coke fiend Pizza Pillows
Coke Nails pizza slap
Generation Blunt Pizza Time
Giggle Smoke See food diet
Green day stoner pizza
hobo hash Texas Breakfast
Jungle Joint
Nosebag
rolling stoned
Stoner Steve
trip out
weed snob
Weed Whacker

22
The majority of compounds are compound nouns. There is only one case of a compound
adjective, rolling stoned ‘on ecstasy and weed’, and one case of compound verb: trip out ‘to
lose your mind on drugs’ (UD).
As for the word classes of the individual constituents of compounds, the majority of
them are N + N constructions. There is one case of V + N (Giggle smoke ‘another word for
marijuana’), one example of A + N (Green day ‘a day spent smoking marijuana’), one example
of A + A (above-mentioned rolling stoned) and one example of V + Particle (above-mentioned
trip out). Finally, there is also one example of a three-member compound, see food diet ‘a see
food diet is where you see food and then eat it’, which is a combination of V + N + N.
In some cases, the individual constituents of compounds are themselves derivatives.
For instance, there are several examples where the second element of a compound is derived
from a verb by suffixation. To exemplify, Cocoa Puffin ‘smoking marijuana that is laced with
cocaine’, where the second constituent puffin is coined by adding the suffix -ing to the verb
puff ‘smoke a pipe, cigarette, or cigar’. It is a similar case for the synthetic compound weed
whacker ‘a person who tends to smoke alotta Marijuana’, where it is again the second
constituent which is derived from the verb whack by -er suffixation.
Subsequently, there is a group of compounds where the first constituent is a derivative,
such as Stoner Steve ‘a male who sells or smokes cannabis’ and stoner pizza ‘small pizzas in
which several can be eaten in one sitting’. There is also an example of a compound where both
constituents are derivatives; in this case, it is the suffixes -ing and -ed used in rolling stoned
‘on ecstasy and weed’.
Finally, clippings are also used as constituents of compounds in the sample. For
instance, dorm storm ‘the raiding of one college residence hall by a large group of students
from another residence hall’ where one of the two constituents represents a clipping: dorm
‘dormitory’.
Bases of compounds may also differ in terms of their origin, whether they come from
StE or from slang. There are three possible combinations occurring in the sample. The first one
is when all constituents are StE words, as in College night ‘Thursday night partying because
most college students don’t have class on Friday’. The second possible combination is slang
word + StE word, as in booze jockey ‘a bar tender’ or weed snob ‘someone who insists their
weed is superior to all others’. The third possible combination is slang word + slang word, as
in hobo hash ‘slang for marijuana resin’.
Within this sample of slang compounds, it is also possible to spot the use of metaphor.
Metaphor-based compounds are described in Benczes (2006) who highlights that “the fact that
metaphor is a driving force behind compounds is no news” (ibid., p. 89). Benczes mentions
several features of conceptual metaphor, one of them is that “it is based upon two entities that
resemble one another” (ibid., p. 48). This may be perceived within compound rolling stoned
‘on ecstasy and weed’ which was coined after the name of the British rock group, the Rolling
Stones. Similarly, there is pizza daddy ‘a sugar daddy who just gives you pizza’ coined after
the already-existing sugar daddy. Another example is weed snob ‘someone who insists their
weed is superior to all others’ where the second constituent of the compound is used
metaphorically. Additionally, except the presence of metaphor, rhyme is also used to form
slang compounds. For instance, Bauer (1983: 213) recognizes rhyme motivated compounds
where “the rhyme between the two elements is the major motivating factor in the formation”.
He mentions brain-drain, culture-vulture or flower-power while in this slang sample there is
dorm storm.

23
 The results of this research may be compared with the general tendencies in English
word-formation by focusing on the research done by Körtvélyessy, Štekauer and Zimmermann
(2018), in which they evaluate word-formation in European languages using 100 word-
formation features representing 12 word-formation processes. The process of compounding is
evaluated by its types and features. The types are as follows: recursive, determinative,
copulative, exocentric, synthetic, phrasal, and compounds with linking elements. To compare
this with the results of the present research in slang, there are no recursive, copulative, or
phrasal compounds and no compounds with linking elements among these selected slang
compounds. On the other hand, the types which are present in this sample are determinative
(coke fiend ‘someone who is addicted to cocaine’), exocentric (food box ‘belly’), and synthetic
(weed whacker ‘a person who tends to smoke alotta Marijuana’).
Additionally, taking into consideration the fact that the UD is freely editable by
laypeople the presence of the selected slang words from UD may be also compared with their
presence or absence in attested slang dictionary such as Jonathon Green’s Dictionary of Slang
(GDS) available online. As far as the present sample of compounds from UD is concerned,
four compounds from this sample are also attested by GDS. Namely, coke fiend ‘a cocaine
user’, nosebag ‘cocaine’, to trip out ‘to experience a hallucinogenic drug or a simulacrum
thereof’, and foodbox ‘the stomach’. When comparing the meanings of the individual words,
all four of them coincide.
To conclude, it was exemplified that slang uses the same mechanism of compounding
as StE. In terms of the word classes, most of the compounds occurring in this sample are
compound nouns which also prevail in StE, as mentioned by Bauer (1983: 202), Plag (2016:
2412) or Lieber (2005: 378). The same may be said about the word classes of the individual
constituents of compounds, which are also mostly nouns. However, it was exemplified that
there are also some differences between StE compounding and slang compounding, mostly in
terms of the bases which are used. In some cases, slang uses chiefly slang bases to coin
compounds; additionally, those bases may themselves be derivatives or clippings.

2.1.2 Shortening
Shortening was used to coin 12 words. Various types of shortening appear in the sample, and
a list of them is provided below, in Table 3, followed by their examination.

Table 3: Shortenings
COLLEGE DRUGS FOOD
CKA acid bae
dorm cap
Furman meth
gml mid
uni scrip
YOCO

The shortenings in the semantic group COLLEGE are of various types. The majority of them are
instances of initialisms, such as CKA, which had two different definitions in UD: (1)
‘commonly known as’, (2) ‘Cool Kid Alley’. Here, it is interesting to notice that in the first
definition, ‘commonly known as’, a letter from a function word (as) is used to form an
initialism. “Initialisms tend to omit function words in their output since they are semantically
less salient” (Mattiello, 2013: 103). However, in this case it was preserved, probably because

24
“in initialisms, the preferential output length is three letters” (ibid., 102). The next initialism is
gml, which also had various definitions, the first two being (1) ‘get on my level’ and (2) ‘got
much love’. In the first definition the function word on is omitted in the output form, probably
because of the above-mentioned preferential length of initialisms.
In the semantic group COLLEGE, there are also examples of clippings, such as dorm ‘a
bedroom, living room, and kitchen in a space about the size of most walk-in closets. Roommate
included free of charge’, Furman ‘Furman University - a private, liberal arts college in
Greenville, South Carolina’, and uni ‘university’, which are all examples of back-clipping.
The next type of shortening occurring in the semantic group COLLEGE is the acronym,
represented by only one example, YOCO, which has two definitions related to the semantic
group COLLEGE: (1) ‘You’re Only Cute Online’, (2) ‘You Only College Once’.
The types of shortenings in the semantic group DRUGS are more consistent: they are all
instances of clippings, for example acid ‘Lysergic acid diethylamide’, which represents the
type of clipping where the middle part is retained. Then there is cap ‘Aussie slang for mdma
(ecstasy), often in Australia mdma is snorted and placed in capsules for distribution’, meth
‘abbreviation for methamphetamine’ and mid ‘mid-grade marijuana’, which are all examples
of back-clipping. Finally, scrip ‘prescription - a note from a doctor to obtain controlled
medicines (usually narcotics) from a pharmacist’ is another example of the type where the
middle part is retained.
The last semantic group, FOOD, includes only one shortening, bae, which is an example
of an acronym. This word had many various definitions in UD, but the one related to food and
occurring the most often was ‘bacon and eggs’.
In this case, the results of slang shortening in this sample cannot be compared with the
previously mentioned research by Körtvélyessy, Štekauer and Zimmermann (2018) since in
this research they are not examining shortening. The reason for this was already outlined above,
that some scholars do not consider shortening as a word-formation process because it does not
create new meaning. But the presence of the selected slang words from UD may be compared
with their inclusion in GDS, as was done above with compounds. To compare, the words which
occur also in GDS are: uni ‘university’, acid ‘LSD, i.e. d-lysergic acid diethylamide-25’, cap
‘a capsule containing a narcotic, usu. heroin’, meth ‘a methamphetamine’, and scrip ‘a
prescription for narcotics’. As far as the meanings of these words are concerned, those in GDS
match with the meanings listed in UD.
In conclusion, it was exemplified that in this sample, slang words were coined by the
use of various types of shortening, such as initialisms, acronyms and clippings which are also
used in StE, as described in Bauer (1983: 232-237). The principles on which the coining of
these types of shortenings is based appear to be the same as in StE, and the majority of these
slang shortenings were the instances of clipping.

2.1.3 Suffixation
Suffixation was used to coin 11 words, representing 17% of the 65 slang formations. Table 4
lists the words coined by suffixation.

Table 4: Suffixation
DRUGS FOOD COLLEGE
baggie baconcy mutching
bottle-o brekky
Cheefing Munchies

25
 Flipping
reefer
toked
Ziggy

The suffix which occurs in the sample the most frequently is the diminutive -ie/-y. In StE, it
has mostly connotative function and it conveys hypocoristic meaning: “it is used to form pet
terms (terms of endearment) and familiar diminutives expressing jocularity or affection”
(Mattiello, 2008: 104). Plag (2016: 2419) also highlights that in StE it is the most productive
suffix from the group of diminutive suffixes, and it attaches mostly to nouns. In slang, it is
“predominantly used to form nouns with an appellative hypocoristic meaning” but it should be
noted that except the hypocoristic function, in slang “it may be also used ironically or
sarcastically” (Mattiello, 2008: 105).
In this sample, suffix -ie/-y attached mostly to nominal bases, which were sometimes
clipped and its function was hypocoristic, as well as in StE. To exemplify, in the semantic
group DRUGS, there is the word baggie ‘a little plastic bag used to carry weed […]’, where the
noun bag serves as a base for suffixation by -ie. Notice that in this case the suffix -ie does not
add only connotative meaning but also denotative.
The next example is demonstrated by ziggy ‘Spliff, Zoot, Joint, Cannabis Cigarette’.
One possible analysis of the word ziggy is that it was coined from cigarette, which, firstly,
underwent the process of clipping and subsequently suffixation by -y to coin ciggy. The initial
consonant in ciggy was voiced from /s/ to /z/ which probably influenced the orthography and
changed into ziggy.
In the semantic group FOOD, there is brekky ‘synonym for breakfast’. The base for the
coining of brekky was breakfast, which underwent clipping and subsequently suffixation by -
y. Notice that Mattiello (2008: 100) also mentions brekkers which has identical meaning but it
is coined by attaching the suffix -er/-ers introduced within university slang to form colloquial
words.
Another example of derivation by -ie is represented by munchies ‘when you get hungry
after smoking weed. Usually, people will eat a lot of junk food’. The base for this word is the
verb munch ‘to eat snack foods’. The diminutive suffix -ie is added to this to form the noun
munchie, which is followed by adding the plural morpheme -s to form munchies. This example
is also attested in GDS with identical meaning and it is mentioned there that it usually occurs
in plural, which is also supported by OED.
Subsequently, the next most frequent suffix appearing in the sample is -ing, also a
productive one. In StE, it is mostly listed within suffixes which derive event, state and result
nouns (Bauer et al., 2013: 195). As far as the base preferences are concerned, this suffix
attaches in StE to “all non-auxiliary verbs in English, regardless of their origin” (ibid., p. 202).
This function and base preference was also found in the examined sample. To exemplify, in
the semantic group DRUGS, there is cheefing ‘the act of smoking marijuana with a group of two
or more and holding on to the joint/blunt/bong/bowl etc for a longer time than the set rhythm
of rotation’. This noun is an example of derivation by adding -ing to the slang verbal base cheef
with identical meaning.
Similarly, there is flipping with 3 various meanings related to drugs (1) ‘using LSD and
Ecstasy together’, (2) ‘the act of selling drugs’ (3) ‘a mild curse word’. In the first two cases,
the words are verbal present participles created by attaching the suffix -ing to the verbal base
flip. In the third case it is an adjective which is derived by attaching -ing to the verbal base flip

26
‘an alternative to f**k.’ Notice that this word is also attested in GDS, however, only as an
adjective or an adverb with the meaning ‘euph. for f***ing’ as in flipping heck.
Additionally, in the semantic group COLLEGE, there is mutching ‘not attending school’.
This word only had one definition in UD, and therefore it was further investigated in the Free
Dictionary (FD), where the following definition is found: ‘another word for mitch’. The
mentioned word mitch has the meaning ‘to play truant from school’, which comes “probably
from Old French muchier, mucier ‘to hide, lurk’” (FD). Therefore, the verb mitch /mɪʧ/ firstly
underwent vowel modification into mutch /mʌʧ/ and, subsequently, the suffix -ing was added
to form the noun mutching.
The suffix -er only occurs in the sample once, which is quite surprising since it is highly
productive in StE, mostly in deriving agentive and instrumental nominalisations from verbs
(Szymanek, 1989: 176). Nevertheless, this pattern was preserved in the sample; in the semantic
group DRUGS, there is the noun reefer ‘slang for marijuana; refers to a joint, bowl, plant, or sac
of marijuana’. In OED it is mentioned that the origin of this word is uncertain and there are
various possible analyses proposed. One analysis suggests the comparison with Mexican
Spanish grifa ‘cannabis, marijuana’, Central American Spanish grifo/grifa ‘person who smokes
cannabis’. “It is possible that the initial g- was either not perceived by speakers of English, or
the word was borrowed the other way, hypercorrectly added by Spanish speakers” (OED).
Another analysis proposes that reefer was derived either from reef N ‘a section of a sail,
frequently each of three or four bands or strips, which can be taken in or rolled up to reduce
the area exposed to the wind’ or from reef V ‘to take in or roll up part of (a sail) in order to
reduce the area exposed to the wind’ (OED). This second analysis points to the suffixation by
-er, therefore, the word reefer was included in the sample of derived slang words. What is
interesting here is the metaphorical link between a rolled sail and a rolled cigarette containing
marijuana. To compare, within slang we can also find the suffix -er and its variant -ers which
are not present in StE and which are used to “obtain colloquial or jocular forms of words and
names, with curtailment and often some distortion of the root” (Matiello, 2008: 100). To
exemplify, there is footer ‘football’, brekker ‘breakfast’, or champers ‘champagne’ (ibid.).
Another suffix that also occurs only once within the sample is the suffix -ed. In StE, it
is productive in coining adjectives from nouns (bearded) (Bauer et al., 2013: 304) or past
participles which function as adjectives (bored) (Plag, 2016: 2419). In the semantic group
DRUGS, there is the word toked ‘being high, particularly from marijuana’, which represents the
verbal past participle functioning as an adjective. The base for suffixation by -ed is the verb
toke ‘to inhale marijuana smoke’, which probably comes from the Spanish tocar, meaning
‘touch, tap, hit’ or ‘get a share or part’ (OETD).
The next suffix occurring in the sample only once is the less productive and rather
infrequent suffix -cy, which in StE usually attaches to adjectives in order to form nouns (Bauer,
1983: 222). OED also adds that -cy can be attached to nouns ending in -n, as in chaplaincy,
captaincy, or aldermancy. The second base preference was found in this slang sample where
the suffix -cy attached to the noun bacon in order to derive baconcy, meaning (1) ‘the
availability and/or presence of bacon’ or (2) ‘that horrible feeling when you thought you had
bacon but you just realized that you had already run out, you are now bacon-less’. However, in
this case, the suffix -cy does not change the word class of the base bacon to which it is attached.
Finally, the suffix -o in the semantic group DRUGS represents a special example of
formative used only within slang. It occurs in the word bottle-o ‘Australian abbreviation of
bottle shop - which is a shop that sells alcohol and is often attached to a pub’. As is shown, the
author of this definition explains that the second constituent is an abbreviation from shop.

27
However, further investigation of this word pointed to a slightly different interpretation. The
second element of this construction rather represents the slang suffix -o, which is used in
“forming familiar, informal equivalents of nouns and adjectives” (OED). This word may also
have a variant, bottle-oh (ibid.).
In comparison to the results of Körtvélyessy, Štekauer and Zimmermann (2018), in this
slang sample, there is a lack of certain suffixation patterns. For instance, within class-
maintaining suffixation, there is no A>A pattern, only the N>N pattern, as in bag N > baggie N.
As for class-changing prefixation, the following patterns were not found in this slang sample:
A>N, A>V, N>V, N>A, V>A, N>Adv, A>Adv. The only patterns present are V>N,
exemplified by reef V> reefer N, and V>A, as in toke V >toked A. The reason for the absence of
particular patterns of suffixation in this sample of slang words was already outlined above,
where the limited size of sample was reminded.
As far as the comparison with GDS is concerned, the words which occur also in GDS
are: baggie ‘a small plastic bag used popularly for holding small amounts of marijuana or
powdered drugs’, bottle-o ‘an off-licence (attached to a public house), a liquor store’, brekky
‘breakfast’, munchies ‘the craving for food, often sweet or in an otherwise unlikely
combination of flavours, that afflicts smokers of hashish or marijuana.’, reefer ‘a marijuana
cigarette’, and ziggy ‘a cannabis cigarette’. The mentioned meanings from GDS match the
meanings listed in UD.
To summarize, the majority of suffixes used in the sample of slang words are suffixes
that come from StE (-ie/-y, -ing, -er, -ed, -cy). Moreover, it was exemplified that the functions
of these suffixes in slang are, in the majority of cases, similar to how they function in StE. As
for the differences between the use of suffixation in slang and StE, slight irregularities were
exemplified by bases that are of slang origin, such as munch, cheef, mutch or toke and which
cannot be found in StE. Additionally, there was an example in the sample of a suffix that is not
used in StE and which can be considered as chiefly slang (-o/-oh).

2.1.4 Blending
Blending was used to coin 6 words from the selected list, representing 9% of the 65 slang
coinages. Table 5 exemplifies the instances of blending that occurred in the sample.

Table 5: Blending
FOOD COLLEGE DRUGS
bizza journicle tokemon
Brenner
Brinner
Brunch

The first semantic group FOOD is the largest one. The majority of the blends occurring in this
group are examples of the most frequent types of blends that also appear in StE, where the parts
used in blending are the peripheral fragments of the original words (Szymanek, 1989: 100). In
Plag’s (2003: 123) words, “it is always the first part of the first element that is combined with
the second part of the second element”. This corresponds to Plag’s blending rule: AB + CD →
AD, where the letters represent the respective parts of the elements involved in blending (ibid.).
For instance, in this sample we find big/beer + pizza = bizza, breakfast + dinner =
brenner/brinner, breakfast + lunch = brunch. Notice that brenner/brinner was probably
created analogically after the model of brunch.

28
 The second semantic group COLLEGE includes only one example: journal + article =
journicle. The third semantic group DRUGS also has only one example: toke ‘to inhale marijuana
smoke’ + pokemon = tokemon, meaning (1) ‘the act of smoking weed and playing the game
Pokemon all in one’ or (2) ‘the drug-smoking version of the popular kids’ program Pokemon’.
This is that type of blending, where only one word is shortened while the other one is present
entirely. Relating this to Plag’s blending rule (AB + CD → AD), B is null here because one of
the two base forms (toke) appears in its full form. Another possible analysis of tokemon is that
it is only the letter t which is taken from toke and pokemon without the initial p. In this case
that would represent that type of blending where the peripheral parts are taken to form the
blend.
To recapitulate, within this sample, slang makes use of the same patterns of blending
as StE. This was supported by applying Plag’s blending rule to examine the slang blends. The
pattern AB + CD → AD appeared the most frequently, as in bizza, brenner, brinner, brunch
and journicle. The pattern A(B) + CD → AD where B is null appeared as well, but only in one
example. Moreover, sometimes the bases used for blending were chiefly of slang origin, such
as toke in tokemon. As far as the comparison of the presence of blends in UD and in GDS is
concerned, none of the presented blends are attested by GDS.

2.1.5 Conversion
Converted words represent the last group from the overall sample. Conversion was used to coin
6 words, representing 9% of the 65 slang formations. The converted words are exemplified in
the following Table 6.

Table 6: Conversion
DRUGS
chief V
peezo N
piff N
primo N
smoke N
toke N

The first word chief occurs in UD either as a verb or as a noun. As for the verb, it has either the
general meaning (1) ‘to smoke marijuana’ (UD) or the more specified meaning (2) ‘to take an
additional hit of marijuana, against the rules of the group, if smoked in a circle’. In this case of
the verb, it can be considered as a conversion from the StE noun chief ‘a leader or ruler of a
people or clan’ (OED). Additionally, as mentioned above, the word chief also appears in UD
as a noun with the meaning ‘someone who hogs the marijuana when passing a bowl, joint, or
bong’. However, since there is no change in the word class of the base, it is an example of
semantic change from the StE noun chief rather than an example of conversion. Within the
numerous definitions of this word in UD, there are some explanations of its possible origin. It
is explained that if there was a group of Indians smoking a peace pipe, it was always their chief
who got the first drag (UD). What is interesting is the word’s semantic derogation which occurs
in the second meaning of the verb mentioned above. The positive implications of respect linked

29
with an Indian chief are completely changed in the second meaning of the verb chief, which
denotes an act evaluated rather negatively.
The next word is peezo ‘glass pipe used to smoke crystal meth’. It has the same meaning
as the word piezo ‘a pipe used for smoking freebase crystal methamphetamine’, which also
occurs in UD. In StE, piezo- represents a combining form with the meaning ‘pressure’ from
Greek piezein ‘to press tight, squeeze’ (OETD). It usually occurs in words such as piezoceramic
or piezomagnetic. One possible interpretation of the slang word piezo/peezo is that it represents
a conversion from the StE combining form piezo, which is usually attached to bases and cannot
stand on its own, to a free nominal lexeme denoting a special type of pipe. This may be
compared to StE nouns ism and ade which were also, at first, used as bound forms, as in
agonism or orangeade (OED). However, subsequently they developed into independent
lexemes with the meanings ism ‘a form of doctrine, theory, or practice having, or claiming to
have, a distinctive character or relation’, and ade ‘a drink composed of fruit juice diluted with
water and sweetened with sugar’ (OED).
Another converted word is the noun piff ‘high quality marijuana’. This is again an
interesting example, where an onomatopoeic word serves as the basis for further derivation. In
Körtvélyessy (2020: 11) it is highlighted that derivations from onomatopoeia cannot be treated
as onomatopoeic words anymore. Therefore, in this case, we are dealing with a conversion
from the StE onomatopoeic piff ‘representing the sound of a short, abrupt displacement or
passage of air as caused by the flight of a bullet, a small explosion, an expression of contempt’
(OED) to the slang noun piff denoting marijuana. Notice also the metaphorical allusion to the
destructive effects of drugs which are linked with the destructive effect of explosions and guns
present in the original onomatopoeic meaning.
The next example is primo. In StE, this word is used in the context of music, as an
adjective with the meaning ‘of a musician, performer, role, etc.: first, principal, chief; of highest
quality or importance’ and it represents a borrowing from Italian or Spanish (OED). As far as
slang is concerned, in UD primo appears either as an adjective (1) ‘of the best quality’ or as a
noun (2) ‘a joint or blunt containing both marijuana and cocaine’. The case of adjective is not
of interest, since we are focusing here on conversion. On the other hand, the case of noun is of
interest because it was coined by conversion from the already-exemplified earlier adjective
primo. In this case, there is again the metaphorical link between the original meaning of the
adjective and the slang meaning of the noun. Apparently, in the context of drugs a cigarette
containing both marijuana and cocaine has a positive connotation and is evaluated as being of
high quality.
The following word smoke appears in UD either as a verb or as a noun. In the case of
the verb, it has the following definition: ‘to light up a rolled up cigarette or similar instrument,
usually packed with drugs, then stick it in your mouth and inhale’. In this situation, the verb is
not an example of conversion because the word class of the slang word remains the same, as
in StE; it only represents a mere extension of the meaning. However, in the case of the noun,
it occurs with the following definition: ‘drugs that are smoked, or something to smoke,
generally weed’. In such a situation, it may be considered as a conversion from StE verb to
smoke to the noun a smoke. This analysis can be supported by Marchand’s (1964: 10) criterion
of semantic dependence of a derivative on the content of the other pair member. In this case,
the definition of the noun smoke ‘drugs that are smoked, or something to smoke, generally
weed’ includes the verb to smoke and depends on it. Therefore, a smoke denoting ‘weed’ is the
derivative, while to smoke is its base.

30
 The last example toke occurs in UD either as a noun or as a verb. In the case of the
noun, its meaning is ‘an inhalation or draw of marijuana smoke’, and it represents a conversion
from the earlier verb toke ‘to inhale marijuana smoke’. In the case of the verb, it can be
considered as a borrowed moneme because the origin of the verb is probably from the Spanish
word tocar, meaning (1) ‘touch, tap, hit’ or (2) ‘get a share or part’ (OETD). This analysis was
already mentioned above in the discussion about toked in §2.1.3.
As far as the results of Körtvélyessy, Štekauer and Zimmermann (2018) are concerned,
there are some patterns of conversion that appear there and which are missing in this particular
slang sample. For instance, the patterns N>A, N>Adv, A>V, A>Adv, V>A, V>Adv, Adv>N,
Adv>A and Adv>V are all missing in our slang sample. On the other hand, there is also the
reverse situation; two patterns (onomatopoeia>N, combining form>N) occur in this slang
sample, while they are not mentioned in Word-formation in European Languages. The samples
which occur in both are N>V, V>N and A>N.
Additionally, to compare the results with the GDS, the words which also appear there
are: chief ‘to smoke (a cannabis cigarette)’, piff ‘marijuana; thus as adj. strong’, primo ‘a
marijuana cigarette laced with cocaine and/or heroin’, smoke ‘anything smokeable, a cigar, a
pipe, a cigarette, tobacco’, and toke ‘a puff or drag of any kind of cigarette (usu. cannabis), or
a pipe’. As exemplified, the meanings of the words proposed by UD were also found to be
attested by GDS.

3 Conclusions

By examining this sample of slang words, it was found that slang mostly exploits regularity
within word-formation. It uses the same word-formation processes as StE, and it usually uses
them in the same way as well. The word-formation processes found in this sample of words
were compounding, shortening, suffixation, blending and conversion.
Even though the majority of words were coined in a regular way, within each word-
formation process, there also appeared some irregularities, probably chiefly used in slang. As
for suffixation, it is worth mentioning the suffix -o/-oh (bottle-oh), which comes from slang
and is used to derive “familiar, informal equivalents of nouns and adjectives” (OED). Within
conversion, worthy of mention are the patterns of conversion such as onomatopoeia>N (piff)
and combining form>N (piezo/peezo). Finally, it is also necessary to remark the bases of slang
origin used to derive slang formations, such as munch, cheef, mutch or toke, which do not occur
in StE at all.
As far as the individual semantic groups examined are concerned, the most fruitful was
the semantic group DRUGS, which provided the largest number of slang formations for the word-
formation analysis. The reason why this group included such a high number of slang formations
may be interconnected with the sociological properties of slang, such as restriction to social
sub-groups (Coleman, 2009: 2). It is presumable that the social sub-groups using slang
terminology for drugs care about the secrecy and restrictiveness of their conversations much
more than the users of slang terminology dedicated to food or college. This implies that it is
important for these drug communities to show, as Partridge (1933: 7) notes, that they are “in
the swim” while others are not.
In the case of the respective word-formation processes, compounding, derivation and
conversion were the most highly represented in the semantic group DRUGS. The highest number
of shortenings appeared in the semantic group COLLEGE, probably because young people tend

31
to avoid long constructions and prefer economy of expression in their conversations. Finally,
the largest proportion of blends occurred in the semantic group FOOD. This is probably because
blends are usually iconic in a way that they represent the “concept of [their] two base words,
and [their] meaning is thus contingent on the semantic relation between the two base words”
(Bat-El, 2006: 66). In the context of food, this is crucial since food ingredients are often
combined together to create the contingent of taste.

References

Aronoff, Mark. 1985. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London: The MIT Press.
Adams, Michael. 2009. Slang: The People’s Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bat-El, Outi. 2006. Blend. In: Keith Brown, (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language & Linguistics, 66-70.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, Laurie & Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benczes, Réka. 2006. Creative Compounding. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Coleman, Julie. 2009. A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. New York: Oxford University Pres.
Coleman, Julie. 2012. The Life of Slang. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eble, Connie. 1996. Slang & Sociability: In-group Language Among College Students. Chapel
Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press.
Green, Jonathon. 2015. The Vulgar Tongue: Green’s History of Slang. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kavka, Stanislav Jindřich & Štekauer, Pavol. 2006. Compounds and Compounding. Ostrava: Repronis,
2006.
Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2020. Onomatopoeia – A Unique Species? In Arthur Holmer & Valéria Molnár
(eds.), Studia Linguistica, 506-551 Oxford/Malden: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol & Genči, Ján & Zimmermann, Július. 2018. Word-Formation in
European languages. In Franz Rainer, Erich Round, Andrea Sims & Andrew Spencer (eds.),
Word Structure, 313-358. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kulkarni, Vivek & Wang, William Yang. 2018. Simple models for word formation in slang. In
Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018, 1424-1434. New Orleans: Association for Computational
Linguistics.
Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English Word-Formation Processes. In Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber
(eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 375-422. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lighter, Jonathan. 2001. Slang. In John Algeo (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language,
219-249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchand, Hans. 1964. A Set of Criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words
unmarked by derivational morphemes. In Benjamin W. Fortson, Götz Keydana, Melanie
Malzahn & Paul Widmer (eds.), Indogermanische Forschungen, 10-19. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mattiello, Elisa. 2008. An Introduction to English Slang: A Description of its Morphology, Semantics
and Sociology. Monza: Polimerica International Scientific Publisher.
Mattiello, Elisa. 2013. Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends,
Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Partridge, Eric. 1933. Slang: To-Day and Yesterday. New York: Routledge.

32
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, Ingo. 2016. English. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.),
An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 2411-2425. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Szymanek, Bogdan. 1989. Introduction to Morphological Analysis. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Štekauer, Pavel. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-formation.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey. 1987. Plain Morphology and Expressive Morphology. In
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 330-340.
Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Internet sources

Green’s Dictionary of Slang: https://greensdictofslang.com/

Online Etymological Dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/
Oxford English Dictionary: https://www.oed.com/
The Free Dictionary: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/

Lucia Gallová
Pavol Jozef Šafárik University
Moyzesova 9
040 01, Košice
Slovakia
[email protected]

In SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics [online]. 2021, vol. 18, no. 2 [cit. 2021-12-07].
Available on web page http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL49/pdf_doc/02.pdf. ISSN 1336-782X

33