In the pertinent literature

In the pertinent literature, most definitions of slang show a tendency towards a sociological view of the phenomenon. This view is accepted, among others, by Eble (1996) and Munro (ed.) (1997) who basically regard slang as a social means of identification and cohesiveness within a group (cf Allen 1998). A second fundamental approach is stylistic. In line with this, slang has to be arranged among the “varieties according to attitude” (Quirk et al 1985: 25-27) as it “includes words that are below the level of stylistically neutral language” (Stenstrom et al 2002: 67). A third relevant approach emphasizes the aspects of novelty and freshness of slang, and characterizes it as a language variety that exhibits a leaning towards lexical innovation (Dundes & Schonhorn 1963, Mencken 1967, Olesen & Whittaker 1968, Dumas & Lighter 1978. Sorrig In most agree that the word may be defined with least two senses. First, slang is the restricted speech of marginal or distinct subgroups in society and, second, it is a quite temporary, unconventional vocabulary characterized primarily connotations of informality and novelty. In the OED instance, siang is described both as the special vocabulary or phraseology of a particular calling or profession” and as a “language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard