WIXLIB

APPROPRIATION OFAFRICAN AMERICAN SLANG513existing order’ (1965: 699).Yet slang does not always mark resistance nor doessuch resistance always manifest itself in a binary division between ‘society’and ‘anti-society’ (Halliday 1976). Using slang to divide youth identities isoftentimes more important to adolescents than using slang to separate youthsubcultures from the dominant mainstream (Bucholtz 2001).While slang is commonly understood as ephemeral and informal vocabulary, researchers have focused more on identifying slang by its effects, ratherthan by its form or meanings (Eble 2004). Given this focus on communicativeeffect, which is contingent on multiple contextual factors in any interactionalinstance of slang use, there is no precise formula for knowing if a particularterm or phrase qualifies as slang. Thus rather than marking a clear lexicalterritory, slang describes a fluid range of words and expressions that locatesits users within some social terrain. Similar to how the concept of ‘style’ hasbeen approached by many sociolinguists (e.g. Bell 1984; Coupland 1985, 2001;Eckert and Rickford 2001), slang should not be defined by its internalinventory, but by how principles of differentiation organize the relationships and distinctiveness between slang and its alternatives (cf. Irvine 2001).This article is thus primarily concerned with how slang emerges withina contrastive system of discursive options and produces various socialmeanings and effects linked to issues of race, appropriation, andauthentication.Although work on slang has emerged over the past few decades, only a smallnumber of studies have moved beyond methodological approaches that relyalmost exclusively on questionnaires and elicited definitions of slang terms.Yet the process of construing the effects of slang should be less interested inthe actual slang terms themselves, and more interested in how slang emergesin interaction. By relying on reports of slang usage rather than analyzingslang use, researchers may be accessing ideologies of slang but not the practicesof slang (Bucholtz 2001). As researchers move slang-in-use to the center ofinquiry, they may discover implicit discursive strategies that construct additional meanings and functions of slang that are missed by more traditionalapproaches that rely solely on slang definitions at face value.Such examinations of how slang emerges in interaction can access nativemetapragmatic stereotypes about slang (Agha 1998, 2001). That is, researchers can examine the details of interaction to discover the stereotypes that areinvoked and linked to the use of slang in particular interactional contexts.These stereotypes emerge through denotationally explicit and implicitmetapragmatic evaluations (Silverstein 1976, 1993). That is, sometimes thestereotypes are stated explicitly by interactants and sometimes theyare accomplished implicitly through linguistic patterns that reveal the subtlemeanings and evaluations that participants construct for slang.To decipher the metapragmatics of slang, researchers can analyze indexicalpatterns in interaction. Although the literal meaning of a slang term is somewhat stable, its indexical value is not nearly as fixed. One referential value of# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

514REYESthe slang term cool, for example, is basically ‘good’, an adjective that indicates apositive assessment of some entity or practice. How the use of cool is indexicalof a type of personhood that is set in social and cultural relation to the speakerand audience, however, is indecipherable without appeal to the situation ofutterance. Like pronominal indexicals, such as ‘they’and ‘we’, whose meaningsare reliant on their occasion of use, slang terms also rely partly on surroundingcontext for their meaningfulness, while making salient particular aspects ofcontext (Benveniste 1971[1954]; Peirce 1932; Silverstein 1976). For example,while uttering cool can signal participation in youth culture when usedcasually by a teenager, it can conversely signal exclusion from youth culturewhen used awkwardly by an adult.Thus, slang can achieve multiple meanings and effects depending on contextual factors, such as who utters it, who is listening, in what situations, forwhat purposes, and so on. In this article I analyze how the Asian Americanteens used African American slang, a practice through which indexical linksmay run wild, possibly functioning to reproduce, challenge or redefine thesocial and interactional effects of slang. Coupling ethnographic data of participant perspectives with the close analysis of indexical patterns in interaction,I examine the implicit meanings and effects that are most likely achievedthrough the use of slang.3. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTSThis article is part of a four-year (1999 2002) ethnographic and discourseanalytic study of an Asian American teen video-making project at the AsianArts Initiative, a community arts organization located near Philadelphia’sChinatown.3 This project, which engaged a new group of about 15 teenagerseach year, met weekly from February to June. Teens, with the help of adultartists and volunteers, critically discussed issues relevant to their lives andcommunities, created a script based out of these discussions, then filmedand edited a 15-minute video that reflected their real-life experiences andperspectives. These videos were then screened at conferences, film festivals,community organizations, and schools. Over the years I was a volunteerand coordinator of the video-making project, and also a staff member of theAsian Arts Initiative. Data collection methods included participant observation,fieldnotes, interviews, and audio and video recording of interactions at projectsessions and video screenings.Most of the teens and their families immigrated from Cambodia, Laos andVietnam to poor urban neighborhoods in Philadelphia. While the majority ofteens were second generation, meaning they were American-born to foreignborn parents, the rest of the teens would be considered ‘1.5 generation’(Rumbaut and Ima 1988), as they were born in South-east Asian countries orin refugee camps or processing centers in Thailand or the Philippines then# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

APPROPRIATION OFAFRICAN AMERICAN SLANG515immigrated to the United States before adolescence, and in most cases beforethe age of five. According to the ‘segmented assimilation’ model by Portes andZhou (1993), rather than assimilating to the dominant white majority in theUnited States, several teens in this study were traveling the second trajectory:acculturation to socially and economically marginalized minority communities.Like many immigrant minorities settling in poor urban areas across the UnitedStates, most of the teens at the video-making project identified more with theexperiences of low-income African Americans than with those of the whitemainstream. Since their neighborhoods and schools were multi-ethnic thoughpredominantly African American, the Asian American teens had more contactwith African Americans than European Americans. Participating heavily inhip hop culture, the vast majority of teens wore clothing, accessories, make-upand hair styles popular among African American youth, and many of the maleteens practiced breakdancing, graffiti art, spinning records, rapping and R&Bsinging at the video-making project and in their neighborhoods.Not only did several teens embrace social practices linked to AfricanAmericans in the formation of their identities, they also incorporated linguistic features linked to African Americans in their speech. In discourse excerptstaken from Reyes (2002, 2004) and from this article, the teens produced thefollowing linguistic features often said to be restricted to AAVE: copula ellipsis(e.g. ‘yo yo he Cambo’, ‘it like’, ‘you still Philly’, ‘they coming up’); absenceof third person present tense (e.g. ‘he know how to protect himself’, ‘he tryto come’, ‘she look kinda aite’); and negative concord (e.g., ‘they don’t knownothing’, ‘you don’t got no problem’). Although it may be the case that a fewteens spoke AAVE systematically, it is more accurate to characterize the speechof the majority of the teens as a hybrid variety that frequently incorporated features of AAVE as well as features of Mainstream American English (MAE) andof Vietnamese, Khmer (Cambodian), Lao or other home languages of the teens.The teens who did not take on lifestyles and speech practices associated enotresidinginpoorneighborhoods, but in working-class or middle-class areas predominated by EuropeanAmericans. These teens were also the ones who tended to be ridiculed or at theveryleast socially marked for their self- orother-identified incompetence in slang.4. AITE AND NA MEANThrough morphological processes of word formation, the phrases ‘all right’and‘do you know what I mean?’ produce, respectively, the slang expressions, aiteand na mean. In conjunction with phonological modifications, word blendingforms aite [a i?t] (also spelled, for example,‘aight’, ‘aiight’, the latter iconicallyorthographizing vowel lengthening), and word blending and clipping form namean [na65mi?n] or [nja65mi?n] (also spelled, for example,‘nya mean’,‘nameen’).Similar to the various functions of the expressions ‘all right’ and ‘do you know.# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

516REYESwhat I mean?’ in MAE, aite was often used by the teens as an adjective (e.g.‘shelook kinda aite’), while both aite and na mean were frequently used as discoursemarkers drawing interactants into seemingly shared meanings and stancesby, for example, seeking agreement, comprehension or attention (for example:‘I got this idea, aite?’; ‘it’s just run down, na mean?’) (cf. Schiffrin 1987). Aiteand na mean are commonly recognized as having emerged from AfricanAmerican culture in the past decade or so, and are often still considered to bespoken primarily by African Americans. Yet any potential racial marking ofthese slang expressions relies less on their pragmatic function and more on theirphonetic contour and contextual placement, as will be shown below.I argue that aite and na mean are slang terms and not simply phonologicalvariants or pragmatic particles since they constitute alternatives to the conventional expressions ‘all right’and ‘do you know what I mean?’. That is, aite andna mean are often deliberatelychosento send social signals: for example, to conveyan informal or flippant attitude or to identify with a trend or social group. A similar logic supports the view of diss ‘disrespect’as a slang expression as well: thoughsome might argue that diss as well as aite and na mean are merely clippedwords, Eble (2004) recognizes diss as a slang term because of its social force.Over all four years of the video-making project, several teens frequently usedaite and na mean, among other African American slang expressions. Anh(Vietnamese-Cambodian-Chinese American female), Sokla and Bao (CambodianAmerican males) for example, regularly said aite and na mean in everyday interaction.4 There were some teens, however, who rarely used these slang terms.These teens typically lived in predominantly white, middle-class neighborhoods on the outskirts of urban Philadelphia. Anh, Sokla, Bao and severalothers who habitually used aite and na mean resided in poor neighborhoods inSouth Philadelphia with large African American populations.Yet often Anh, Sokla and Bao’s performances of slang were linguisticallymarked. For example, as Sokla was preparing to appear on camera momentsbefore a video shoot, he repeated na mean numerous times before the camerarolled, as if he needed to practice his delivery of this slang phrase. Likewise,Anh sometimes paused before she said na mean; and a few times Anh said ‘allright, aite’as if repairing ‘all right’ by immediately following it with aite. Theseteens may have been deliberately trying to speak African American slang, andthus deliberately trying to display a self-image that linked themselves moreclosely to African American culture or urban youth identity (cf. Eble 2004).Thus African American-inspired youth culture emerged with local prestige asmany teens admired and aspired to it through their linguistic choices, as wellas through their music, clothing and other lifestyle practices.Yet by rehearsingAfrican American slang and hesitating before speaking it, some teensconstructed slang as a more forced aspect of their speech repertoires.# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

APPROPRIATION OFAFRICAN AMERICAN SLANG5175. RACIALIZATION OF SLANGThese next few sections analyze how the teens racialized slang or authenticated identities as slang speakers. This first discourse excerpt from a projectsession of the video-making project in 2002 reveals how the Asian Americanteens directly linked ‘slang’ to ‘ghettoness’, and later racialized the use of slangas ‘black’ speech. In this interaction, Macy (Vietnamese American female) istrying to teach Will (Chinese American male) how to speak slang, specificallythe phrase na mean. Anh (Vietnamese-Cambodian-Chinese American female)and Van (Vietnamese American female) also enter the conversation.Excerpt 151 Macy: say na mean (.)Will [come on2 Van:[I can’t talk slang3 Macy: you can’t?4 Will:what’s slang5 Anh:[slang6 Macy: [sla::ng7 Will:oh what’s slang oh- oh sla::ng8 Van:except if I’m really mad9 Will:[na mean (.) na mean10 Macy: [hmm hmm hmm the ghettoness comes out11 Van:heh heh yes heh hehIn this interaction slang becomes metapragmatically equated with anger andghettoness while a social boundary based on slang competency is constructed tosetVan andWill apart from Macy and Anh.Van, who‘can’t talk slang’ (line 2), andWill, who asks ‘what’s slang?’ (line 4) stand in contrast to both Macy, who modelsna mean forWill (line1), and Anh, who responds inunison with Macy by repeatingthe word ‘slang’ (lines 5 and 6) as if in disbelief that Will does not even knowthe term.Van goes on to say that she can talk slang but only if she is ‘really mad’(line 8). Macy, then, explicitly links speaking slang to‘ghettoness’ (line10), whichlike na mean, is another slang term popularized byAfrican American culture.65.1 Dual indexicalityTwo weeks later, I asked Van what she meant when she said that she onlyspeaks slang when she is angry.Van said that when she is angry, she wants tobe more ‘scary’or ‘mean’. She then said:Excerpt 212Van:it makes me feel ‡black‡, or at least South PhillyTaking excerpts (1) and (2) together, ‘slang’ becomes discursively linked tobeing ‘mad’, ‘ghetto’, ‘black’ and ‘South Philly’. Van lowered her voice to awhisper when she said the word ‘black’ to me (line 12), which might indicate# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

518REYESthat Van did not want to be overheard, as if it was embarrassing or wrong tosay. Yet not only does Van racialize slang as belonging to African Americans,she also regionalizes it as South Philadelphia speech. Van, who did not live inSouth Philadelphia, located slang as a dialect of this area, which was largelyAfrican American. Her explicit reference to South Philadelphia elucidates thatit was place of residence but also class and race that distinguishes the twogroups of teens: slang incompetent Van and Will, who lived in middle-classneighborhoods on the outskirts of Philadelphia, and slang competent Macyand Anh, who lived in poor neighborhoods in South Philadelphia.That slang makes Van ‘feel black’ reveals how her racialization and appropriation of slang relied on ‘dual indexicality’ (Hill 1995; Ochs 1990). By usingslang to directly index herself as tough, Van reaped the benefits of the stereotype of the aggressive African American portrayed in popular culture asviolent, criminal and deviant (Ronkin and Karn 1999; van Dijk 1987).Although Van may draw on the stereotype of violence out of admiration, shealso indirectly indexed African Americans negatively by reproducing thestereotype.Van profited from the effects of her racialized linguistic resource asshe appropriated the local social capital linked to an imagined formidableAfrican American from South Philadelphia.Yet while the linguistic appropriation allowed her to construct a tough identity for herself, it did not require Vanto experience any other aspects of being African American that are lived everyday (Smitherman 2000). Although such language crossing practices allowspeakers to transgress fluid linguistic, ethnic and cultural boundaries, Vanrevealed how these practices can also reinforce social hierarchies and racialideologies in everyday interaction (Rampton 1999).5.2 Triple indexicalityThrough racializing and appropriating slang, Van relied on dual indexicalitywhile other teens, I argue, relied on triple indexicality not only to reflect positivelyon the borrower and negatively on the borrowee, but also to construct alliancesbetween Asian Americans and African Americans. Chun (2001), in her study ofJin, a Korean American male who uses imagined AAVE and African Americanslang terms, finds three such effects. First, Jin reproduces stereotypes of hyperheterosexual African American masculinity through his use of AAVE slangterms, such as booty, which emphasizes the objectification of female bodies.Second, through his appropriation of African American maleness, Jin uses AAVEto negotiate his Korean American male identity by challenging stereotypes ofAsian American men as passive and sexless. Third, Jin appropriates AAVE slangterms, such as whitey, to criticize European American domination. This lastindexical effect creates an alliance between Asian Americans and AfricanAmericans based on shared discrimination as people of color.Like Jin, Sokla (Cambodian American male) metapragmatically constructedan explicit alliance between African Americans and Asian Americans but,# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

APPROPRIATION OFAFRICAN AMERICAN SLANG519unlike Jin, the alliance only worked with a certain kind of Asian American: theOther Asian. Sokla often disting

a linguistically distinct form of English and a racially distinct group (Reyes and Lo 2004). Although evidence for an ‘Asian American English’ akin to AAVE or Latino English has generally been