Of Cockney and Gay Speak*

I finished recently a book entitled The Story of English, Third Edition (McCrum, MacNeil, Cran, 2003). The single volume discussed the spread of the English language from its humble European origins to becoming a sort of lingua franca of the globe. It’s a fascinating study of the evolution and acceptance of the language, whether to a primary, to a secondary, or to a completely different form.

I was fascinated by the 8^th Chapter of the book, The Echoes of an English Voice, and was particularly drawn to sections ‘The London Language’, and ‘Born Within the Sound of Bow Bells.’ These parts discussed Cockney, “simply the language of all Londoners who were not part of the Court, and was spoken by all sorts and conditions of people, craftsmen, clerks, shopkeepers, and tradesmen.” In short, it was language that was used by the working class.

As I read further, I observed that Cockney had some parallelism with what we call here in the Philippines as the gay speak. They had the love for the “nuances, rhythm, word-play, innovation” of the English language, just like that of gay speak. Cockney also had codes and rhyming slang. Both gay speak and Cockney evolved as the years passed. 

Examples of Cockney lifted from the book are: Cain and Abel for table, Tom Nicks for six, and Alan Whicker for nicker, which means pound. It got me thinking: how does it differ from the ones used in our country, such as Aida Gonzales for AIDS, Wynona Rider for (to be the) winner, and chapter for chaka, or ugly?

The difference is this: while Cockney is widely used (or even encouraged) to gain advantage (especially for the tradesmen), gay speak is more often that not shunned and discriminated upon because it is identified with a discriminated group of people. Cockney is overt, gay speak is not. For as long as the LGBT community is shunned upon, anything associated with them will also be shunned upon.

It is unfortunate, though, that there is an ugly side to gay speak, and it is something that everyone who uses the language should acknowledge. This is, I believe, one of the reasons why gay speak is frowned upon. The truth is is that we use it to insult or criticize others in their presence, especially those who don’t understand it. It’s like talking about them behind their back, only this time you talk about them right under their noses. Kind of rude, actually, and it’s a sad thought, but one that I am (shamefully) guilty of.

My opinion, though, is that gay speak is a colorful and fun language that we could use. I am sure that Cockney was and is used in the same manner as gay speak, that is, derogatory. But it shouldn’t end there. I do believe that gay speak was created for fun, and I think that it should stay that way. It would definitely make this society a gay-er place to live in. Flat shoes, mga ‘teh?

*Please note that the author is not a linguist, just someone with a broad interest.