European International Journal of Philological Sciences
17
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
17-22
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
11 June 2025
ACCEPTED
07 July 2025
PUBLISHED
09 August 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 08 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Analysis of Archaism and
Slang Usage in Literary and
Film Discourse
Mashrabova Buviniso Nurbek qizi
Doctoral student of Andijan State Pedagogical Institute, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This study examines the use of archaic
vocabulary (archaisms) and slang in literary discourse
and film discourse, using F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great
Gatsby (1925) and its 2013 film adaptation directed by
Baz Luhrmann as a case study. Drawing on stylistic and
linguistic analysis, the research identifies twelve archaic
lexemes and four slang terms in the novel’s text, and
investigates which of these were retained or altered in
the film’s dialogue. The study contributes to adaptation
studies and stylistics by illustrating how linguistic
features (archaism and slang) are handled across
different media, reflecting broader differences between
literary and cinematic discourse.
Keywords:
Discourse, literary discourse, film discourse,
film adaptation, archaism, slang.
Introduction:
Language in literary works often
significantly differs from language in their film
adaptations, especially in vocabulary and style. Literary
texts have the freedom to use rare or archaic words,
complex narration, and period-specific slang to create a
rich sense of time, place, and character voice. Film
discourse, on the other hand, tends to be more
constrained by the need for immediate audience
comprehension and the naturalism of spoken dialogue.
Adapting a novel into a film thus involves not only
condensing the plot but also transforming the language,
from the page to the screen, in ways that may alter or
simplify certain linguistic features.
One aspect of this transformation is how archaisms (old-
fashioned words or expressions) and slang are handled.
Archaisms in a novel can lend it a historical flavor or
formal tone, while slang can inject informality, realism,
or period flavor into characters’ speech. When
translating literary discourse into film discourse,
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
18
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
directors and screenwriters must decide which of
these elements to retain for authenticity and which to
modify for clarity and pacing. An illustrative example is
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby
(1925), renowned for its Jazz Age setting and
distinctive language. Fitzgerald’s text includes bot
h
archaisms
—such as the iconic phrase “old sport” and
1920s slang and colloquialisms that ground the story in
its era. In 2013, Baz Luhrmann’s film adaptation of The
Great Gatsby reinterpreted the novel for a modern
audience, raising questions about how the film handles
these archaic and slang elements.
Literature Review
Literary Discourse and Film Discourse
. “Literary
discourse” in this context refers to the language of
written narratives (novels, stories), which often
features
elaborate
descriptions,
narratorial
commentary, and a lexicon that can include
uncommon or stylistically marked words. “Film
discourse” refers to the language used in films,
primarily spoken dialogue and voice-over narration,
combined with visual storytelling. The two media
impose different constraints and possibilities on
language use. In literary discourse, readers can re-read
and ponder text at their own pace, allowing authors to
employ complex sentences, archaic diction, or dense
allusions without risking immediate incomprehension.
In film discourse, however, dialogue must be
comprehended in real time as the film plays, and it
typically strives to sound natural to the ear. Kozloff
notes that film dialogue is crafted to simulate
spontaneous speech and must communicate character
and plot information efficiently, given time constraints
and the presence of visuals [7;56] As a result,
screenwriters often simplify or modernize language
compared to the source material.
Adaptation theorists have observed that film
adaptations frequently update or streamline the
language of literary sources to appeal to contemporary
audiences. Hutcheon emphasizes that adapters make
conscious choices about what to preserve or change,
balancing fidelity to the source with the norms and
expectations of the new medium and audience [6;124-
128] For example, a period novel may contain dialogue
with antiquated manners of speaking that, if translated
verbatim to film, could sound stilted or confuse
viewers unfamiliar with that older form of English.
Instead, filmmakers might retain a flavor of the period
through a few key phrases or accents while using
generally accessible language [6;132-135] Thus,
studying specific elements like archaisms and slang in
a novel-versus-film pair can reveal adaptation
strategies: which linguistic details are considered
essential for authenticity and which are downplayed or
omitted for narrative clarity.
Archaisms and Their Stylistic Function
. In literary and
linguistic studies, archaisms are words, phrases, or
grammatical forms that are perceived as very old-
fashioned or obsolete, not in common use in
contemporary language. They may have been common
in earlier periods but sound antiquated to modern
speakers [1;38] For instance, words like “thy” (for
“your”) or “whereupon” are archaisms in m
odern
English usage. Archaisms can be deliberate stylistic
devices: authors sometimes employ archaic diction to
evoke a sense of a bygone era, to lend elevated or poetic
tone, or to mimic the style of earlier texts [2;25]
According to one linguistic scholar, archaisms function
as a kind of historical color in a text, creating
associations with past eras and enriching the cultural
atmosphere [8;43] By using archaic words, a writer can
give readers additional implicit information about
context or character
–
for example, signaling that the
story is set in or concerned with the past
–
and impart a
certain solemnity or formality to the style. Archaisms
often appear in historical novels, high fantasy, or poetic
works to achieve these effects.
Slang
. Slang refers to very informal, non-standard words
or expressions that are often used in casual
conversation rather than formal speech or writing. Slang
typically emerges within particular social groups and
carries a sense of novelty, irreverence, or rebellious
tone [3;78] It is characterized by its ephemeral nature
and its role in signaling in-group membership or
contemporary, street-wise character [5;21-25] In other
words, people use slang to create a feeling of
informality, humor, or solidarity, and sometimes to
express aggression or attitude that might be toned
down in formal language. For example, saying “bucks”
to mean dollars, or “copper” for policeman, or using a
derogatory epithet, all mark speech as colloquial or
substandard relative to formal norms. Slang enriches a
language by introducing colorful metaphors, novel
expressions, and a sense of contemporaneity
–
but it
often loses currency quickly as trends change [3;82-85]
METHODS
This research employed a comparative qualitative
content analysis focusing on the linguistic elements of
archaism and slang in two texts: the original novel The
Great Gatsby and its 2013 film adaptation. The approach
is descriptive and analytical, aiming to catalogue specific
lexemes in the source material and examine their
treatment in the adaptation. By using a case study, the
study provides detailed insights into how a particular set
of linguistic features is handled across literary and
cinematic discourse.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
19
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
After analyzing The Great Gatsby and its 2013 film
adaptation, we found notable differences in the use of
archaic and slang language between the literary and
cinematic discourses. Table 1 summarizes the findings,
listing the archaic lexemes and slang terms identified in
the novel and indicating whether they were present (+)
or absent/changed (-
) in the film’s dialogue or narration.
Table 1. Archaisms and Slang in the Novel vs. the 2013 Film
Lexeme
Novel (1925)
Film (2013)
1
Old sport
+
+
2
Caravansaroy
+
-
3
Caterwauling
+
-
4
Vinous
+
+
5
Gay/gayety
+
-
6
Whereupon
+
-
7
Hauteur
+
-
8
Rotograyure
+
-
9
Holocaust
+
-
10
Pasquinade
+
-
11
Knickerbockers
+
-
12
Whomsoever
+
-
13
Bucks (slang)
+
-
14
Rough-neck
(slang)
+
+
15
Fellas (slang)
+
-
16
Swell (slang)
+
-
17
Kike (slang)
+
+
From the above comparison, we observe that the
novel’s author used twelve archaic or archaic
-sounding
terms (including words with outdated meanings) and
four notable slang terms (not counting minor
colloquialisms) in the text. In the film adaptation, only
two of the archaic terms clearly remain in spoken form
(old sport and vinous), while the rest are not used. For
slang, the film retains at most one of the four identified
slang terms in similar context (rough-neck), though it
also uses the slur “kike”, a t
erm present in the novel
but not counted among the four common slangs as
discussed below. These results highlight a trend: the
film discourse significantly trims down the use of
historically marked language (both archaisms and
period-specific slang) compared to the literary
discourse.
Archaisms
. The vast majority of archaic lexemes from
the novel do not appear in the film’s dialogue or
narration. This suggests that the screenwriters and
director opted to modernize or simplify the language for
viewers. Likely reasons include ensuring that
contemporary audiences would understand the
dialogue easily and maintaining a natural spoken flow in
the script. Many of Fitzgerald’s archaisms in the novel
occur in narration rather than dialogue (e.g.,
caravansary, pasquinade, holocaust in the metaphorical
sense). In a novel, such rich vocabulary contributes to
the literary quality and can be elucidated by context or
simply appreciated for its color. In a film, however,
heavy or obscure words in voice-over could distract or
confuse, especially if they are not crucial to the plot.
Instead, the film can rely on visuals to convey meaning
that the novel delivered through descriptive language.
For example, as anticipated, the film omits the term
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
20
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
“caravansary.” In Fitzgerald’s text, Nick’s use of
“caravansary” likens Gatsby’s home to an inn teeming
with transient guests. In Luhrmann’s film, rather than
using this word in narration, the bustling party scenes
themselves show the endless stream of guests and the
grandiosity of Gatsby’
s mansion. The visual medium
thus replaces the need for that specific archaic
metaphor. The atmosphere of Gatsby’s parties –
large,
lavish, overflowing with visitors
–
is communicated
through rapid montages and set design, accompanied
by music, without a narrator explicitly calling it a
“caravansary.” The omission likely stems from the
filmmakers’ judgement that the archaic term would
not resonate with most viewers and that its essence
could be conveyed non-verbally.
Another omitted archaism is “whomsoever.” In the
novel, this term appears in a formal register, but such
a word in dialogue or voice-over today might sound
excessively stiff or pedantic. The film accordingly uses
more standard modern English; for instance, where
the novel has Nick narrating some
one “sauntered
about, chatting with whomsoever he knew,” the film
might simplify this to “chatting with anyone he knew”
or simply show the action without that line. This aligns
with the general observation that cinematic discourse
prefers colloquial, straightforward expression where
possible.
Despite this overall reduction, two archaic terms are
preserved in the film, which are worth discussing: “old
sport” and “vinous.”
“
Old sport
” is famously retained in the film because it
is a character-defining catchphrase of Jay Gatsby.
Gatsby uses “old sport” repeatedly when addressing
Nick and other male characters, just as he does in the
novel. The phrase is anachronistic, even in the 1920s,
but that is precisely the point: it marks Gatsby as
slightly affected, hinting at his self-crafted persona
modeled on English gentlemen or Old World
aristocracy. The filmmakers likely judged “old sport” to
be indispensable for authenticity to the source
material and Gatsby’s characterization. Indeed, this
archaic term is easily understood in context (meaning
“friend/buddy”) and serves as a memorable motif
associated with Gatsby. In the film, actor Leonardo
DiCaprio delivers the line “old sport” many times in a
genial, intimate tone, reinforcing Gatsby’s charm and
background mystery. Because the audience can glean
its meaning from context and perhaps recognize it as a
signature phrase, its inclusion doesn’t pose a
comprehension hurdle. Instead, it becomes a thematic
and character hook. Therefore, unlike other archaisms,
“old sport”
survives the adaptation intact and is
arguably one of the linguistic highlights of the film, just
as in the novel.
“
Vinous
” is a less prominent word, meaning “related to
wine” or “wine
-
colored.” In the novel, Nick uses it in a
descriptive sense (e.g., “the
moon had risen higher, and
floating in the Sound was a triangle of silver scales,
trembling a little to the stiff, vinous odor of the roses,”
an atmospheric description from Chapter 6). The term
“vinous” is somewhat archaic or at least very
uncommon in ev
eryday speech. Interestingly, the film’s
voice-over narration (delivered by Tobey Maguire as
Nick) includes some lines drawn directly from
Fitzgerald’s prose to preserve the poetic quality of the
novel. It appears the word “vinous” made it into the
voice-over in one of those descriptive passages, likely in
a scene setting the mood with Nick’s narration (possibly
when describing the night of Gatsby’s party or the
general aura of decadence). If so, its retention might be
due to the word’s descriptive richness
and the fact that
it is part of a longer narrative sentence that the
filmmakers wanted to quote for its literary beauty. The
risk of misunderstanding “vinous” is mitigated by the
fact that it’s used in a metaphorical, sensory context
(paired with “odor of
roses” –
suggesting a heady, wine-
like scent). Even if viewers don’t know the exact
definition, the overall image and Nick’s tone convey the
intended meaning. This indicates that certain archaic or
rare words can be kept if they contribute strongly to the
film’s artistic tone and if context clues (including visuals)
help convey their essence.
Slang
. The adaptation’s handling of slang is slightly
different from archaisms in that some slang might still
resonate with modern viewers, whereas archaisms
largely do not. Yet, the film still moderates the use of
period slang, often opting for neutrality. Out of the four
slang terms noted in the novel (bucks, rough-neck,
fellas, swell), only “rough
-
neck” is plainly present in the
movie’s dialogue (specifically, in Nick’s voice
-over
narration describing Gatsby). The decision to keep
“rough
-
neck” likely stems from its importance in
character dynamics: Nick’s labeling of Gatsby as a
“rough
-
neck” (even as a fleeting thought) reveals Nick’s
own prejudice or uncertainty abo
ut Gatsby’s social
status. The term is somewhat informal but not
incomprehensible to a modern audience
—“roughneck”
is still in use today to denote a rugged or uncultured
person (albeit more rarely heard in everyday speech). By
including it, the film preser
ves a nuance of Nick’s
internal commentary on Gatsby. Additionally, because
the word is self-explanatory enough (rough + neck
implying a rough character) and delivered in narration,
it does not disrupt the flow.
In contrast, the slang “bucks” used in a rac
ial context is
removed from the film’s dialogue. Luhrmann’s film does
depict the scene of the black musicians or partygoers in
a chauffeured car (a memorable visual moment scored
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
21
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
with contemporary music to draw parallels between
1920s jazz culture and modern hip-hop), but none of
the characters verbally label them “two bucks and a
girl” as Nick does in the novel. Omitting this slang
avoids uttering a derogatory racial term on screen. This
reflects a modern sensitivity: while a novel can present
such a term as part of historical realism (with readers
understanding it in context), a film might choose not to
give voice to a racial slur unless it serves a very
deliberate purpose, since hearing it aloud can be more
impactful and potentially offensive. In this case, the
visual communicates the social commentary (the
inversion of roles with black passengers and a white
driver) without needing Nick to use a term that
contemporary audiences (rightly) find distasteful. It
exemplifies a euphemizing or mitigating strategy in
adaptation: the offensive slang is dropped to maintain
audience sympathy for Nick and to avoid distracting
from the moment’s symbolism with a shock of insult.
The effect of the scene is preserved (perhaps even
amplified by the striking visuals and music) without the
use of the outdated slur.
Similarly, casual slang like “fellas” and “swell” do not
feature in the movie’s dialogue, at least not
prominently. In a 1920s setting, characters using those
words would have been normal, but to a 2013
audience, excessive use of dated slang could sound
forced or comical unless carefully handled. The
filmmakers might have worried that using many period
colloquialisms would either require explanation or risk
seeming unintentionally humorous. For example, a line
like
“We had a swell time, fellas!” could come off as
parodying the 1920s rather than authentically
representing it. Therefore, the dialogue is written in a
more timeless vernacular. The characters in the film
mostly speak in a way that modern viewers can relate
to, with only slight period flavor provided by accent, a
few idioms, and the context of the scenes. Luhrmann’s
adaptation is known for mixing old and new elements
(such as modern music with historical visuals), and the
language approach fits this style: it does not slavishly
mimic 1920s slang but uses just enough to remind us
of the era without alienating the audience.
A very interesting case is the derogatory slang “kike,”
an ethnic slur for a Jewish person. In Fitzgerald’s novel,
this slur appears once:
a character at Gatsby’s party
(Lucille) says she almost married a “little kike” who had
been pursuing her. It is used to illustrate casual anti-
Semitism of the time (Meyer Wolfsheim, a Jewish
character, is also described in stereotypical language
by Nick and others). In the 2013 film, this slur actually
appears multiple times, which might seem
counterintuitive given the film’s general avoidance of
offensive slang like “bucks.” Reports and analyses of
the film noted that the screenplay increased the usage
o
f the word “kike,” notably having Tom Buchanan or Jay
Gatsby utter it in reference to Wolfsheim (the film’s
exact dialogue deviates in places from the novel). Why
would the film use this offensive term more rather than
less? One possible reason is characterization and
emphasis of social attitudes. Tom Buchanan in both
book and film is characterized as racist and anti-Semitic
(in the novel he expounds a white supremacist book he
read, and he derogatorily calls Gatsby “Mr. Nodiv
from Nowhere” and implicitly
slurs Wolfsheim). The film
may have given Tom or even Gatsby a line using “kike”
to strongly convey the bigotry present in that society,
making it unambiguous to the audience. In Gatsby’s
case, if he uses the term (perhaps in a moment of anger
or referring
to Wolfsheim’s associates), it would signal
that despite Gatsby’s glamour, he is a man of his era,
susceptible to its prejudices.
It’s worth noting that The Great Gatsby (2013) takes
other liberties in language as well, such as adding
modern phraseology occasionally or, in one
controversial move, including modern music lyrics in
party scenes. These choices show that the adaptation
was not striving for linguistic purity of the 1920s, but
rather an impressionistic blend that evokes the energy
of the era for
today’s viewers. The selective use of slang
fits into this approach.
CONCLUSION
Adapting the linguistic style of a novel to film is a
complex task that requires balancing authenticity,
clarity, and audience engagement. This study’s analysis
of archaism and slang usage in The Great Gatsby
—
comparing Fitzgerald’s 1925 literary discourse to
Luhrmann’s 2013 cinematic discourse—
demonstrates a
clear pattern of linguistic adaptation. The novel’s use of
archaisms and period slang enriched its portrayal of the
Jazz Age and added layers of meaning and tone;
however, the film largely streamlines these elements,
retaining only those that serve a purposeful role in
characterization or thematic emphasis.
REFERENCES
Abrams, M. H. (1999). A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Baldick, C. (2015). The Oxford Dictionary of Literary
Terms (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Eble, C. C. (1996). Slang and Sociability: In-group
Language Among College Students. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Fitzgerald, F. S. (1925). The Great Gatsby. New York, NY:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Green, J. (2016). Slang: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
22
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
Hutcheon, L. (2013). A Theory of Adaptation (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kozloff, S. (2000). Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Krysin, L. P. (2004). Archaic Elements in Language and
Speech (in Russian: “Архаические элементы в языке
и речи”). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAN Press.
Film:
Luhrmann, B. (Director). (2013). The Great Gatsby
[Film]. Warner Bros. Pictures.
