Ijoness 15 STR 21-36

_____________________________https://ijoness.
com__________________________
International Journal of New Economics and Social Sciences № 1(15)2022
AN ANALYSIS OF PRISON SLANG

IN POLISH AND ENGLISH
PENITENTIARY SYSTEM - SELECTED EXAMPLES
Dominika Gałek 1), Konrad Wierzbicki 2)
1)
Academy of Justice, Warsaw
ul. Wiśniowa 50, 02-520 Warsaw, Poland
* Corresponding author: e-mail: dominikagalek@yahoo.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6796-1194
2)
PhD / Academy of Justice, Warsaw,
ul. Wiśniowa 50, 02-520 Warsaw, Poland
* Corresponding author: e-mail: konrad.wierzbicki@swws.edu.pl
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9481-9572
______________________________________________________________________________
Article history:
Received: 12.05.2022 Accepted: 15.06.2022 Published: 30.06.2022
JEL Classification: F 50, H 50
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
This article discusses elements of criminal vocabulary (criminal dialect) that appear in the state-
ments of people serving prison sentences in Poland and Great Britain. A fundamental difficulty in
the process of researching criminal vocabulary is access to reliable sources of research material.
The literature on the subject points in particular to the lack of studies in the given area. In the case
of the prison environment, some characteristic words or phrases of the criminal subculture may
penetrate into the colloquial language. Some, especially young people, fascinated by criminal life,
the underworld, pride themselves on knowing the criminal dialect and are freely using it. Phrases
of the prison dialect often appear in musical works performed by rappers, which testifies to its
pervasion behind the "prison walls".
Keywords: prison systems, criminal dialect, resocialization
Statement of the problem in general outlook and its connection with important sci-
entific and practical tasks
Through communication, people say various ways of saying equivalent meaning. Lan-
guage is the main communication device for human being. The language is evolving all
the time as a result of the social conditions and the human life. According to Chaika [1]
language is based on the needs, desire and demand of speakers. Every speaker has skills
to create innovative words, use old words in a fresh composition, combine new sentences,
and syndicate sentences into exclusively new oration. Language is so varied that it would
be hard to envisage a single core that could be used as a symbolic sample of all language.
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Gałek D., Wierzbicki K., (2022) An Analysis of Prison Slang in Polish and English Penitentiary System - Selected Examples
International Journal of New Economics and Social Sciences 2 (14) 2021: 21 - 36
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
21
_____________________________https://ijoness.com__________________________
Language is the basis of all the social relationships that make up the human society. The
language of penitentiary facilities, like any other specialist language, uses specialized
terms, partly professional terms and colloquial vocabulary. In order to fully understand
the defined event, it is first essential to know the phenomenon of the prison subculture.
This phenomenon is still little known about and mysterious, and at the same time, over-
whelmed by many myths and misunderstandings. A prison is a specific microsystem, a
closed institution of a total nature, and despite the ongoing cooperation with individuals,
external institutions continue to have tasks to be fulfilled in certain structures. This be-
comes an important research category of image created of the world and its verbal mani-
festation. This image reproduces the collective ways of learning and valued reality.
There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of sociolinguistics
as the main instrument of slang. Recent studies evidenced that the prison cohesion has its
own cultural norms, and expectations – extremely similar to community.
In a ways that Hudson [2] agrees in Wardhaugh [3] who says that sociolinguistics is the
study of language in relation to society that includes the aspects of linguistics applied
toward the connections between language and society, and the way people use it in dif-
ferent social situations. The sociolinguists point out the importance of learning the lan-
guage as a result it shows the stratification in a certain division of society according to
groups. Illustrating how inmates talk differently with each other and to the outsiders or
how do they behave.
Knowledge of the vocabulary used by inmates allows the prison staff to better understand
the processes involved in a given group of inmates and to select appropriate methods and
means of rehabilitation. Prisons are an artificial creation with a specific social climate and
general character.
A characteristic feature of prisons is the adherence to certain procedures and strict rules
of conduct. It is an institution that does not create natural conditions for the rehabilitation
process.
Wierzbicki [4] looking at the prison reality of the selected penitentiary he distinguished
the most common structure characterizes the criminal prison community. The groups are
usually headed by leaders - independent leaders from organized crime structures, the in-
feriors are in status members of the 'management staff', inmates who constitute the 'gov-
erning body' advisory ”and also performs a leadership function. The lower in rank are the
so-called "Soldiers", convicted possessors specific predispositions to undertake activities
of a nature criminal interests. The characteristic of each penitentiary subculture is a spe-
cific language, explicit forms of behaviour and a specific set of values.
In the Polish penitentiary system, the issue of the "second life" is not a new problem in
the area of justice activities. On the other hand, this awareness should not stop us from
searching for new solutions in the field of broadly understood penitentiary prevention and
counteracting negative phenomena of the prison subculture. For many years, the issue of
prison under-molding has been one of the main areas of interest for judicial authorities
and representatives of the scientific community. The process of penitentiary social reha-
bilitation is a set of planned and thoughtful corrective interactions, directed to the perpe-
trator of a crime serving a custodial sentence. These interactions are intended to prepare
the offender to return to society after serving a custodial sentence.
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
22
Analysis of latest research where the solution of the problem was initiated
A fundamental difficulty in the process of researching criminal vocabulary is access to
reliable sources of research material. The literature on the subject points in particular to
the lack of studies in the given area. The linguistic variation is considered by the majority
of sociolinguists and semioticians as a linguistic wonder distant from being something to
be despised and eradicated. The research investigates elements of the evolution of under-
standing and comparing prison jargon that appears in the statements of inmates in Poland
and the Great Britain.
Consequently, we could say about the identity of expression function of prison slang. As
claimed by a considerable number of researchers dealing with the subject of prison sub-
culture, such as, for example, Moczydłowski [33], Przybyliński [34], Einat and Livnat
[37], the peculiar language variety used by prisoners plays a major role in reflecting the
beliefs, attitudes, needs and philosophies that are basic aspect of an inmate identity. Iden-
tity in given aspect is understood as the social positioning of self and others (Bucholtz &
Hall [38].
Aims of paper. Methods

This article is a qualitative research which is using descriptive method. It is designed from
the procedure of analyzing, deliberating , discovering a social phenomenon which occurs
naturally. Additionally, it employs searching technique, collecting data then classifying
and interpreting the data and constructing conclusion. The information includes primary
and secondary data. The primary data consists of dialogue scripts and terms which are
current in Polish and English slang. Meanwhile, the secondary data of this article is
throughout history. This model receives attention in further explained section. Also to
conduct an analysis of prison language. The research of this article sets slang as part of
culture, therefore it is problematic to draw strict margins between words that are CSIs and
those that are not.
Exposition of main material of research with complete substantiation of obtained

scientific results. Discussion
Language, communication and ethnography
As claimed by Hymes [5], speech events contain one or more speech acts. Frequent
speech events may occur synchronously and successfully in some conversations. In addi-
tion, there are several phases of speech events that are condensed as speaking. They are
S (setting), (P) participants, (E) ends, (A) act characteristics, (K) key, (I) instrumentalities,
(N) norms and (G) genres. Hymes stated that the setting refers to the time and place while
scene describes the environment of the situation. Participants refer to who is taking part
in the conversation- the speaker, addressee, and audience. Ends- the outcomes and aims
of the event from cultural point of view. Act sequence defines how something is said.
Key indicates the manner, the mood and atmosphere that leads the addressee to the hidden
message of the addresser. Keys may be seen as important features that can affect lan-
guage variation. Instrumentalities are a method of how the addresser sends information
to the listener. This method could be written or spoken. Likewise, the method of speech
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
23
is related to the code (English, Polish, etc.) and sub code (dialect, jargon, slang, colloquial,
etc.). At this point the norms are essential which refer to the rules used within conserva-
tion and interaction. Describes what is socially suitable at the speech event. Culture in
community creates its own set of norms of interaction used by itself. Those norms try to
encode the actual meaning. Another speaking model is the genre, which a type of speech
that is being given at a particular time at a certain place. It may be daily language, edito-
rial, prayer, etc.
Language, communication and ethnography fits together resolutely with each other.
These three objects draw together the key findings upon human cultural space to the hu-
manity. The variability or perception of communication is depended on social or cultural
personalities. Therefore, communication controls the individualism and the social status
with group solidarity.
In communications, addresser has a various way of saying the same meaning. Different
words refer to the same meaning, thus we could conclude that language exists in a number
of varieties. For instance, inmates choose between words for weapon feature, such as:
chiffy, shank, shivvie which is an improvised knife made by prisoners. Another example,
shiv means “to stab someone”, in Polish slang “żenić kosę” has the same meaning. More
examples are illustrated in table 1. (English cant comes from Angela Devlin “Prison Patter
a Dictionary of prison words and slang and Polish grypserka matched with the glossary
of Maciej Szaszkiewicz, “Tajemnice Grypserki”).
Table 1. Language Varieties

English “cant” Polish “grypserka” Literal meaning
newly arrived inmate fish noworodek infant
to prison
judge Vanilla (fudge) kat Pontius Pilate
hand cuffs C&R różaniec rosary
prison officer in boss fortepian piano
charge
a doctor pill pusher piguła pill
informer Snide/ snake/ snitch kapusta cabbage
money bread and honey blank Polish coat of arms
isolation cell segs boks box

prison bin chata za wsią cottage behind the vil-
lage
arrested pull/ sus hatrać argue
prison kitchen cook- copperman Kocioł cauldron
ing pot
strong tea cup of diesel czaj very strong tea for in-
toxication
steal chore handel trade
prison officer flue/screw klawisz key
gun rod murzyn Polish word for a
black person
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
24
to serve a prison sen- lay-in-state rok year

tence
serving a life sen- from-now-on/ koło circle
tence
tobacco burn machora cigarette
bed crisp packet koliba seasonal shelter for
shepherds, hunters
and lumberjacks
Source: Devlin, A. Prison Patter A Dictionary of Prison Words and slang; Szaszkiewicz, M. Tajemnice Gryps-
erki (Secrets of Grypserka).
As it could be seen from the table 1, the difference in forming prison slang according to
the region variation. Hudson [6] demonstrates a variety of language as a “set of linguistic
items with similar distribution, and we shall treat all the languages of some multilingual
speaker, or community, as a single variety” thus Polish and English are varieties. This
concept affects that “a variety can be something better than a single language as well as
something less, less even than something traditionally referred to as a dialect”. Ferguson
[7], suggests a different definition of variety: “anybody of human speech patterns which
is sufficiently homogeneous to be analyzed by available techniques of synchronic de-
scription and which has a sufficiently large repertory of elements and their arrangements
or processes with broad enough semantic scope to function in all formal contexts of com-
munication”.
The unique vocabulary of prisoners in England is mostly different from that of non-in-
mates in Polish “grypserka”. Thus may be assumed of understandings for creating a co-
hension in the environment.
The connection between Hudson and Ferguson is that they both define variety as a spe-
cific “linguistic items” or “human speech patterns” as in a distinctive manner of oral ex-
pression such as words, sounds, or grammatical aspects. Those specific “items” are re-
lated to outside factor for example, particular place, or a social group. Nonetheless, vari-
ation, frequently considers the level of the penal institution and the sociological features
of subgroup members, is obvious. There are four kinds of language variation in existence.
They are idiolect, dialect, social dialect, and temporal dialect. According to Chaer &
Agustina [8], idiolect is the language variation being in a high position to human’s life. It
can be seen as the own language variation of addresser. Idiolect variations communicates
through colors of voice, language style, choice of words or sentence order. The colors of
voice are the most dominant feature in language variation. Therefore, someone will be
able to recognize by listening to voice without seeing the person. Dialect on the other
hand, is based on the place, region or area where the users living in a particular place [8].
Dialectics have special characteristics that mark themselves as people who have the same
dialect but they have a different idiolect. Spolsky [9], concluded that regional dialects
incline less differences from their close neighbors and superior differences from distant
neighbors. The variances can be in terms of syntax, pronunciation and choice of words.
Lastly, the term dialect should not be confused with the term accent. Good example,
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
25
standard English is spoken in a variety of accent often with clear regional association.
Accents are associated for example with Liverpool, North America, India, and so on.
Another variation is social dialect that involves itself with the socioeconomic class and
status. Sociolect is the most spoken language variation and intense to talk about. The term
sociolect is frequently exchanged without making any difference with social dialect.
Trudgill [10] states that: “a variety or lect which is thought of as being related to its
speakers’ social background rather geographical background”.
To put it another way, it is the language spoken by a particular social group, class or
subculture, whose factors include such criteria as: gender, age, occupation, religion, social
status, etc. Furthermore, dialects are complicated by the fact that speakers can implement
different styles of speaking. Style is the way speakers speak, the speaker also can make a
choice weather informal or formal and its dependent on the circumstance and the age and
social group of the participant.
In line with Wilkoń [11], who first used the term of sociolect in Polish sociolinguistic
literature, sociolects are “language varieties related to such social groups as: class, com-
munity and professional groups”. What differentiates a sociolect from the standard diver-
sity is its lexical repertoire, which is based on social backgrounds of a specific-group.
This is because a social group generates its own sociolect which is language. As pursuant
to Grabias’s [12] typology social dialect of violent language is based on three supreme
sociolectal categories:
1. professionalism – the usefulness of linguistic devices in the professional activity of the
group;
2. secrecy – the ability to code information to make it accessible only to selected individ-
uals;
3. expressiveness – means of conveying attitudes to extra-linguistic reality.
It is obvious that in some sociolects users may intentionally code information to make it
inaccessible to others. According to Grabias [12], the typology of Polish sociolects is
based variables such as: secrecy, professionalism, and expressiveness.
For a very long time, Wilkoń [11] rightly stressed out that informal system of communi-
cation which is the “secrecy” is being limited by official rules primarily by criminal
groups, which operate on the boundaries of society, no longer plays a pivotal role in mod-
ern communication – a notion which nowadays seems even more current. Wilkoń [13]
states, the sociolects of criminal groups are not designed to hide information but serve as
a tool for reconstructing the image of the biosphere. In the final stage of theoretical in-
vestigation social dialect is connected with other language variations such as jargon,
slang, argot and cant.
Temporal dialect - "pains of imprisonment"
Lastly, the fourth variation is the temporal dialect used by social group in particular place
and time. For instance, the language variation may be seen in the evolution of English
language time by time [8]. The development of English had begun from the Old English
in the year of 600 to 1100, the Middle English in the year of 1100 to 1450, the Early
Modern English in the year of 1450 to 1700 until the Modern English in the year of 1700
up to now [14].
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
26
From the paragraphs above the terminological confusion, which come from the detail that
social varieties are unpredictable, demonstrated by concepts as: different social variety,
jargon, slang, cant, code, sublanguage, and perchance several other. As Zwicky and
Zwicky says: ‘Anyone who wants to talk about the many varieties of a language is im-
mediately faced with severe problems, the initial manifestations of which are largely ter-
minological’. [15].
Language choice is separated into three potentials. The first is to choose two or more
languages that involve code switching. The use of code mixing is the second possibility.
The last one is use the sets of variants within the same language in any given situation.
The members of society must go along with a set of rules when they use language varia-
tion. Members obtain the rules base on their experience that can be a linguistic infor-
mation. The rules also characterize a certain society group.
Into the bargain, language choice involves the intention. Speaker must have a precise
motivation or intention in use of the language variety rather than the standard variety.
According to Chaika, [1], the choosing of language variety has several purposes for in-
stance to show harmony, friendship and assertion of group loyalty. Cases occur when
someone deals with the language variant correlated to language choice because he needs
extra effort to figure out the meaning. In addition, slang is one of the language variant
which occurs in English.
Sociolinguists define dialect as the vocabulary of a particular social group-including crim-
inals. Slang functions because it reconstructs the existence, “ordering and classifying ex-
perience within the walls in terms which deal specifically, with the major problems of
prison life” Sykes [16], claims that the convicts live differently from ordinary society,
and as a result dialect arises. The secret language is very simplistic, mechanical interpre-
tation of linguistic change. “Inmates throw all kinds of grit into the machinery of custodial
power, so that the dominance is more fiction than reality, and obedience is a doubtful and
dubious proposition” Sykes [16].
Sykes [16], gives inmates a common identity, combined group cohesion and union con
prison staff. As reported by Sykes [16] the ‘pains of imprisonment’ contribute to the mor-
tification process by the deprivation of liberty. The brutalized features of prison cohesion
have the effect of disrupting the social roles prisoners adopted outside the prison and
challenging their individuality, leading to what Foucault describes as ‘a aesthetics of ex-
istence’.
According to Wikipedia slang is “ vocabulary of an informal register, common in spoken
conversation but avoided in formal writing. It also sometimes refers to the language gen-
erally exclusive to the members of particular in-groups in order to establish group iden-
tity, exclude outsiders, or both. Vocabulary is normally employed in a specific commu-
nicative background and may not be well understood outside that background. The main
characteristic that distinguishes slang from the rest of a language is special vocabulary—
including some words specific to it and often different senses or meanings of words, that
outgroups would tend to take in another sense—therefore misunderstanding that commu-
nication attempt. Language is sometimes understood as a form of technical slang and then
distinguished from the official terminology used in a particular field of activity”. This is
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
27
a phenomenon that cause a barrier to communication as many may not understand a clan-
destine language used by various groups, including thieves and other criminals, to prevent
outsiders from understanding their conversations.
From the definition above, we can conclude that slang is a lexical innovative vocabulary
that belongs to the identity of a particular group, for instance, the prison subculture. It
reflects to the speakers’ background. Slang is characterized by informality and vocabu-
lary richness. In addition, the language is a time limited passing phenomenon. What is
fashionable for one generation for another’s it is not. Many words and expressions that
were once regarded as vocabulary are now disappearing and created new versions of
words (e.g. word “prisoner”, nowadays is more officially- “inmate). A general notion of
slang is parallel to such non-standard language varieties such as jargon, cant, argot. Even
though they are not identical there are only slight differences in which they vary from one
another. Explicit values, informality, expressiveness and communicative function are
prevalent properties of the style of slang and correspond to a specific subgroup. Sykes’
[16] awareness is that prison can be viewed as an extension of the outside world. Con-
cerning the prison generalization problem, Sykes [16] opposes that the “prison appears to
move in a cyclical rhythm from order to disorder to order” and riots are a logical step in
a pattern of repeated social change.
„Grypserka vs. cant”
The prime ancestor of our present prison argot was cant. It appears that the criminal un-
derworld in the early sixteenth century was mainly made up of beggars and vagabonds,
but during the past five eras of pickpockets, professional burglars, swindlers. Black Mar-
keteers, white slavers and drug-traffickers have united with the underworld cohesion, and
cant has evolved and extended to suit up with these varied groups. The term cant derived
from the verb: in the underworld of the 16th-19th century, which meant ‘to speak’, hence
language of the underworld Patridge, [17] Cant was a secret vocabulary of which
“contained the terms commonly used by beggars and thieves to denote the essential ele-
ments connected with their mischievous way of living; it defined their tools, the main
techniques they used, the different subgroups into which the underworld was organized,
and provided the names by which the various individuals were to be called” (Gotti [18]).
The registered information show that cant was in use in other European countries before
it was proven of a British variety. The word argot is used equivalently with cant and it
originated during the 15th century. Furthermore, the subculture, has an unfriendly rela-
tionship with the larger society and their natural distrust of outsiders make it problematic
to study their language. According to Martin Montgomery [19]:
“Some examples have been documented – notably the language of polish prison life
(grypserka) and that of the Calcutta underworld. In addition to these relatively contem-
porary cases, some historical records survive of a variety known as ‘pelting speech’ – an
argot employed by roving hands of vagabonds in Elizabethan England”.
He compared Thieves’ Cant to current studies of the slang spoken in Calcutta (now Kol-
kata) and explained “Grypserka” created among the inmates of Polish prisons, which have
outstanding resemblances in the patois spoken by underground groups and their technique
of interactions. The secrecy of the feature vocabulary was seen as the future rather than a
determinant of the language.
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
28
In addition, knowing the development of language will provide us better knowledge of

anti-languages. Since Anti-languages are unpredictable beasts that are persistently evolv-
ing into new and more vibrant forms.. Slang is an interesting matter to explore and inves-
tigate subsequently it is one of the language variety. Particularly, some may define prison
slang as a variation of a public thoroughfare language because the quantity of the phrases
can be found in any street jargon. Prison slang is a language of inmates which is regarded
as an important part of the prison subculture.
The word ‘anti-language’ was created by Halliday [20] to define the languages used in
the Polish subculture and in the Elizabethan underworld. He claims that the term ex-
presses: “At certain times and places we come across special forms of language gener-
ated by some kind of anti-society; these we may call “anti-languages”. An anti-lan-
guage serves to create and maintain social structure through conversation, just as
an everyday language does; but the social structure is of a particular kind, in which
certain elements are strongly foregrounded. This gives to the anti-language a special char-
acter in which metaphorical modes of expression are the norm; patterns of this kind ap-
pear at all levels, phonologically, lexicogrammatically, and semantically. The study of
anti-languages offers further insights into the relation between language and social
structure, and into the way in which text functions in the realization of social contexts”
From the above statement it could be concluded that anti-language is fundamentally cre-
ated by a process called relexicalization which the substitution new words for old. So
called Grypserka is the anti-language of Polish prison inmates and cant in Great Britain.
By entering the prison doors, inmates experience a process of secondary socialization.
Secondary socialization is the “internalization of institutional or institution-based “sub-
worlds” (Berger and Luckman [21]). Berger and Luckman [21], point out that: “The sub-
worlds” adopted in secondary socialization are mainly incomplete actualities in contrast
to the “base-world” established by primary socialization. Hence, as an inmate integrates
with the new real world, he becomes resocialized. The inmate accepts to become part of
the society. As the acquirement of language is an essential part of an inmate’s primary
socialization, the acceptance of a new language is a significant element of his secondary
socialization. In spite of that prison is not an ordinary total institution as described
Goffman [22], but an anti-society, the language developed within that institution, “whose
total character is symbolized by the barrier to social intercourse with the outside”.
Goffman [22] adds: “A third type of total institution is organized to protect the commu-
nity against what are felt to be intentional dangers to it, with the welfare of the persons
thus sequestered not the immediate issue: jails, penitentiaries, P.O.W. camps, and con-
centration camps”.
The prison anti-society integrates a distinct, strong and refused world, manifested in the
inmates alternative mentalities, value and norms, social cultures and language. Language
reflects to a substantial range of precise features of the society in which it is spoken: “It
not only reflects the interests, needs, experiences and environment of the people who
speak it, but may also indicate something about the way a society is structured such as
kinship terms, beliefs, norms and values, linguistic taboos, descriptive names social and
ethnic groups and terms for men and women”, Giles [23]. In other words, every subcul-
ture, every slang is used as an ability skill to communicate with others with a code.
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
29
“Prison slang is a dynamic, constantly evolving entity”

English cant is the aforementioned language than “grypsera”. English has loaned widely
from its vocabulary stock, hence it should be no surprise that some specific words are in
Polish prison slang. Undoubtedly, borrowings have an effect upon the lexico‑semantic
complexity of prison vocabulary. Lexical element which have several bodily senses in its
donor language have even less sense when they appear in the borrowing language. For
instance let’s take a look at the word “London”, it is a capital of England and the United
Kingdom. In Polish “grypsera”, “London” is part of the cell intended for „cool -people”,
unlike Mexico or the Ghetto, part of the cell intended for the third group of people in the
hierarchy ”losers”. “Losers” are not allowed to enter London, only with a special permit
of „cool-people”. For example, in order to fulfill the services: cool-people could have an
entire cell (Szaszkiewicz, [24]).
The vocabulary of slang changes by the extending current forms to new meanings. As
reported by Pollock [25]. “prison slang is a dynamic, constantly evolving entity. Terms
tend to change over time and vary among institutions and across different regions of the
country”. Consistently these are exact meanings of existing words becoming part of sub-
culture or technical vocabulary, for instance dope or stuff are used in drug vocabulary to
indicate a class of substances. Some words are more negative like poison (alcohol). The
influence of the productivity in the semantic field establish framework of shaping new
meanings. The semantic field of destruction sets the characteristic feature for the prolif-
eration of terms for being under effect of substances, e.g. smashed, bladdered, bombed
out, hammered, mashed, well gone, etc. [26].
Following up Halliday [27], an anti-language can be more clarified ’as the limiting case
of social dialect’ or ’as the limiting case of code’. With the exception of Halliday admits
that both cases are intense. In description they are not at all characteristically linguistic
nor a asemantic interpretation that can fully explain an anti-language. The first would
emphasize the transformation of form, whether it would be phonological or lexico-gram-
matical. The limiting case would point out the oppositional message. One and the other
cases are ultimate, a given perspective which coordinates the ’social dialect’ as well as
the ’code’ or message of an anti-language should be necessary. Halliday [27], proposed
to illustrate an anti-language as approximately certain properties or structures generated
by this integrated perspective.
As new circumstances emerge on daily basis in the penitentiary system, there is a constant
need to linguistically express new reality. Language gives its users proper means to
accommodate to living conditions they currently experience; it is not only powerful in
the fact that it provides us with words, but, as a cultural phenomenon, it has been marked
as influencing the way we think, Whorf [28].
The phenomenon of the prison subculture - "Gęsiówka”
Subculture influences the position of prisoners in their society. It also establishes stand-
ards, values and a conventionally approved code of conduct that are distinctive only
among insiders of the group. This system contributes to the occurrence of prison rules,
which every imprisoned individual has to follow. The initial phenomenon of the prison
subculture should refer to the sociological term ‘subculture’, which is varietized. The dic-
tionary of modern Polish language gives the definition of a subculture as follows: „moral
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
30
norms, rules of conduct adopted in a certain social group, deviating from norms, princi-
ples, patterns accepted by the general public” Dunaj [29]. It should also be pointed out
that the subculture may be a form of resistance, opposition against a social institution
Marshall [30]. Prison subculture researcher Sławomir Przybyliński [31], expressed a pre-
view in which he states, that, in his opinion, the word subculture should be applied to
non-formal groups arising in the civilization which is not prohibited by law, the word
subculture should be used to describe groups operating within a closed environment in
contrary to the law and artificially isolated, the best example of such a culture is precisely
the prison subculture. The prison subculture already has its own value system and code
of group standards, it has a certain group hierarchy, a kind of communication system
called prison language and a sense of group distinctness, both from prison officers and
other inmates not being part of the subculture, and as such, the definition of the subculture
is fulfilled by the phenomenon of prison subculture. An expression of its existence in
prison is the so-called phenomenon of "second life”, this means that detainees in prison
are influenced by two detention centres - the first official one, which is the administration
of the prison, and the other unofficial, which are the structures of the prison subculture
Machel [32]. The phenomenon of the prison subculture, operates under many terms, for
example, „prison subculture, “grypsera”, second life, influenza subculture” Przybyliński
[31]. Furthermore, this environment is divided into two social groups into prison officers
and inmates Szaszkiewicz [24] Hostility to staff and reduced implementation of their own
needs have led the detainees to create informal laws and informal authority that have
become the beginning of the prison subculture Moczydłowski [33].
The first informal mentions of the prison subculture appeared in the late 1950s and early
1960s, and it most likely has its roots in the Warsaw environment, in the once functioning
prison on the so-called "Gęsiówka” Przybyliński [34]. After a couple years “grypsera”
disseminated all over Poland, especially in big prisons in Wrocław, Warsaw, Łódź. From
historical point of view, the subculture at the turn of the year it has changed significantly.
The first name of such group of gypserka inmates were "urks”, who were dangerous
people, they characterized themselves with physical strength, and were ruthless in what
they did. According to Szaszkiewicz, the worship of a strong man, faith in strength and
courage, resistance to pain and resourcefulness are an expression of personal dignity
among prisoners. “Urks” fade in the mid-1960s and is replaced with "charaterniak". This
group was characterized by a strong and trustworthy traits that form the individual. In
1968, the name "git-człowiek” appears, adequate to all right people Przybyliński [31]
In hierarchy according to Przybyliński & Gruźlewska [35] there are current tri-division
subgroup of “grypsera” which are informal and waring groups:
First group ‒ „grypsujący” („git ludzie”) (literally „ok people”);
Second group ‒ „niegrypsujący” („frajerzy”) (literally „losers”);
Third group ‒ „poszkodowani” („cwele”) (literally „wankers”).
Shaping the development and life of informal groups are grypsujący so called “git “ok
people” who attribute themselves as the most important part of the subgroup of the prison
subculture. It is the most demoralized and privileged group that clarifies the lives of all
prisoners and creates rules and norms for them, they must be liable to. They do not con-
sider no other opinion outside of one's own group. To join a group, you have to encounter
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
31
different requirements, sometimes you have to do something effective, something that

will appear in the light of a strong person who will be able to risk its health for the sake
of group regulations -Jastrzębska [36].
The second group consists of so called „losers” who are not involved in the affairs of the
prison subculture. Their aim is to serve the sentence in peace in a conflict-free atmos-
phere. They are considered as inmates are forbidden their own opinion, honor and who
tend to be informants for prison officers. Moreover, this categorization do not possess
their own leader in contrast to the previous group as stated by Przybyliński & Gruźlewska
[35]. Last group are wankers who are deprived of humanity thrown into the so-called
"prison bag”. Since they are last of hierarchy they do not have the right to vote or for
respect, and other inmates can only expect daily contempt. The status of a wanker is usu-
ally linked to the commission of a criminal act against sexual freedom and morality or
has a relationship with the police or any kind of officer. Also a wanker could be a person
with women's facial features. The last and one thing is for them left is to follow the de-
mands of other inmates which undermines their personal dignity (Przybyliński) [34]. The
phenomenon of the prison subculture is characterized by the dynamic, continuity of
change. Impersonal relations and the relationships that take place between prisoners are
largely disturbed and the value system of those who are not imprisoned in most cases is
based on strength, violence or cruelty. As indicates Szaszkiewicz [24] superior values
among members of the subculture include: fighting the law and the institutions that pro-
tect it, solidarity and personal dignity and honor.
It is noteworthy that the communication system among prisoners, consists a method of
sharing information as well as a prison slang. Members of prison subculture groups have
a extensively elaborated communication system. Various means of communication are
frequently used, thanks to which it is possible to create contact in even very difficult
circumstances. M. Szaszkiewicz [24] distinguishes four forms of communication system,
so called: “miganka” (sign language) used mostly when there is a fear that the conversa-
tion could be eavesdropped. The second one is “stukanka” (tapping language), used when
inmates could not make eye contact.
Furthermore, this type of communication is interesting by the forms of the information
medium carried out by pipes, radiators in a cell, and words become a morse script. An-
other type is so called “grypsy” (secret grypserka language) which is the most popular
form of communication in Polish prison. It involves exchanging small pieces of paper,
wrapped in a roll, carried both by prisoners and, if possible, by staff. Inmates also have
ways to handover gryps from their cell to another prisoner often found in a distant wing
of the building. There are three methods of transferring by placing the information on the
string with a weight on one end of the brush rod, the twine extends out the window so
that it hangs. The person from other cell , formerly warned with a tapping language slides
through the window stick without string and pulls the gryps into the cell. Movements are
repeated until the other person receives the message. To give an example of mentioned
methods of transferring information indicate the direction in which gryps is to be sent:
“chabeta” (literally sense in Polish poor, skinny horse) meaning “down, below the one’s
cell”, “kobyła” (mare) which means to a next window and the last direction is “koń”
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
32
(horse) meaning above the senders’ window. Final type of Szaszkiewiczs’ communica-
tion system called ”lustrzanka” (reflection with mirror), hence you could assume that the
conversation is via mirrors. What is meant here is that the mirror reflects light flashes,
making it possible to pass letters in Morse alphabet. The weakness of this form is the one-
way connection, the exchange of information is almost impossible.
The last section provides a reliable review of the topic with special references to its func-
tions. However, the issue of functions of prison slang has always merely gained fragmen-
tary analysis in the publications , and hence it is difficult to find broadly and clear ac-
cepted conclusions. Because the prison cohesion shares much with prison cultures in Eu-
rope countries, prisons are similar to those identified in prison studies overseas. One of
the most clearly defined roles amongst prison inmates is that of the informer. The prison
slang is analyzed within the larger socio-cultural view of the problem.
Numerous studies have examined the language range used by inmates which is as difficult
to explain for as further features of prison subculture. The quantity factor that build the
image of this specific language variety vague and complicated is widespread, and hence
understanding them demands precise knowledge in certain academic areas, reaching from
sociology and psychology to criminology. Consequently, there are numerous controver-
sial questions around the phenomenon of prison slang which relates specifically to the
subject of its function.
The first function is the power to form and maintain solidarity and group loyalty within
the cohesion. As the acquisition of the antilanguage is a fundamental element of second-
ary socialization, a knowledge of vocabulary is crucial in establishing identity as an
prison inmate. Refusal to assimilate by not learning the language inevitably leads to neg-
ative alienation, and in some cases, may lead to deliberate by an inmate.
Might be understood, prison slang is a kind of closed language which is available only to
a small circle of insiders and promotes isolation. Furthermore, it is a tool for representing
a criminal identity of a subgroup existing in the prison walls. For a recidivist who cross
the environment of a new correctional institution, it is an indicator of the inmate’s mem-
bership to the subcultures of prisoners. Consequently, we could say about the identity of
expression function of prison slang. As claimed by a considerable number of researchers
dealing with the subject of prison subculture, such as, for example, Moczydłowski [33],
Przybyliński [34], Einat and Livnat [37], the peculiar language variety used by prisoners
plays a major role in reflecting the beliefs, attitudes, needs and philosophies that are basic
aspect of an inmate identity. Identity in given aspect is understood as the social position-
ing of self and others (Bucholtz & Hall [38].
In addition, it is treated to be constituted through social action, and particularly through
language. Effectively, in prison language there is a vast number of terms that regulate an
inmate’s position on the hierarchical ladder, and hence it is widely understood under the
term of “grypsera” in Polish penitentiary. When we narrow our viewpoint to Polish un-
derworld language, we see that the hierarchy of prisoners displays certain similar features.
Linguistic creativity prison slang varies depending on the culture they are part of, the
conditions they live in, gender, age, beliefs, religion, environment, and many other
factors. In each community, the language fulfils its task; members of the community
adapt their language to their own needs. The various cultures of the world have different
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
33
categories, thus different perception of reality the language to describe it. In prisons,
where special norms operate, the language used is adjusted to the setting and appro-
priate contexts (Dziedzic-Rawska, [39]. Their secret code is a pivotal significance
inside the underworld. To understand it more closely how it is important let’s consider a
Bible for instance which is treated seriously by Christians. Nonetheless, the inmate code
is one of the main aspects contributing to the development of prison slang as stated by
Dziedzic-Rawska [39].
Observation of the ongoing changes in the penitentiary subculture shows that the phe-
nomenon is subject to constant adjustments related to the security situation. Currently,
the number of collective hunger strikes and self-injury of prisoners in the Polish prison
system has significantly decreased. On the other hand, there has been an increase in the
number of verbal and active assaults on prison officers Wierzbicki K., Emilia Witkowska
– Grabias, 2021 [40]. It is worth noting that among the convicts committing attacks on
prison staff there are people who identify with the prison subculture.
Conclusions
In conclusion, prison slang is developing on a daily basis. It is tremendously rich and
creative with new vocabulary that no one has a clue those types of words exist. Either
Polish and English slang, is also highly inventive, and the imagination is realized among
others through metaphor and metonymy. Word which is formed today, tomorrow might
be outdated. Additionally, meanings change constantly, and the pace of the changes is
difficult to follow. Based on the following considerations, prison slang definitely de-
serves a linguistic attention as it is a pattern of users’ lingo high linguistic inspiration. In
order to communicate effectively, language users can only get their message across oper-
ating the same terminology and in a concise manner. Aiming to research translation of
slang we shall perceive a wide range variance among regional cultures and social life.
Nowadays, subculture is put on the main idea of linguistic variety. What is more inter-
esting this kind of communication is now modern in young millennium. Some do not
even know it’s part of slang. From the opinions I have heard from prison officers with
several years of experience working with convicts in prison, it appears that the prison
subculture is weakening year by year. Currently, dynamic changes in the prison subcul-
ture are noticeable, related to the population of prisons and the economic situation of the
prisoners is concerned.. In the opinion of the penitentiary staff, prison "internship" is los-
ing importance among convicts, the nature of the act committed, group solidarity, for the
sake of money. A strong position in the prison environment is held by convicts who have
financial resources. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the “grypserka” subcul-
ture is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Therefore, this article aims at analyzing type
of communication provided not only between the cultures of inmates, employed to trans-
late common expressions, words and phrases that denote culture-specific elements in to-
day's translation but also to illustrate the world of their existence. Of course, in the prison
community, there are those for whom Grypsera has greatly shaped their life and function-
ing in prison. Proper usage of the prison dialect can give them more prestige and respect
among other inmates.
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
34
References
1. Chaika E. (1994). Language, The Social Mirror. Providence College, Heinle & Heinle.(p. 3,
p. 335).
2. R.A.Hudson (1980). Sociolonguistics. Cambridge University Press. ( p. 4-5).
3. Wardhaugh R. (2000). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, fifth edition. Blackwell Publis-
hing. (p. 12).
4. Wierzbicki K., Emilia Witkowska – Grabias (2021). Bezpieczeństwo osobiste personelu jed-
nostek penitencjarnych. Napaści na funkcjonariuszy Służby Więziennej w latach 2009-2020
[w:] „The Prison Systems Review” nr 111, 2021. (p. 5-26).
5. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press
6. Hudson R.A. (1996) Sociolinguistics. 2 nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press p.22
7. Ferguson, C. A. (1972). Language Structure and Language Use. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press. (p. 30).
8. Chaer & Agustina 1995, p. 83 / Spolsky (1998), p. 33-84 Retrieved from https://koesnan-
dar1964.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/materi-kuliah-sociolinguistics/ (access: 25.06.2021)
9. Bernard Spolsky (1996). Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. (p. 29).
10. Trudgill, P. (2003). A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
(p. 122).
11. Wilkoń A. (1989). Typologia odmian językowych współczesnej polszczyzny. Uniwersytet Ślą-
ski.
12. Grabias S.(1994). Język w zachowaniach społecznych. Podstawy Socjolingwistyki
i logopedii. Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. (p. 127-139).
13. Wilkoń A. (2000) Typologia odmian językowych współczesnej polszczyzny. Uniwersytet Ślą-
ski.
14. Koesnandar. (2010). Materi Kuliah Sociolinguistics. Retrieved from blog: https://koesnan-
dar1964.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/materi-kuliah-sociolinguistics/
15. Zwicky A.& Zwicky A. (1982) Register as a Dimension of Sociolinguistic Variation. in: R.
Kittredge, J. Lehrberger (Eds.) Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic
Domains. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter. pp. 213-218.
16. Sykes, G. M.(1958) The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison, Prince-
ton University Press. (p. 45-97).
17. Partridge E. (1937). A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 8th edition. Edited
by Paul Beale. (p. 179).
18. Gotti M. (1999). The Language of Thieves and Vagabonds. In: Lexiographica: Series Maior
94, Tübingen: De Gruyter Mouton. (p. 16).
19. Montgomery, M. (2008). An Introduction to Language and Society. Routledge. (p. 93).
20. Halliday M.A.K. (1976). American Anthropologist, Vol. 78.3 Reprinted (abridged) in “Hal-
liday, M.A.K. 1978 Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold. (p. 570-584).
21. Berger L. P and Luckman T. (1971). The social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin University Books. (p.157).
22. Goffman I.(1961). Asylums: Essays On The Social Situation Of Mental Pateints and Other
Inmates. Doubleday & Company, Inc. (p.15-16).
23. Giles H.(1979). Language and Social Psychology. Basil Blackwell III
24. Szaszkiewicz, M. (1997). Tajemnice Grypserki. Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych. (p. 11-12).
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
35
25. Pollock, J. M. (2006). Prisons: Today and Tomorrow, Aspen Publishers
26. Devlin. A.(1996). Prison Patter. A Dictionary of Prison Words and Slang. Retrieved from
https://books.google.pl/books?id=bbcBCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=1.+Angela+Devlin,
+Prison+Patter+a+Dictio ary+of+prison+words+and+slang+google,&source=bl&ots=PGvtrM4Q5M
&sig= ACfU3U2gtzZgPjBTbh6zkg8dNwu2tQhKXQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikhKy2j9LyAh-
WPyqQKHQRRAd4Q6AF6BAgiEAM#v=onepage&q=1.%20Angela%20Devlin%2C%20Prison%20P
atter%20a%20Ditioary%20of%20prison%20words%20and%20slang%20google%2C&f=false
(access: 26.06.2021).
27. Halliday M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Edward Arnold Ltd.
28. Whorf B.L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: selected writings. Technology Press of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
29. Dunaj B. (1996). Słownik współczesnego języka polskiego, Warszawa. (p.1074)
30. Marshall G. (2004). Słownik socjologii i nauk społecznych. PWN. (p. 370).
31. Przybyliński, S.(2005). Podkultura więzienna – wielowymiarowość rzeczywistości peniten-
cjarnej. Impuls (p. 17-31).
32. Machel H. (1995). Orientacja w funkcjonowaniu podkultury więziennej a skuteczność kiero-
wania zakładem penitencjarnym, „Przegląd Więziennictwa Polskiego” 9 Warszawa p.3
33. Moczydłowski, P. (2002). Drugie życie więzienia. Łośgraf. (p. 19-20).
34. Przybyliński S.(2016). Na krawędzi więziennej egzystencji- skazani cwaniacy” w soczewce
podkulturowego spojrzenia „Resocjalizacja Polska” nr 11. (p. 16-43).
35. Przybyliński S. Gruźlewska, J. (2016). Fenomen podkultury więziennej, M. Ciosek, B Pa-
stwa-Wojciechowska (red.). Psychologia Penitencjarna, PWN. (p. 392)
36. Jastrzębska M. (2010). Krótka charakterystyka zjawiska nieformalnych struktur podkultury
przestępczej. „Studia Gdańskie, Wizje i rzeczywistość” t. VII 7, 159-172 (p. 162).
37. Ciechanowska A., and Kleparski G.A.(2015). On the semantic features of prison slang. A
Journal of English Linguistics 4, 2015.
38. Bucholtz M, and Hall K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach.
Sage Publications Vol 7 (4-5): 585-614. (p. 586).
39. Dziedzic-Rawska A. (2016). Linguistic creativity in American prison settings, In Lublin Stud-
ies in Modern Languages and Literature. UMCS (p. 65-80).
40. Wierzbicki K., Emilia Witkowska – Grabias (2021). Bezpieczeństwo osobiste personelu jed-
nostek penitencjarnych. Napaści na funkcjonariuszy Służby Więziennej w latach 2009-2020
[w:] „The Prison Systems Review” nr 111, 2021, (p. 5-26).
______________________________________________________________________
ISSN 2450-2146 / E-ISSN 2451-1064
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7113985
36

Ijoness 15 STR 21-36

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijoness 15 STR 21-36

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

_____________________________https://ijoness.

AN ANALYSIS OF PRISON SLANG

Dominika Gałek 1), Konrad Wierzbicki 2)

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

Aims of paper. Methods

Exposition of main material of research with complete substantiation of obtained

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

Table 1. Language Varieties

isolation cell segs boks box

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

to serve a prison sen- lay-in-state rok year

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

In addition, knowing the development of language will provide us better knowledge of

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

“Prison slang is a dynamic, constantly evolving entity”

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

different requirements, sometimes you have to do something effective, something that

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

© 2021 /Published by: Międzynarodowy Instytut Innowacji Nauka-Edukacja-Rozwój w Warszawie, Polska

You might also like