Main Article Content

Lavinia NADRAG


The lexis and structure of prison argot reflect the personalities of inmates who employthem, as well as the conflicts and tensions inherent in prison settings. It is shown in this article thatthe distinctiveness of prison argot is largely a product of the character of penal context. Its extent ofuse varies with the extent of penal discipline. Appreciation of this complex relationship mightfacilitate improved communication between prisoners and custodial authorities. In addition,knowledge of prison argot meanings has a potential to improve the management of prison-basedprograms and thus appears helpful in the complex process of prisoners' rehabilitation and socialreintegration.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
NADRAG, L., & STROESCU, M. (2010). A STUDY OF INMATE ARGOT IN ROMANIAN PRISONS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 4, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2010.4.4


  1. Astaloş, George. 2002. Pe muchie de şuriu: cânturi de ocnă cu microglosareargotice. Bucureşti: Tritonic.
  2. Bondesson, Ulla. 1989. Prisoners in prison societies. New-Brunswick. NJ:Transaction.
  3. Bowker, L. H. 1980. Prison victimization. New York: Elsevier.
  4. Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of therole of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Clemmer, Donald. 1940. The prison community. New York: Rinehart.
  6. Eble, Connie. 1996. Slang and Sociability. London and Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press.
  7. Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity inHigh School. New York: Teacher's College Press.
  8. Elaine, Chaika. 1982. Language: The social mirror, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  9. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretationof Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
  10. Hawkins, Richard., and Alpert Geoffrey. 1989. American prison systems,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  11. Irwin, John. 1980. Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.
  12. Irwin, John. 1985. The jail. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  13. Johnson, E.H. 1987. Handbook on crime and delinquency prevention. NewYork: Greenwood Press.
  14. Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content analysis, An introduction to itsmethodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  15. Labov, Teresa. 1982. Social structure and peer terminology in a black adolescentgang. Language and Society 2: 391-411.
  16. Parisi, Nicolette. 1982. Coping with imprisonment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  17. Partridge, Eric. 1953. A Dictionary of American Slang and UnconventionalEnglish. New York: Macmillan.
  18. Partridge, Eric. 1970. Slang today and yesterday. London: Routledge, Kegan &Paul.
  19. Silvermann, David. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzingtalk, text and introduction. London: Sage.
  20. Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. 1959. Limbaj şi context. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifică.
  21. Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. 1999. Psiholingvistica, o ştiinţă a comunicării.Bucureşti: Ed. ALL.
  22. Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. 2000. Stratageme comunicaţionale şi manipularea. Iaşi:Polirom.
  23. Stoichiţoiu-Ichim, Adriana. 2001. Vocabularul limbii române actuale.Dinamică, influenţe, creativitate. Bucureşti: Ed. ALL.
  24. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  25. Stroescu, Manuela. Argoul în comunicarea interlopă dobrogeană, [On-line].Available: http://www.univ-ovidius.ro/stiri-si-noutati/downloads/rezumat-stroescu.pdf
  26. Weber, R. P. 1990. Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  27. Zafiu, Rodica. 2001. Diversitate stilistică în româna actuală. Bucureşti: Ed.Universităţii din Bucureşti.