10/01/2023

Society & Salience in the Slammer: The Phonetic Evolution of Prisoners

Project proposal by Tibbs, A.

Introduction

Sociolinguistic research on secluded communities, like Martha’s Vineyard (Labov,

1972), has been insightful in how and why language changes worldwide. For instance, by
demonstrating how group members can subconsciously express attitudes through shared
linguistic features. This can further be seen in gated communities such as prisons. In
Australia (Looser, 1999), Zimbabwe (Sabao et al., 2020) and the UK (Mathew, 2013) we see
evidence of prison slang phenomena or argot - unique to each prison, ever-changing and
providing prisoners with a group identity and secret code. However, little documentation of
phonetic variation exists in British prison communities or what this could indicate about the
impact of social networks (Milroy & Milroy, 1997). By interviewing and comparing analysis of
prisoners’ phonetic variation before and about five years into their sentences at HMP Full
Sutton, we should be able to attribute the causes of change to their idiolects. This study
intends to answer the following research questions:

1. What qualities about a prisoner indicate their language is more likely to

change?
2. Where will the most influence on a prisoner’s idiolect come from?
3. What impact, if any, does separation from the outside world have on the rate
of language innovation in this community?

Background Analysis

Criminologists and psychologists have long discussed what factors lead individuals to
crime, and the management of prisons and rehabilitation are considered by many a political
matter (Mayr, 2004). Research shows that prisons have higher rates of illiteracy and learning
disabilities than the general population, supporting their role in initial offending and
recidivism (Morken et al., 2021). Controversy also exists in the UK regarding what language
variety should be taught and the potential discrimination against teachers with local accents
(Baratta, 2017). Additionally, discourse analysis regarding relationships among prisoners or
with officers suggests that power play largely relies on language in prison environments
where violent threats are difficult to carry out (Mayr, 2004).
 Three main articles provided insight into argot- slang terms used amongst prisoners and
their main influences in those discourse communities. The first is Looser’s (1999) study
of Christchurch women’s prison. Her background research relied on Newbold’s (as cited in
Looser, 1999) work with Rolleston Men's Prison nearby, from which she took a glossary of
argot and asked six female inmates if they recognised/used each term, how they would
define it, as well as listing any other terms for that definition.
The second study (Sabao et al., 2020), on Zimbabwean male prison Whawha,
observed conversations during work hours and interviewed ex-prisoners. This community
was trilingual, so the general prison argot has terms from Shona, Ndebele and English.
The third article is an essay written by a former English teacher at a young offender’s
prison in South-East England in 2006-07 (Mathew, 2013). He gives examples of their argot
and offers insight into prisoners' mentality whilst considering the impact of age on behaviour
and language use from someone who worked with them daily for years.

Prison discourse communities frequently use non-standard variation, susceptible to

the same influences as any other community. Regional dialects vary drastically across the
UK, with frequent contact between them. In Milton Keynes (Kerswill & Williams, 2005),
residents introduced many competing varieties to the new community. The features adopted
into the newly formed dialect were mostly unmarked, originally used by the majority of
residents, or from geographically closer dialects. HMP Full Sutton is in Yorkshire, but
prisoners originate from across the country. Despite negative attitudes towards outsiders,
particularly towards prison staff, they are still likely to bring local features into the prison
community. Whilst prisoners have access to media like TV and radio, the adoption of
innovative features diffusing throughout the region will be stunted amongst prisoners
because they lack regular face-to-face communication with outsiders (Nycz, 2019).

New prisoners constantly join, potentially bringing innovative features, but will have
little influence whilst still considered an outside member of the community. This can be
explained by Social Network Theory (Milroy & Milroy, 1997), demonstrating how variation
can move through groups via relationships. In prisons, we see dense multiplex networks
between inmates sharing living space, meal times and activities, for instance. so the
members who have many strong connections with each other should have more common
Features.
In Christchurch, when inmates were asked to label the main prison corridor, it was
either called “Mainstream”, “The Corridor” or “The Highway” (p. 20) depending on which
ward the prisoner belonged to. Despite wards regular mixing, the lexicon of group members
was completely distinct because of how the argot passed in this social network.
This study would be even more important after the Covid-19 pandemic: visitations
were extremely reduced, wards would seldom mix and on average, UK prisoners reportedly
spent at least 22 hours per day in their cells to prevent disease outbreaks (HM Inspectorate
of Prisons, 2021). So there may be a higher proportion of language influence from cell-mates
and those in the same ward when face-to-face contact with outsiders was even more limited.
The prisoners can use salient phonetic variation as a marker of group identity.
 Compare the prison communities to that of islands where inhabitants bond over the
shared experience and location (Edgü & Cimşit, 2011). In Martha’s Vineyard, proud residents
adopted diphthongs from the variety of the fishermen who were regarded as archetypal
islanders (Labov, 1972). Likewise, in the Full Sutton prison community, certain phonetic
variations may have covert prestige, found in the vernacular of prisoners at the top of the
social hierarchy who best represent their prisoner identity.
HMP Full Sutton seemingly has gang activity (Travis, 2005) (HM Chief Inspector of
Prisons, 2016), which could impact feature adoption. Labov (1973) studied a Harlem gang
where those with stronger ties to others in the group had the densest social network and
were considered core members. Those with weaker ties had the loosest network and were
considered lame. They would not do the bad things other gang members did, like fighting,
and seemed distant, so they were considered “not hip” (p. 84). Consequently, peripheral
members would show far more BE variation that would abide by strict rules in the vernacular
of core members.
For prisoners, gang involvement is important for socialising and protection throughout
their sentence. Social hierarchy is often based on the type of conviction, how long they have
been in prison, how well they know the prison and how often they act on violent threats
(Looser, 1999). In Whawha, gangs are also split by common L1 and tribe. These shared
qualities will strengthen the social ties within that group leading to language cohesion
between members.
Likewise, in Christchurch, the motivation to integrate into the prison society explains
why there was a significant increase in prison argot terms acquired if the prisoner had a
longer sentence, so had more motivation to find a long-term group, or if they were younger.
Additionally, prisoners who were anxious or in denial about their sentence would
reject other prisoners and stay most attuned to the outside world (Mathew, 2013). As a
result, they may stay closest to standard forms, which would help them most when released.
They may also adopt newer forms from outside contact, which they hope to maintain
throughout their sentence rather than forming ties in prison. On the other hand, some
prisoners formed incredibly close ties in prison, such as the UK young offenders who
referred to their fellow inmates with family terms, i.e.“bruv” (p. 99) and were, in fact, reluctant
to leave prison.

Though new peripheral members are less likely to impact a group, their new features
may be adopted if that social group believes it will benefit them, especially if it will contribute
to their identity. We see this with non-standard language in non-conforming groups (Milroy &
Milroy, 1997) fighting against RP, which traditionally has been imposed in the UK, leading to
the loss of minority forms. Consequently, non-conformers will be more resistant to change
(Mayr, 2004).
In prison education facilities, students are reluctant to be taught standard language,
despite the advantages for rehabilitation. This is especially the case with the UK young
offenders who viewed the classes as further punishment. Their stronger social ties over that
shared negative experience as classmates could lead to assimilated vernaculars.
Additionally, the well-documented correlation between student success and the
relationship with their teacher (Biesta, 2004) will be exacerbated by the negative relationship
between prisoners and authority figures like teachers. Thus, the general prison variety will
significantly consist of non-standard forms.

Another important purpose for prison argots, besides group identity, is secrecy from
outsiders. It can allow prisoners freedom of expression, as seen through the negative names
of staff or prisoners who snitch, e.g. “Pig'' and “Nark” (p. 33-34) in Christchurch. It also eases
emotional expression without showing too much vulnerability, for instance, by using familial
nicknames (Mathew, 2013).
In all three prisons, there were argot terms with long, convoluted definitions that one
could not automatically assume the meaning of - e.g. Chikepe “boat” in Shona, in Whawha
prison refers to an escape. Additionally, some terms had very different meanings from the
outside world or other prisons - e.g. “fish” for an inmate (p.99 in Mathew, 2013). These are
purposefully confusing, deterring outsiders from understanding.
The argot is constantly updated. Only those involved in illegal deals would be privy
to new vocabulary, to prevent being caught, so peripheral members use fewer argot terms
than core members. Therefore, those involved with these affairs will likely show more
phonetic assimilation to the vernacular of that social group’s core members.
Using these argot terms in front of the wrong audience can have dire consequences.
For example, fellow inmates would punish those who translated for officers. Likewise, in
Whawha, the regular threat of violence from officers meant secrecy was important for safety.
Therefore, it is vital that all prisoners keep this secret, showing the importance of these
social connections and making it harder to investigate.
Matthew remarks in his article how his students would use argot with him in group
classes that were absent in one-on-one tuition, leading him to conclude that he was an
outsider. Likewise, the Christchurch inmates self-reported that they would never use argot
terms around visitors as it was “not polite” (p.19). The purposeful alteration of lexicon
provides evidence of switching styles to suit their audience better (Bell, 1984) and
style-shifting of salient features when attention is paid to speech (Trudgill, 1974). This could
affect data from interviews, especially if prisoners are asked to read out lists of argot terms.
Ex-convicts who bring the prison argot terms into the outside world may introduce the
argot into street varieties which can permeate into mainstream vernacular (Mathew, 2013),
strengthening the salience of the prison variety, even to outsiders. On the other hand,
prisoners who re-offend may bring innovative forms to the prison community again but may
also find the argot they knew is outdated. Reoffenders may use the salient phonetic features,
but after their time outside, they may be in the process of adopting the new prison variety.

Method

The ten participants investigated will be chosen based on several factors. All
participants must be willing to cooperate in workshops and interviews and be 4-6 years into
their prison sentence. Additionally, the interview will be compared to speech from before the
participant’s sentence began, so there must be nearly 10 minutes of clear speech from
videos and other recordings that the participant’s friends or family could provide us, as well
as their police interviews, with the consent of the participant and police. It is also important to
ensure the participants are least affected by their audience when speaking, so the
interviewer will be male and, though it may prove difficult, it must be safe to interview
prisoners without any prison staff listening (Newman, 1958). We also want to vary the age,
origin and conviction of our participants and their remaining sentence length.
Data will be collected in two stages: firstly, notes will be taken after workshops with
the participants, where the interviewer and prisoners can form a casual relationship, so his
interviewer is not a stranger, meaning he can relax and use more natural speech. Notes will
comment on their social interactions and argot.
Secondly, participants will be interviewed one-on-one over an activity of their choice
that will not affect the audio quality and is safe in the space provided -i.e. playing board
games. These interviews will be recorded with the help and consent of the correctional
personnel and the participant (Newman, 1958).

Questions will be asked about the argot terms heard in the workshops, including
whether the participant recognises/uses them, what definition he would give or any other
similar terms he would use instead. In the interview, questions will be asked about their
relationships in and out of prison, gang involvement, their feelings towards prison staff,
incarceration, the media they access, their jobs, Covid-19 and how they feel towards their
eventual release.

Each participant will have a Social Network Score based on an average of four 1-5
scores. Firstly, how many close relationships he admits having within the prison - 0 being
none, 1 being one, 5 being five or more. Secondly, how many people does he willingly
interact with at group workshops on average according to the interviewer’s observations - i.e.
5 being five interactions or more. Thirdly, all ten participants will be asked whether each
participant (including themselves) is a member of a social group. The number of positive
responses out of 10 will be divided by 2. Lastly, if they are involved in a social group, how
many participants would agree that they are a core group member. Again the number of
positive responses will be divided by 2. The mean of these four scores will provide each
prisoner's Social Network Score.

E.g. Participant A has 1 close friend, interacts with 6 others at the workshop, 4
people say he’s part of a social group, but none say he is a core member- his SNS is
[1+5+2+0]/4 = 2

From the recording, we will focus on STRUT/FOOT, TRAP/BATH, FACE and

word-initial /h/ realisations as indicators of regional dialect (Wells,1982). We will also
investigate word-medial /t/ relaisations and th-fronting, which is currently spreading across
the UK (Kerswill, 2003), to see at what rate innovative features reach the prison variety, if at
all. Other phonetic features that demonstrate notable intra-speaker change will also be
recorded and investigated in other participants.

Conclusion

The idiolect of new prisoners in HMP Full Sutton is expected to assimilate to the
feature variations used by the majority of prisoners, the local dialect, and those they interact
with socially.
As previously mentioned, innovative argot terms are created by those with high social
status or are at the core of illicit deals, so would pass around the prisons through social
interactions as indicated by Social Network Theory. It is hypothesised that phonetic variation
spreads like this too.
I expect to see an increase in assimilation to the vernacular core gang members,
especially for younger members with longer sentences who want to grow socially, even if
they are still outsiders. As well, inmates are unified by their shared prison experience and
certain phonetic features may spread either because of the dense social ties between
speakers or because of its salience amongst prisoners who distinguish themselves from
outsiders, just like in Martha’s Vineyard.
It is predicted that the vernacular of those with the highest SNS scores and at the top
of the social hierarchy will provide the best model for the general prison variety and that new
prisoners will to some extent, assimilate towards this. Additionally, negative feelings towards
outsiders and staff are likely to correlate with more phonetic assimilation to the general
prison variety. Alternatively, those who do not want to integrate into prison life - i.e. those
with shorter sentences, lower SNS scores, higher age, more connection to the outside world
and more positivity for release - will not assimilate as much. There will likely be a positive
correlation between the number of argot terms used and phonetic similarity to the general
prison variety. There will also likely be more similarity between prisoners who share cells,
wards, jobs and attitudes.
I further predict the prison variety will adopt features brought in by visitors, new
prisoners with a high SNS or from the content of media accessible. Finally, innovative
features spreading in the UK will diffuse into prisons slower, especially after Covid-19, due to
the lack of face-to-face communication.
References

Baratta, A. (2017). Accent and linguistic prejudice within British teacher training. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education, 16(6), 416-413.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145-204.

Biesta, G. (2004). Mind the gap. In C. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without
relation (pp. 11–22). New York: Peter Lang Publisher.

Edgü, E. & Cimşit, F. (2011). Island living as a gated community: Place attachment in an isolated
environment. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 8(2), 156-177.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. (2016) Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Full

Sutton by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 11–22 January 2016. Retrieved 30/12/2022
from
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/
Full-Sutton-web-2016.pdf

HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2021). What Happens to Prisoners in a Pandemic? A Thematic

Review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons. Retrieved on 30/12/2022 from
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/
What-happens-to-prisoners-in-a-pandemic.pdf.

Kerswill, P. (2003). Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In Britain & J.
Cheshire (Eds.), Social dialectology : in honour of Peter Trudgill (pp. 223–244).
Benjamins.

Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2005). New towns and koineization: linguistic and social correlates.
Linguistics, 43(5), 1023-1048.

Labov, W. (1972). The social motivation of a sound change. In Sociolinguistic Patterns.

Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Labov, W. (1973). The linguistic consequences of being a lame. Language in Society 2(1),
81-115.
Labov, W. (1997). The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores. In:
Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave,
London.

Looser, D. (1999). “Boob jargon”: The language of a women’s prison. New Zealand English
Journal, 13, 14–37.

Mathew, D. (2013). Prison language: A psychoanalytic approach to the language of British

Young offenders in the twenty-first century. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 22(2),
95-107.

Mayr, A. (2004). Prison discourse: language as a means of control and resistance. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511965

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1997). Network structure and linguistic change. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.)
Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 199–211.

Morken, F., Jones, L. Ø., & Helland, W. A. (2021). Disorders of language and literacy in the
prison population: A scoping review. Education Sciences, 11(2), 77.

Newman, D., J. (1958). Research interviewing in prison. Journal of Criminal Law. Criminology
and Police Science, 49(2), 127-132.

Nycz, J. (2019). Media and second dialect acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39,
152-160.

Sabao, C., Gohodzi, I. , & Phiri, F. M. (2020). Zimbabwean prison argot: A sociolinguistic/
etymological analysis of inmates’ discourse at Whawha Prison in Zimbabwe. JULACE:
Journal of the University of Namibia Language Centre, 4(1), 29–48.

Travis, A. (2005, December). Inmates 'run fight clubs' at maximum security jail. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/07/prisonsandprobation.topstories3

Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wells, J. (1982). England. In Accents of English (pp. 279-376). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.