Many scholars have attempted to analyze prison argot in different countries in the world. Nevertheless, the features of this variety of language have been fragmentary treated. Furthermore, in the Kenyan context, the area of prison argot has received the total silence of scholars in the linguistic field. The main aim of this study is to analyze the features of the Kenyan prison argot which is generally referred to as Kiswahili ya jela. Kiswahili ya jela is an ungrammatical Swahili phrase which in standard usage should mean the Swahili language of prisons. However, in the prison context, Kiswahili ya jela means a language full of tricks or lies. Thirty prisoners were randomly selected from Kibos and Kisumu Maximum Prisons to participate in the study. The contextual-dynamic method was used to collect data from the respondents. This method mainly involves the use of observation and dialogue. Because of its qualitative nature, the data is subjected to content analysis. From this work, the following features are evident; borrowing of terms from other languages, reversing of syllables, coining of new prison-contextual lexemes and the formation of argot terms through affixation. This study also reveals that the Kenyan prison argot exhibits code-mixing and the use of ungrammatical structures. Synonymy and polysemy as semantic features are also revealed. This paper thus concludes that the Kenyan prison argot is a highly creative slang.
| Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 6, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11 |
| Page(s) | 186-195 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Prison, Argot, Lexemes, Word Formation, Slang
| [1] | Sykes, M. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. |
| [2] | Cardozo-Freeman, I. (1984). The Joint: Language and Culture in a Maximum Security Prison Chares Thomas: Springfield. |
| [3] | Rossi, J. (1989). The Gulag Handbook: An Encyclopedia Dictionary of Soviet Penitentiary Institutions and Terms Related to the Forced Labor Camps. New York: Paragon House. |
| [4] | Moczydłowski, P. (1991). DrugieŻycieWięzienia. Warszawa: |
| [5] | Oryńska, A. (1991). Kategorie semantyczne leksyki języka potocznego I gwarywięziennej [in:] J. Puzynina and J. Bartmiński (eds.) Język a Kultura, Zagadnienia leksykalne iaksjologiczne 2. Wrocław: Wiedza o Kulturze, pp.81:106. |
| [6] | Einat, T. & Einat, H. (2000). “Inmate argot as an expression of prison subculture: The Israeli case”. [in:] The Prison Journal 80(3), pp. 309-325. |
| [7] | Szaszkiewicz, M. (1997). Tajemnice Grypserki. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ekspertyz Sądowych. |
| [8] | Einat, T. & Livnat, Z. (2012). “Words, Values, and Identities: The Israeli argot (jargon) of prisoners” [in:] International Journal of Political Science, Law and International Relations 2(2), pp. 97-118. |
| [9] | Gohodzi, I. (2013). A critical Analysis of Prison as Discourse Communities; an Examination of Whahwa Prison Complex. Unpublished Research Project, Midlands State University. |
| [10] | Binyanya, M. (2014). Sajili ya Maafisa wa Polisi: Tathmini ya Matumizi ya Lugha ya Kiswahili Katika Kituo cha Polisi cha Central, Nairobi. Unpublished M. A Theses, University of Nairobi. |
| [11] | Nyakundi. (2010). Motivation, Morpho-phonological Processes in Egesemba Argot Among Ekegusii-Speaking Males of Western Kenya; Unpublished MA Thesis: Kenyatta University. |
| [12] | Mugendi, N. (2016). Morphonology of the Gitamanya argot of the Matatu Crew of Embu Town; Unpublished MA Thesis: Kenyatta University. |
| [13] | Harris, B. (2012). What Is Argot? (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2012, from wise GEEK:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-argot.htm. Conjecture Corporation. |
| [14] | Ager, D. (1990). Socio-linguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [15] | Ito, J. & Mester, A. (1996). Prosodic Faithfulness and Correspondence: Evidence from Japanese Argot. Lingua, 237-258 |
| [16] | Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. |
| [17] | Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. 3rd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [18] | Mencken, H. (1980). The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States. New York. |
| [19] | Eble, C. (1996). Slang and Sociability, London and Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press |
| [20] | Green, J. (2002). African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [21] | Coleman, J. (2004). A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume II (1785-1858) Oxford: Oxford University Press |
| [22] | Hui, W. (2009). A Brief Analysis of the Characteristics of crime Argot. Unpublished theses, Guangdong Police College; Guangzhou, China. |
| [23] | Inimicus, T. (1995). Hell upon Earth; or the Most Pleasant and Delectable History of Whittington's Colledge, otherwise (Vulgarly) Called Newgate. London. |
| [24] | King’ei & Kobia (2007). “Lugha Kama Kitambulisho: Changamoto ya Sheng Nchini Kenya”. Nordic Journal of African Studies 16(3): 320-332. |
| [25] | Looser, D. (2001). Boobslang: A lexicographical study of the argot of New Zealand prison inmates, in the period 1996-200. Unpublished Ph.D. theses, University of Canterbury. |
| [26] | Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language (4thed.). New York: Cambridge. |
| [27] | W WW. Google. Wisniewski, K. (2007). Linguistics – Word- formation |
| [28] | Cornelius, P. (2008). Introduction to English Linguistics – Morphology, University of Düsseldorf. |
| [29] | WWW.Google. Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2008). |
| [30] | Ogechi, N. (2005). “Lexicalization in Sheng”. Nordic Journal of African Studies 14 (3), 334-343 |
| [31] | Rufa’i, A. (1979). Principal Resources of Lexeme Formation in Hausa. Harsunan, Nigeria. No ix, C. N. S. L. Kano: Bayero University. |
| [32] | Fagge, U. (2004). An Introduction to Hausa Morphology. Kano: Gidan Dabino Publishers. |
| [33] | Agezi, U. (2004). A Comparative Study of English and lgbo Morphological Processes. M. A. Thesis. Department of English and Literary Studies; Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria |
| [34] | Rubba, J. (2004). An Overview of the English Morphological System. English Department (Linguistics), California Polytechnic, State University. |
| [35] | Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [36] | Bullock, B., & Toribio, A. (Eds.) (2009). “Themes In the Study of Code-switching”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press |
| [37] | Yow, W. Q., & Li, X. (2015). “Balanced bilingualism and early age of second language acquisition as the underlying mechanisms of a bilingual executive control advantage: Why variations in bilingual experiences matter”. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 164. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00164 |
| [38] | Heredia & Altarriba (2001) “Bilingual Language Mixing: Why Do Bilingual Code-Switch?” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164-168 |
| [39] | Aronoff M. & Fudeman K. (2005). What is Morphology? United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Company |
| [40] | Murphy, M. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexion – Antonymy, Synonymy and other Paradigms. University of Susses U.K: Cambridge University Press |
| [41] | Geeraerts, D. (2009). “The Application of Semantic Field Theory to English Vocabulary Learning in Theory and Practice” in Language Studies, Vol. 3, No11. Finland: Academy Publisher pg 2030-2035 |
| [42] | Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher |
| [43] | Kovacs, E. (2011). “Polysemy in Traditional vs. Cognitive Linguistics” in Eger Journal of English Studies xi (2011) 3-19 available at www.anglisztika.ektf.hu/...kovacs-2011pdf |
| [44] | Malmkjær, K. (2005). Linguistics and the Language of Translation, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. |
| [45] | Mwangi & Mukhwana (2001). Isimujamii, Nairobi; Focus Publishers. |
| [46] | Briggs, C. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press |
| [47] | Slama-Casacu, T. (2000). Stratageme Comunicaţionale şi Manipulare, Iaşi, Polirom. |
| [48] | Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zafiu, Rodica. 2001. Diversitatestilisticăînromânaactuală. Bucureşti: Ed. Universităţii din Bucureşti. |
| [49] | Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown |
| [50] | Anderson, L., &Trudgil, P. (1990). Bad Language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell |
| [51] | Rayfield, J. (1970). The Languages of a Bilingual Community. The Hague; Mouton. |
APA Style
Ogutu Peter Okoth, Opande Nilson Isaac, Oluoch Stephen. (2018). Kiswahili ya Jela: The Features of the Kenyan Prison Argot. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 6(6), 186-195. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11
ACS Style
Ogutu Peter Okoth; Opande Nilson Isaac; Oluoch Stephen. Kiswahili ya Jela: The Features of the Kenyan Prison Argot. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2018, 6(6), 186-195. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11,
author = {Ogutu Peter Okoth and Opande Nilson Isaac and Oluoch Stephen},
title = {Kiswahili ya Jela: The Features of the Kenyan Prison Argot},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {6},
number = {6},
pages = {186-195},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20180606.11},
abstract = {Many scholars have attempted to analyze prison argot in different countries in the world. Nevertheless, the features of this variety of language have been fragmentary treated. Furthermore, in the Kenyan context, the area of prison argot has received the total silence of scholars in the linguistic field. The main aim of this study is to analyze the features of the Kenyan prison argot which is generally referred to as Kiswahili ya jela. Kiswahili ya jela is an ungrammatical Swahili phrase which in standard usage should mean the Swahili language of prisons. However, in the prison context, Kiswahili ya jela means a language full of tricks or lies. Thirty prisoners were randomly selected from Kibos and Kisumu Maximum Prisons to participate in the study. The contextual-dynamic method was used to collect data from the respondents. This method mainly involves the use of observation and dialogue. Because of its qualitative nature, the data is subjected to content analysis. From this work, the following features are evident; borrowing of terms from other languages, reversing of syllables, coining of new prison-contextual lexemes and the formation of argot terms through affixation. This study also reveals that the Kenyan prison argot exhibits code-mixing and the use of ungrammatical structures. Synonymy and polysemy as semantic features are also revealed. This paper thus concludes that the Kenyan prison argot is a highly creative slang.},
year = {2018}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Kiswahili ya Jela: The Features of the Kenyan Prison Argot AU - Ogutu Peter Okoth AU - Opande Nilson Isaac AU - Oluoch Stephen Y1 - 2018/11/01 PY - 2018 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 186 EP - 195 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11 AB - Many scholars have attempted to analyze prison argot in different countries in the world. Nevertheless, the features of this variety of language have been fragmentary treated. Furthermore, in the Kenyan context, the area of prison argot has received the total silence of scholars in the linguistic field. The main aim of this study is to analyze the features of the Kenyan prison argot which is generally referred to as Kiswahili ya jela. Kiswahili ya jela is an ungrammatical Swahili phrase which in standard usage should mean the Swahili language of prisons. However, in the prison context, Kiswahili ya jela means a language full of tricks or lies. Thirty prisoners were randomly selected from Kibos and Kisumu Maximum Prisons to participate in the study. The contextual-dynamic method was used to collect data from the respondents. This method mainly involves the use of observation and dialogue. Because of its qualitative nature, the data is subjected to content analysis. From this work, the following features are evident; borrowing of terms from other languages, reversing of syllables, coining of new prison-contextual lexemes and the formation of argot terms through affixation. This study also reveals that the Kenyan prison argot exhibits code-mixing and the use of ungrammatical structures. Synonymy and polysemy as semantic features are also revealed. This paper thus concludes that the Kenyan prison argot is a highly creative slang. VL - 6 IS - 6 ER -
Information
Email: