Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel

6 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.32

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.240
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.819

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2017, Issue 216


Duppying yoots in a dog eat dog world, kmt: Determining the senses of slang terms for the Courts

Tim Grant
Published Online: 2017-04-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0082


I describe and discuss a series of court cases that focus upon on decoding the meaning of slang terms. Examples include sexual slang used in a description by a child and an Internet Relay Chat containing a conspiracy to murder. I consider the task presented by these cases for the forensic linguist and the roles the linguist may assume in determining the meaning of slang terms for the Courts. These roles are identified as linguist as naïve interpreter, lexicographer, case researcher, and cultural mediator. Each of these roles is suggestive of different strategies that might be used from consulting formal slang dictionaries and less formal Internet sources, to collecting case specific corpora and examining all the extraneous material in a particular case. Each strategy is evaluated both in terms of the strength of evidence provided and its applicability to the forensic context.

Keywords: forensic linguistics; slang; meaning; lexicography


  • Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheshire, J., P. Kerswill, S. Fox & E. Torgersen. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2). 151–196.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cole, C. E. 2010. Review of Making meanings, creating family: Intertextuality and framing in family interaction, by Cynthia Gordon. Journal of Family Communication 10(3). 211–213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham, C. D., J. N. Levi, G. M. Green & J. P. Kaplan. 1994. Plain meaning and hard cases. Yale Law Journal 103(6). 1561–1625.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dumas, B. K. & J. Lighter. 1978. Is slang a word for linguists? American Speech 53. 5–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eades, D. 1982. You gotta know how to talk …: Information seeking in south‐east Queensland aboriginal society. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2(1). 61–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eble, C. C. 1996. Slang & sociability: In-group language among college students. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

  • Fox, G. 1993. A comparison of “policespeak” and “normalspeak”: A preliminary study. In J. M. Sinclair, M. Hoey & G. Fox (eds.), Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse, 183–195. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Green, J. 2010. Green’s dictionary of slang. Oxford: Oxford University Press (accessed 9 May 2015).Google Scholar

  • Green, J. 2015. The timelines of slang. http://thetimelinesofslang.tumblr.com.

  • Greenlee, M. 2010. Sociolinguistic issues in gang-related prosecutions: Homies, hearsay, and expert standards. In M. Coulthard & A. C. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 281–302. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Grieve, J. 2015. Research blog. https://sites.google.com/site/jackgrieveaston/treesandtweets (accessed 9 May 2015).

  • Hale, S. 2010. Court interpreting. In M. Coulthard & A. C. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 440–459. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kießling, R. & M. Mous. 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological Linguistics 46(3). 303–341.Google Scholar

  • Landau, S. I. 1984. Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar

  • Lewandowski, T. 2012. Uptalk, vocal fry and, like totally slang: Assessing stylistic trends in American speech. Stylistyka 21. 209–219.Google Scholar

  • Noaks, L. & I. Butler. 1995. Silence in court? Language interpreters in the courts of England and Wales. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 34(2). 124–135.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O’Mahony, B. M. 2010. The emerging role of the Registered Intermediary with the vulnerable witness and offender: Facilitating communication with the police and members of the judiciary. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 38(3). 232–237.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Solan, L. 1998. Linguistic experts as semantic tour guides. Forensic Linguistics 5(2). 87–106.Google Scholar

  • Stenström, A. B. & A. M. Jørgensen (eds.). 2009. Youngspeak in a multilingual perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Walsh, M. 1997. Cross cultural communication problems in Aboriginal Australia. Canberra: North Australia Research Unit, The Australian National University.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-04-20

Published in Print: 2017-05-24

Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2017, Issue 216, Pages 479–495, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0082.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in