Social structure and peer terminology in a black adolescent gang

Abstract

Studies of the social organization of adolescent groups may not have always taken into account sufficiently the dual reality of the groups in which much of the youths' activities occur. Peer terminology is useful in locating and describing the associational patterns and activities of the youth, but only if the range of possible terms is considerably broadened. It was found in a study of a Harlem street gang that such language may appear ambiguous, but when studied systematically in the interaction between interviewer and members, the misunderstandings become transparent. Peer terminological practices can be used to provide further knowledge of the reality of the social organization of adolescent primary groups. (Peer terminology, primary groups, misunderstanding, interviewing, juvenile delinquency, urban black adolescent language; verbal tags.)

Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that1

“…Youssef (1993) foregrounds the fact that shared knowledge may be projected rather than actual in her analysis of the use of Trinidad Creole an ting by doctors and patients in counselling sessions, where the effect is to break down power differentials. Labov (1982: 394) similarly notes that the use of and ’em by adolescent boys when there is a power differential amongst gang members is a way of projecting shared knowledge, whether real or not, and presenting oneself as ‘in’ in order to circumvent interrogation.…”

Youth, slang, and pragmatic expressions: Examples from Brazilian Portuguese1

“…Yet more recent research has turned to explore their pragmatic significance as markers of intersubjectivity where they invoke common knowledge and serve to intensify utterances (Overstreet 1999;Yule 1997, 2002). Like pragmatic markers, forms of indefinite reference are often heavily stigmatized and salient markers of age (Dubois 1992;Kiesling 2004;Labov 1982;Mendoza-Denton 1997;Overstreet 1999;Overstreet and Yule 1997;Stenström, Andersen and Hasund 2002;Stubbe and Holmes 1995), ethnicity (Mendoza-Denton 1997), and socio-economic class (Dines 1980). They are readily associated with marginalized populations (such as the uneducated), as they are thought to reflect vagueness in language and thought, stupidity, laziness, and sloppiness (Overstreet 1999).…”

The Gamesmanship of Sex: A Model Based on African American Adolescent Accounts

“…The language and performance reflects an emphasis on playful verbal styles and self-dramatization by this group also reported by linguists (e.g., Abrahams 1974). Linguistic studies of both African American boys (e.g., Labov 1982) and girls (e.g., Goodwin 1992) describe the use of peer terminology, gossip disputes, and verbal contests to establish and maintain a social reputation.…”