Hubbry Logo
Cant (language)Cant (language)Main
Open search
Cant (language)
Community hub
Cant (language)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cant (language)
Cant (language)
Cant (language)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A cant is the jargon or language of a group, often employed to exclude or mislead people outside the group.[1] It may also be called a cryptolect, argot, pseudo-language, anti-language or secret language. Each term differs slightly in meaning; their uses are inconsistent.

Etymology

[edit]

There are two main schools of thought on the origin of the word cant:

  • In linguistics, the derivation is normally seen to be from the Irish word caint (older spelling cainnt), "speech, talk",[2] or Scottish Gaelic cainnt. It is seen to have derived amongst the itinerant groups of people in Ireland and Scotland, who hailed from both Irish/Scottish Gaelic and English-speaking backgrounds, ultimately developing as various creole languages.[2] However, the various types of cant (Scottish/Irish) are mutually unintelligible. The Irish creole variant is termed "the cant". Its speakers from the Irish Traveller community know it as Gammon, while the linguistic community identifies it as shelta.[2]
  • Outside Gaelic circles, the derivation is typically seen to be from Latin cantāre, 'to sing', via Norman French canter.[1][3] Within this derivation, the history of the word is seen to have referred to the chanting of friars initially, used disparagingly some time between the 12th[3] and 15th centuries.[1] Gradually, the term was applied to the singsong of beggars and eventually a criminal jargon.

Argot

[edit]

An argot (English: /ˈɑːrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁɡo] 'slang') is a language used by various groups to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations. The term argot is also used to refer to the informal specialized vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby, in which sense it overlaps with jargon.

In his 1862 novel Les Misérables, Victor Hugo refers to that argot as both "the language of the dark" and "the language of misery".[4]

The earliest known record of the term argot in this context was in a 1628 document. The word was probably derived from the contemporary name les argotiers, given to a group of thieves at that time.[5]

Under the strictest definition, an argot is a proper language with its own grammatical system.[6] Such complete secret languages are rare because the speakers usually have some public language in common, on which the argot is largely based. Such argots are lexically divergent forms of a particular language, with a part of its vocabulary replaced by words unknown to the larger public; argot used in this sense is synonymous with cant. For example, argot in this sense is used for systems such as verlan and louchébem, which retain French syntax and apply transformations only to individual words (and often only to a certain subset of words, such as nouns, or semantic content words).[7] Such systems are examples of argots à clef, or "coded argots".[7]

Specific words can go from argot into everyday speech or the other way. For example, modern French loufoque 'crazy', 'goofy', now common usage, originated in the louchébem transformation of Fr. fou 'crazy'.

In the field of medicine, physicians have been said to have their own spoken argot, cant, or slang, which incorporates commonly understood abbreviations and acronyms, frequently used technical colloquialisms, and much everyday professional slang (that may or may not be institutionally or geographically localized).[8] While many of these colloquialisms may prove impenetrable to most lay people, few seem to be specifically designed to conceal meaning from patients (perhaps because standard medical terminology would usually suffice anyway).[8]

Anti-language

[edit]

The concept of the anti-language was first defined and studied by the linguist Michael Halliday, who used the term to describe the lingua franca of an anti-society.[9] An anti-society is a small, separate community intentionally created within a larger society as an alternative to or resistance of it.[9] For example, Adam Podgórecki studied one anti-society composed of Polish prisoners; Bhaktiprasad Mallik of Sanskrit College studied another composed of criminals in Calcutta.[9]

These societies develop anti-languages as a means to prevent outsiders from understanding their communication and as a manner of establishing a subculture that meets the needs of their alternative social structure.[10] Anti-languages differ from slang and jargon in that they are used solely among ostracized social groups, including prisoners,[11] criminals, homosexuals,[10] and teenagers.[12] Anti-languages use the same basic vocabulary and grammar as their native language in an unorthodox fashion. For example, anti-languages borrow words from other languages, create unconventional compounds, or utilize new suffixes for existing words. Anti-languages may also change words using metathesis, reversal of sounds or letters (e.g., apple to elppa), or substituting their consonants.[9] Therefore, anti-languages are distinct and unique and are not simply dialects of existing languages.

In his essay "Anti-Language", Halliday synthesized the research of Thomas Harman, Adam Podgórecki, and Bhaktiprasad Mallik to explore anti-languages and the connection between verbal communication and the maintenance of a social structure. For this reason, the study of anti-languages is both a study of sociology and linguistics. Halliday's findings can be compiled as a list of nine criteria that a language must meet to be considered an anti-language:

  • An anti-society is a society set up within another society as a conscious alternative to it.
  • Like the early records of the languages of exotic cultures, the information usually comes to us as word lists.
  • The simplest form taken by an anti-language is that of new words from old: it is a language relexicalised.
  • The principle is that of same grammar, different vocabulary.
  • Effective communication depends on exchanging meanings that are inaccessible to the layperson.
  • The anti-language is not just an optional extra; it is the fundamental element in the existence of the "second life" phenomenon.
  • The most important vehicle of reality-maintenance is conversation. All who employ this same form of communication are reality-maintaining others.
  • The anti-language is a vehicle of resocialisation.
  • There is continuity between language and anti-language.

Examples of anti-languages include Cockney rhyming slang, CB slang, verlan, the grypsera of Polish prisons, thieves' cant,[13] Polari,[14] and Bangime.[15]

[edit]

Anti-languages are sometimes created by authors and used by characters in novels. These anti-languages do not have complete lexicons, cannot be observed in use for linguistic description, and therefore cannot be studied in the same way a language spoken by an existing anti-society would. However, they are still used in the study of anti-languages. Roger Fowler's "Anti-Languages in Fiction" analyzes Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange and William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch to redefine the nature of the anti-language and to describe its ideological purpose.[16]

A Clockwork Orange is a popular example of a novel where the main character is a teenage boy who speaks an anti-language called Nadsat. This language is often referred to as an argot, but it has been argued that it is an anti-language because of the social structure it maintains through the social class of the droogs.[12]

Regional usage of term

[edit]

In parts of Connacht, in Ireland, cant mainly refers to an auction, typically on fair day ("Cantmen and Cantwomen, some from as far away as Dublin, would converge on Mohill on a Fair Day, ... set up their stalls ... and immediately start auctioning off their merchandise") and secondly means talk ("very entertaining conversation was often described as 'great cant'" or "crosstalk").[17][18]

In Scotland, two unrelated creole languages are termed cant. Scottish Cant (a mixed language, primarily Scots and Romani with Scottish Gaelic influences) is spoken by lowland Roma groups. Highland Traveller's Cant (or Beurla Reagaird) is a Gaelic-based cant of the Indigenous Highland Traveller population.[2] The cants are mutually unintelligible.

In June 2009 it was reported that inmates in one English prison were using "Elizabethan cant" as a means of communication that guards would not understand, although the words used are not part of the canon of recognised cant.[19]

The word has also been used as a suffix to coin names for modern-day jargons such as "medicant", a term used to refer to the type of language employed by members of the medical profession that is largely unintelligible to lay people.[1]

Examples

[edit]

Thieves' cant

[edit]

The thieves' cant was a feature of popular pamphlets and plays, particularly between 1590 and 1615, but continued to feature in literature through the 18th century. There are questions about how genuinely the literature reflected vernacular use in the criminal underworld. A thief in 1839 claimed that the cant he had seen in print was nothing like the cant then used by "gypsies, thieves, and beggars." He also said that each of these used distinct vocabularies, which overlapped, the gypsies having a cant word for everything, and the beggars using a lower style than the thieves.[24]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cant (language)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cant, commonly known as thieves' cant, is a historical cryptolect or argot—a specialized jargon designed for secrecy—primarily employed by thieves, beggars, vagabonds, and other marginal underworld figures in England from the 16th to the 19th centuries to obscure communications from law enforcement and outsiders. Emerging as a pidgin-like blend of English with loanwords from Latin, French, Italian, Yiddish, and possibly Romany, its exact origins remain debated among linguists, though it was not derived solely from Romani as earlier theories suggested. First systematically documented in 1566 by magistrate Thomas Harman in his treatise A Caveat for Common Cursetors, which recorded over 100 cant terms for criminal activities and objects, the language facilitated covert planning of thefts, scams, and evasions amid England's vagrancy laws and poor relief systems. Subsequent glossaries, such as those in 17th- and 18th-century rogue literature like The Newgate Calendar, proliferated its vocabulary—encompassing terms like angels for coins or priggers for thieves—revealing its evolution into a semi-standardized anti-language that both empowered subcultures and intrigued moral reformers who published exposures to aid detection. By the 19th century, widespread publication of cant dictionaries eroded its exclusivity, contributing to its decline as urbanization and policing diminished the nomadic criminal underclass it served, though echoes persist in modern slang and literary depictions of roguery.

Definition and Linguistic Features

Core Definition and Purpose

Cant denotes a cryptolect—a systematic linguistic or argot—developed and employed by marginalized or insular social groups, such as criminals, vagabonds, and itinerant workers, to encode communications in ways opaque to outsiders. This form of language manipulates , , or to create barriers of comprehension, distinguishing it from everyday dialects by its deliberate obscurity rather than regional variation. The principal purpose of cant lies in enabling covert interaction within subcultures facing external threats, particularly in criminal underworlds where it conceals plans for , evasion, or from authorities and potential victims. By fostering exclusive terminology—such as terms for tools of or signals for danger—cant reinforces group cohesion and survival strategies, allowing members to coordinate activities while minimizing detection risks. This functionality extends beyond mere secrecy to signaling loyalty and identity, as proficiency in cant serves as a marker of belonging in environments hostile to transparency.

Phonological, Lexical, and Syntactic Traits

Cant primarily employs the phonological inventory and prosody of , with limited systematic alterations such as occasional syllable reversal or insertion for obfuscation, as in transforming "face" to "ecaf," though these are sporadic rather than defining traits. Such features enhance secrecy without establishing a distinct sound system, distinguishing Cant from constructed languages with invented phonemes. Historical records, including Thomas Harman's 1566 documentation, show pronunciation aligning with contemporary vernacular English to facilitate rapid oral use among speakers. Lexically, Cant is characterized by extensive substitution and innovation, drawing from English , Romany, Latin, French, Italian, , and other sources to create a specialized opaque to outsiders. Word formation relies on , , , and ; for example, "nubbing cheat" denotes (from "nub" meaning to hang and "cheat" for device), while "cackling farts" refers to eggs via onomatopoeic vulgarity. Over-lexicalization prevails in criminal domains, with multiple synonyms for concepts like ("prig," "nyp") or accomplices ("doxy," "prigger of prancers"), totaling dozens for thieves alone. Terms first attested in 17th-century texts like Thomas Shadwell's The Squire of Alsatia (1688) include "cole" for and "scamper" (borrowed, meaning to flee), often clustered in semantic fields such as (13 terms), trickery, and violence. Syntactically, Cant conforms to English grammatical rules, overlaying its lexicon onto standard word order, verb conjugations, and inflection without deviation, which allows seamless integration into spoken discourse while relying on vocabulary for exclusion. Sentences retain imperative, declarative, or interrogative structures; Harman’s examples illustrate this, as in "Byng we to Rome vyle to nyp a bounge" ("Let us go to London while to cut a purse"), mirroring English syntax but decoded only by initiates through lexical substitution. This adherence to host-language grammar underscores Cant's role as an argot rather than a creole, prioritizing semantic camouflage over structural reinvention.

Distinctions from Jargon, Slang, and Dialects

Cant differs from primarily in intent and usage: while comprises specialized terminology developed for precision and efficiency within professional or technical fields—such as medical terms like "" in healthcare—cant emphasizes and exclusion, employing coded to conceal meanings from outsiders, often among marginalized or illicit groups. typically draws from adapted for context-specific clarity and is accessible upon explanation, whereas cant relies on deliberate through neologisms, metaphors, or phonetic alterations, rendering it opaque without insider knowledge. In contrast to , which consists of informal, ephemeral expressions that foster casual in-group and often enter mainstream usage—exemplified by terms like "cool" originating in subcultures before widespread adoption—cant maintains a more rigid, insular designed for protection rather than informality or trendiness. evolves rapidly through and lacks the systematic coding of cant, which historically included fixed substitutions like "" for a thief's lookout in 17th-century English parlance, persisting within closed networks without broad assimilation. Unlike dialects, which represent organic variations of a encompassing phonological, grammatical, and lexical differences tied to or social strata—such as the Scots dialect's use of "wee" for small, with partial to —cant functions as a cryptolect, an artificial overlay of vocabulary on the base language without altering core syntax or for secrecy's sake. Dialects emerge from natural linguistic divergence over time, supported by community transmission, whereas cant is purposively constructed by out-groups, like or criminals, to evade detection, as seen in 16th-century English examples documented in rogue literature where terms like "angler" denoted a thief stealing from windows. This distinction underscores cant's role as an anti-language, prioritizing dissimulation over the evolutionary coherence of dialects.

Etymology and Historical Origins

Derivation of the Term "Cant"

The term "cant," denoting the specialized or secret of thieves and vagabonds, derives from the Old North French verb canter ("to sing" or "to "), ultimately tracing to Latin cantare, the frequentative of canere ("to sing"), rooted in the Proto-Indo-European kan- ("to sing"). This etymological lineage reflects an association with rhythmic or melodic vocalization, initially applied to the insincere or affected speech patterns observed among itinerant groups. In English usage, the verb form emerged in the 1560s to describe speaking in a whining or singsong voice, specifically the pleading intonation employed by beggars when soliciting , evoking the performative quality of their appeals. By the 1640s, the noun "cant" had solidified as referring to this whining mode of beggars' speech, capturing the hypocritical or exaggerated tone perceived in vagrant interactions with the public. The extension to criminal jargon occurred after 1680, when "cant" broadened to signify the exclusive of thieves, rogues, and vagabonds, used to obscure communications from outsiders such as . This shift paralleled the term's occasional linkage to in medieval contexts, where Latin cantus implied rote chanting, though the beggar-derived sense predominates in applications. Early documentation, such as Thomas Harman's 1566 A Caveat or Warening for Common Cursetors Vulgarely Called Vagabones, illustrates "canting" as the of the "canting crew"—a of cranks and uprightmen—marking its initial formalization in print for secretive criminal discourse.

Earliest Documented Uses and Sources

The earliest printed documentation of English cant appears in John Awdeley's The Fraternity of Vagabonds, published in 1561, which includes one of the first glossaries of cant terms used by vagabonds and rogues to obscure their communications from authorities. Awdeley's work describes the hierarchical structure of vagrant groups and catalogs specific lexical items, such as abram-man for a feigned lunatic beggar and doxy for a beggar's female companion, positioning cant as a tool for intra-group secrecy amid rising Elizabethan concerns over vagrancy. As a firsthand observer of London's underworld, Awdeley's account draws from direct exposure rather than invention, though its authenticity relies on his unverified claims of rogue consultations. Shortly thereafter, Thomas Harman's A Caveat or Warning for Common Cursetors (1566) expanded on cant through transcribed dialogues and a more extensive vocabulary list, portraying it as a devised anti-language for criminals like counterfeit cranks and upright men. Harman, a Kentish gentleman who hosted and interrogated vagrants at his estate, asserted that cant originated around the 1530s, invented by a executed "all save the head" to evade detection during Henry VIII's reign, though this remains anecdotal and unconfirmed by independent records. His pamphlet, among the first to systematically expose cant to the public, influenced subsequent but has faced scholarly skepticism for potentially embellishing to heighten moral alarm, blending empirical observation with didactic fabrication. These mid-16th-century sources mark the transition of cant from presumed among itinerant criminals to written exposure, coinciding with Tudor vagrancy statutes like the 1530 Egyptians Act and 1547 Vagabonds Act that criminalized rogue mobility. Prior undocumented use is inferred from Harman's timeline but lacks corroboration, as no earlier glossaries or references in legal or literary texts have surfaced; continental argots, such as German Rotwelsch documented from the , may have parallels but do not directly evidence English cant's genesis. Later 1590s pamphlets by Robert Greene, including A Notable Discovery of Cozenage (1591), built on Awdeley and Harman by incorporating cant into narratives of cony-catching scams, but these postdate the initial exposures and prioritize over novel documentation.

Evolution and Historical Contexts

Medieval Precursors and Early Modern Emergence

Precursors to structured cant appear in late medieval , particularly in the form of French argot, a secretive employed by vagrant criminals and counterfeiters known as the Coquillards. Active from the 1440s around in eastern , this brotherhood of ex-soldiers and wanderers—numbering perhaps 500 to 1,000—used argot to coordinate thefts, pilgrim frauds, and other illicit activities while masquerading as pilgrims, as evidenced by their 1455 trial records in , which document over 200 argot terms related to deception and vice. These terms, often derived from distorted French, Latin, or regional dialects, facilitated intra-group communication amid post-Hundred Years' social upheaval, marking an early systematic cryptolect for underworld exclusion of outsiders. The poet (c. 1431–after 1463), briefly associated with Coquillard circles in , further illustrates this in his Ballades en jargon (c. 1458), where he embeds argot into verse to evoke criminal subcultures, though scholars debate whether his usage reflects authentic insider knowledge or stylized mimicry for literary effect. This period's argot, while not a full , prefigures cant's lexical inversion and , driven by the need for opacity against authorities, as seen in trial testimonies revealing terms for tools of and signals for scams. Evidence from such sources, however, derives primarily from prosecutorial records, potentially exaggerating the 's coherence to portray defendants as an organized threat. Cant's early modern emergence in England crystallized during the Tudor era, amid rising vagrancy from monastic dissolutions (1536–1541) and enclosure acts displacing rural poor, fostering itinerant rogue networks. The first English documentation appears in John Awdeley's The Fraternitye of Vacabondes (1561), outlining beggar hierarchies and introductory cant phrases, followed by Thomas Harman's A Caveat or Warening for Commen Cursetors (1566–1567), which provides the earliest substantial glossary of approximately 114 terms, detailing phonetic shifts, neologisms, and syntactic distortions used by "cursetors" (vagabonds) for plotting thefts and evading constables. Harman's work, based on direct informant interrogations, attributes cant's purpose to concealing felonious intent, with examples like angter (drunkard) and bene (good) illustrating its Romany-influenced and inverted lexicon, though its continental borrowings suggest diffusion via trade or migration rather than indigenous invention. These texts, while exposing cant to public scrutiny, inadvertently standardized it, transitioning from ad hoc medieval argot to a more codified early modern cryptolect amid England's expanding criminal underclass.

Peak Usage in 16th-19th Century Criminal Underworlds

Cant, as a cryptolect of the English criminal , attained its height of usage and cultural significance from the 16th to 19th centuries, when it enabled , beggars, and vagabonds to coordinate illicit activities, evade detection by authorities, and maintain social cohesion among rogues amid stringent vagrancy laws and urban . This period coincided with rapid population growth in and other cities, fostering expansive networks of where cant served practical functions such as signaling safe houses, describing stolen goods (e.g., "glim" for a or used in burglaries), and negotiating divisions of plunder without alerting bystanders or constables. Documentation from contemporary exposés, including glossaries compiling hundreds of terms, indicates cant's permeation across hierarchies of the , from "uprightmen" (chief beggars enforcing codes) to specialized priggers (horse ), with estimates from rogue taxonomies suggesting thousands of practitioners in Elizabethan alone. The foundational text exposing cant's mechanics was Thomas Harman's A Caveat or Warning for Common Cursitors (1566), which cataloged over 100 cant words and phrases alongside a classification of 25 vagabond orders, asserting that rogues employed the tongue to plot muggings and deceptions in public view. Harman's work, drawn from interrogations and observations, highlighted cant's role in beggar confederacies, where terms like "doxy" (a beggar's female companion) and "frater" (a fraudulent ) facilitated role-specific for scams. Building on this, late-16th-century conny-catching pamphlets by Robert Greene, such as A Notable Discovery of Cozenage (1591), detailed cant's application in swindles like "crossbiting" ( rackets), reflecting its entrenchment as thieves adapted it to Elizabethan 's swelling of displaced rural migrants. By the early , Thomas Dekker's The Bellman of (1608) expanded glossaries and narratives, portraying cant dialogues in night-time "darkmans" (cant for nighttime) assemblies of rogues, underscoring its evolution into a semi-standardized argot amid recurrent waves. Into the 18th and 19th centuries, cant persisted and hybridized with emerging "flash" slang in industrial-era slums, as evidenced by Francis Grose's A Classical of the Vulgar Tongue (1785), which incorporated dozens of cant-derived entries like "" (to steal) from underworld informants, illustrating its utility in gin-soaked flash houses where pickpockets and housebreakers bartered intelligence. Usage peaked in this era's vast criminal , with parliamentary reports from the 1810s estimating over 20,000 active thieves in alone relying on such lexicons to navigate fences and avoid , though literary amplifications raise questions about the extent of pure invention versus authentic practice. Cant's opacity—combining Romance, Germanic, and fabricated elements—proved resilient against sporadic crackdowns, but its documentation in over 20 major dictionaries by 1850 signals both its ubiquity and the authorities' growing countermeasures, marking the close of its dominant phase.

Decline and Persistence into the 20th Century

By the mid-19th century, the utility of as a secretive communication tool diminished with the professionalization of policing, exemplified by the establishment of the Force in in 1829, which enhanced and infiltration of criminal networks, reducing the need for opaque dialects among urban thieves. Dictionaries of cant, such as John Camden Hotten's A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant, and Vulgar Words published in 1859, documented surviving terms but noted their integration into broader underworld rather than as a cohesive system, signaling a shift toward more accessible forms of criminal amid rising rates that exposed such languages to public scrutiny. Despite this decline, elements of cant persisted into the through adaptation in marginalized subcultures, particularly , a cryptolect blending with Italian, Romani, and influences, used by British gay men, theater performers, and sailors to evade persecution under laws like the 1885 Labouchere Amendment criminalizing "." Polari's roots trace to 16th-century , as evidenced by shared vocabulary like "bona" (good) from Italian via criminal argot, and it remained functional into the mid-20th century, appearing in Henry Mayhew's 1851 London Labour and the London Poor interviews with showmen and gaining mainstream exposure via BBC Radio's sketches featuring from 1965 to 1968. Polari's usage waned post-1967 following the Sexual Offences Act's partial of male homosexuality, which eroded the imperative for coded speech, though isolated terms endured in and circles into the and beyond. Similarly, cant-derived slang influenced Australian convict vernacular, with James Hardy Vaux's 1819 Vocabulaire of the Flash Language preserving terms transported to penal colonies, some of which lingered in 20th-century bushranger lore and regional dialects despite formal decline in Britain. Individual cant words, such as "prat" (buttocks or fool, from Romani via thieves' slang), integrated into everyday English by the early 20th century, attesting to its lexical persistence absent a full structural revival.

Relations to Argot and Anti-Language

Argot as Criminal Jargon

Argot denotes the covert linguistic system developed by criminal subcultures to obscure meanings from authorities and outsiders, primarily through invented terms, phonetic distortions, and repurposed vocabulary. Emerging in 15th-century among beggars, thieves, and vagrants, it initially described the social group itself before shifting to their specialized speech patterns by the , as evidenced in early glossaries like the Liber Vagatorum (ca. 1510), which cataloged such terms across . This enabled precise coordination of crimes—such as denoting "" as chat (from château) or "police" via euphemistic codes—while fostering in-group solidarity and excluding eavesdroppers. As criminal jargon, argot's core utility lay in its opacity, achieved via lexical innovation rather than wholesale grammatical overhaul, distinguishing it from mere slang by its intentional secrecy and occupational focus on illicit trades like theft, forgery, and smuggling. French argot, for instance, proliferated in Parisian underworlds by the 17th century, with documented terms like argot itself evolving from throat-gargling sounds mimicking speech impediments to symbolize hidden discourse. In practice, it served causal functions in sustaining underground economies: criminals used it to negotiate deals in plain sight, as in 19th-century Parisian prisons where argot concealed escape plans from guards, per contemporary police reports. Empirical analyses of arrest transcripts from the era reveal argot's effectiveness in delaying prosecutions, as interpreters were scarce until specialized glossaries emerged. Relative to cant, argot represents the continental of such , with "cant" serving as its English for thieves' parlance; both terms overlap in denoting anti-social lexicons but argot emphasizes French criminal milieus, while cant extends to broader vagrant dialects in Britain. This equivalence underscores argot's role not as neutral dialect but as a pragmatic tool for evading detection, rooted in the evolutionary pressures of repeated crackdowns—such as France's 1535 Ordonnance de , which inadvertently spurred further lexical invention. Critiques from linguistic scholars note that while argot enhanced operational security, its persistence waned with modern technologies, though remnants endure in contemporary .

Anti-Language Frameworks and Critiques

The anti-language framework, developed by linguist M.A.K. Halliday in , posits that certain linguistic varieties emerge within "anti-societies"—subgroups positioned in opposition to dominant societal norms—to construct and sustain an alternative social order through . Halliday argued that anti-languages systematically relexicalize the of the host , mapping mainstream positive or neutral terms onto antisocial realities (e.g., "work" inverted to denote or ) and vice versa, thereby enabling and internal rather than mere . This inversion creates a parallel reality that reinforces group cohesion, as seen in historical cants where terms for or evasion replace conventional descriptors of labor and lawfulness. Applied to cant, the framework frames criminal argots as anti-languages that facilitate not just obfuscation from authorities but the ideological reorientation of speakers away from societal norms toward underworld values. For instance, thieves' cant in early modern England reencoded concepts of property and authority to normalize illicit activities, embedding a worldview where mainstream "success" equates to vulnerability and criminal "enterprise" signifies autonomy. Halliday emphasized that such systems thrive in closed communities like prisons or gangs, where the anti-language's distortions—often 10-20% lexical divergence from the standard—serve to exclude outsiders while indoctrinating insiders into the group's causal logic of survival through deception. Critiques of the framework highlight its potential overemphasis on deliberate opposition, noting that many cants exhibit pragmatic borrowing from dominant languages for rather than systematic inversion, undermining claims of a fully autonomous "anti-reality." Scholars have argued that Halliday's model, drawn from limited cases like Rastafarian speech or urban subcultures, underaccounts for evolutionary continuity in cryptolects, where criminal cants often evolve incrementally from or dialects without requiring a conscious anti-societal , as evidenced by 16th-century English retaining over 70% Romance-derived terms from mainstream usage. Empirical analyses further question the framework's universality, suggesting that and in-group signaling predominate over in transient criminal groups, with anti-language features appearing more as adaptations than structured ideologies. Despite these limitations, the model remains influential in for explaining how cants sustain resistance identities in marginalized or illicit networks.

Prominent Examples

Thieves' Cant in English-Speaking Regions

Thieves' cant in English-speaking regions originated primarily in during the , serving as a specialized among itinerant criminals, beggars, and thieves to obscure communications from authorities and the public. The earliest printed documentation appears in John Awdelay's The Fraternitye of Vacabondes (1561), which lists rudimentary cant terms alongside descriptions of rogue hierarchies. This was expanded in Thomas Harman's A Caveat for Common Cursitors (1566), where the author, a , compiled observations from interrogating over 200 vagrants, including a of approximately 100 words and reconstructed dialogues in cant to illustrate its use in plotting deceptions like feigned disabilities for . Harman traced its invention to around 1532, attributing it to a group of 30-40 felons led by a man named Cocke Lorel, who was reportedly hanged soon after developing the as a tool for coordinated vagabondage. The cant featured inverted or altered English words, often with Romance or Germanic influences, to denote criminal roles, tools, and actions; for instance, prat signified the head (target for assault), fawney a gilt ring used in confidence tricks, and queer base or , a term persisting into modern for suspicious or dishonest. Harman's examples depict practical application, such as a beggar using cant to signal accomplices: "Bing we to to nip the Cackling Chete" translating to "Go we to to steal the hen." Subsequent Elizabethan writers like Robert Greene incorporated cant into cony-catching pamphlets (e.g., A Notable Discovery of Cozenage, 1591), dramatizing its role in urban scams and embedding terms like conny (dupe or victim) to expose metropolitan . These texts, while expository, likely amplified the cant's spread by popularizing it beyond criminals. By the 17th and 18th centuries, cant evolved into formalized dictionaries reflecting London's persistent , as seen in The New Canting Dictionary (1700, attributed to B.E. Gent) and Francis Grose's A Classical of the Vulgar Tongue (1785), which cataloged over 500 entries including autem (church) and biter (cheat). These compilations drew from court records and rogue confessions, evidencing cant's adaptation for highway robbery and amid rising . In colonial America and , transported English convicts disseminated variants, blending with indigenous slang; U.S. examples appear in 19th-century narratives, such as terms for escape tools, though less codified than British forms due to diverse immigrant argots.
TermMeaningHistorical Context/Source
Abram manFeigned madman beggarPretended for ; Harman (1566)
DellYoung girl (often for theft)Targeted for ; Greene pamphlets (1590s)
JarkmanForger of begging licenses documents; Awdelay/Harman era
MortWoman or wifeIn rogue partnerships; Grose (1785)
NipSteal or pickpocketCommon verb in plans; 16th-century glossaries
Such lexicons underscore cant's function in maintaining group solidarity and evading detection, though scholarly analysis questions the extent of fabrication in printed sources, as magistrates like Harman may have embellished for moralistic effect. Despite decline with professional policing post-1800, remnants influenced American criminal in hobo and prison subcultures through the early .

Other Specific Cants and Cryptolects

, a cant historically used in German-speaking regions by itinerant beggars, vagrants, thieves, and other marginalized groups, originated in the and persisted into the . Drawing from a German base with heavy admixtures of , Hebrew, Romani, Czech, and Latin elements, it functioned as a cryptolect to obscure communications from authorities and outsiders, often incorporating euphemisms for criminal activities and travel. Early documentation appears in the Liber Vagatorum (ca. 1510), a German listing beggar types and their , which exposed elements of the language while purporting to aid detection. By the 19th century, linguists like Karl Joseph Anton Mittermaier documented its fluidity and regional variations, noting its role in sustaining subcultural solidarity among the "underworld of wanderers." French argot, emerging in the 15th-16th centuries among prison inmates and the criminal classes in , served as a secretive distinct from general , emphasizing inversion of words, foreign loanwords (e.g., from Italian or Romani), and metaphors to denote illicit trades and evade . It was first systematically recorded in François Villon's poetry around 1450 and later in Victor Hugo's (1862), which drew on observed underworld speech for authenticity, though Hugo's portrayals romanticized its opacity. Argot's core function remained exclusionary, with terms like gendarme twisted into riflard for officers, persisting in correctional contexts until the when it diffused into broader like , a syllable-reversal variant still used today. Scholarly analyses, such as those in 19th-century dictionaries by Alexandre Barrère, highlight its evolution from pure cant to cultural artifact, underscoring its utility in anti-authoritarian networks. Polari, a 19th-20th century British cryptolect primarily among , theater performers, and seafaring communities, blended , Italianate slang, , and rhyming constructions to signal identity and conduct covert discourse amid legal persecution before the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Terms such as bona (good), vada (look), and naff (bad or heterosexual) exemplified its campy, performative style, enabling public navigation of spaces like London's West End without detection. Popularized in BBC Radio's (1965-1968) via characters , Polari's visibility accelerated its decline post-decriminalization, as assimilation reduced the need for secrecy; by the 1970s, it had largely faded, though linguistic studies preserve about 400 core words. Its sources, including and fairground jargons, reflect adaptation from earlier cants for subcultural resilience rather than fabrication. Lunfardo, originating in late 19th-century among lower-class immigrants, prisoners, and port workers, functioned as an argot incorporating Italian (from , ca. 1880-1930), Spanish, French, and indigenous terms to mask dealings in the city's underworld and milieu. Coined from luna (moon, slang for madman) or lombardo (Lombard immigrant), it amassed over 5,000 words by the early 20th century, with examples like laburo (work, from Italian lavoro) and fiaca (laziness, from Italian fiacca), often used in lyrics by tango composers like Enrique Santos Discépolo in the 1920s-1930s. While initially a cryptolect for criminals evading police in the conventillos (tenements), it permeated porteño speech without fully retaining secrecy, as documented in Roberto Arlt's novels (e.g., El juguete rabioso, 1926), which captured its raw, hybrid vitality.

Regional and Cultural Variations

European Regional Forms

, a cant spoken primarily in German-speaking regions of , emerged among vagrants, beggars, and thieves during the , blending elements from , Hebrew, Romani, Czech, and High German to facilitate among itinerant outcasts. Documented as early as the , it was used by marginalized groups including refugees and traveling merchants, with the term "Rotwelsch" deriving from "rot" (red), a medieval for beggars due to their inflamed from exposure. By the 16th century, figures like referenced it in critiques of vagabond culture, noting its role in evading authorities, and it persisted into the among prison inmates and rural wanderers, incorporating loanwords for evasion tactics such as "Kanaken" for police. In , argot developed as a thieves' and beggars' by the , originating among urban underworld groups like those in Paris's Court , a supposed enclave of counterfeit cripples and criminals. The term "argot" likely stems from for the throat or a beggars' , reflecting its use in concealing illicit dealings through inverted meanings and foreign borrowings, as detailed in 16th-century compilations by writers like Étienne Tabourot. It influenced literary depictions, such as in Victor Hugo's 1831 novel , where it served as the dialect of the criminal , emphasizing phonetic distortions and synonyms for evasion. Spanish germanía, a slang of picaros (rogues) and , arose in the 15th-16th centuries among lowborn criminals and gypsies, documented in picaresque like the 1554 , which lists terms for and drawn from Caló (a Romani ) and invented neologisms. Used by confraternities of ruffians, it featured calques and metaphors for survival strategies, such as "calar" for entering a house stealthily, and spread through Spain's urban poor before declining with centralized policing by the . Other variants include Dutch bargoens, a 17th-century argot of sailors, , and brothel workers in port cities like , incorporating nautical terms and influences for smuggling communications, and Polish grypsera, a 19th-century cant evolving from with coded phrases for contraband exchange. These forms shared cross-European traits like rapid lexical renewal to counter infiltration but remained localized due to linguistic barriers and state crackdowns on .

Non-European and Modern Analogues

In , Lunfardo emerged in late 19th-century as a prison-born argot among criminals, blending Italian immigrant dialects, Spanish, and indigenous terms to evade guards' comprehension during illicit exchanges. Originating in jails around the 1870s, it facilitated secretive communication for theft and schemes, later permeating lyrics and urban slang by the early 20th century. Similarly, Coa in functions as a criminal , incorporating inverted words and coded phrases derived from Spanish and local influences, primarily used by convicts and thieves to obscure plans from authorities since at least the mid-20th century.) In , Tsotsitaal developed in South African townships during the 1940s as a hybrid argot rooted in , Zulu, and English, initially serving as a secrecy tool for tsotsis—youthful criminals engaged in violence and robbery—to coordinate without alerting police or rivals. Drawing from earlier 1920s slangs like Shalambombo, it evolved into a marker of urban male identity, with lexical innovations such as flipped syllables and loanwords ensuring exclusivity among initiates by the 1950s. In , Japanese yakuza syndicates employ a specialized vocabulary since the (1603–1868), featuring euphemisms and borrowings from Korean and Chinese to denote , rituals, and crimes like , thereby maintaining operational opacity against outsiders. Terms such as enkōdzume (finger-cutting penance) exemplify this coded lexicon, which persists in modern despite legal crackdowns post-1992 anti-yakuza ordinances. Contemporary analogues include leetspeak (or ), a digital cryptolect pioneered by 1980s hackers to obfuscate text in logs and evade keyword searches by system admins or . By substituting numerals for letters—e.g., "" as ""—it served as an in-group signal in early forums, evolving into a broader subcultural marker for cybersecurity enthusiasts and by the 1990s. Unlike historical cants tied to physical underworlds, leetspeak's adaptability to online reflects causal shifts from analog secrecy to algorithmic evasion in global cybercrime networks.

Societal Functions and Impacts

Role in Facilitating Illicit Activities

Cant enabled criminal subcultures to coordinate thefts, scams, and other offenses through obscured terminology that excluded outsiders, particularly law enforcement, from comprehending discussions conducted in plain view. In 16th-century , magistrate Thomas Harman documented in his 1566 A Caveat or Warning for Common Cursitors how vagabonds and thieves used cant to plot burglaries and muggings audibly near upright citizens, leveraging its opacity to prevent interference or arrests. Operational specificity in cant terms further aided execution of illicit acts; "priggers of prancers" identified horse thieves, "lullypriggers" denoted pilferers from clotheslines, and "cloy" signified stealing, allowing precise scheming without alerting authorities or victims. Terms like "heave the booth" for house robbery and "rum cully" for a naive wealthy target exemplified how cant concealed tactical planning in 17th- and 18th-century robberies. This secrecy extended to risk evaluation and evasion, with "nubbing cheat" referring to , enabling groups to assess execution dangers candidly amid operations, and "pig" denoting officers to signal threats discreetly. In cons such as the "ring faller" ploy—dropping fake jewelry to enable —cant, as outlined in John Awdelay's 1561 The Fraternity of Vagabonds, masked deceptive routines from bystanders. By the , cant sustained illicit networks in rings and vagabond economies, with lexicons like the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue revealing its enduring utility in insulating criminal exchanges from societal oversight. Its role diminished with broader dissemination via expository texts, yet it exemplified how specialized argots inherently bolstered operational security in pre-modern underworlds.

Interactions with Law Enforcement and Social Control

In sixteenth-century , magistrates sought to undermine the secrecy of by systematically documenting and publicizing it to facilitate detection and prosecution of vagabonds and criminals. Thomas Harman, a local justice, compiled A Caveat or Warning for Common Cursitors in 1566, drawing from interactions with rogues whom he housed and interrogated, offering them shelter in exchange for revelations about their and practices. The work detailed a of 23 rogue types, narratives of their deceptive techniques, and an extensive canting translating terms such as abram for a feigned sick person and prigger for a thief, explicitly aimed at equipping constables, innkeepers, and the public to recognize and report illicit communications. Harman's exposure reflected a broader Elizabethan campaign against , where cant's opacity had previously shielded coordinated crimes like rings operating across regions, but publication rendered it a tool for magistrates to intercept plans and dismantle networks. Similar efforts persisted into later centuries on the European continent, particularly with , a Germanic cant blending , Romani, and Hebrew elements used by itinerant beggars, thieves, and travelers since the . German authorities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries conducted systematic linguistic investigations, compiling police archives of Rotwelsch terms to monitor and repress its speakers, viewing the argot as a barrier to and a facilitator of evasion from sedentary norms. These "language police" initiatives, including of vagrant dialects, aimed to decode communications during arrests and trials, as Rotwelsch enabled speakers to coordinate movements and scams in earshot of officials without detection—terms like gampe for legs or stenz for underscored its role in maintaining outsider . Despite such , Rotwelsch's adaptability, incorporating loanwords from evolving host languages, limited full eradication, highlighting the challenges of enforcing linguistic transparency as a mechanism of state control. Cant's resilience against these measures exemplified its function in subverting , as the argot not only concealed immediate felonies but also fostered in-group that resisted assimilation into mainstream society. By prioritizing internal codes over public discourse, criminal communities preserved hierarchies and rituals—such as oaths in cant—autonomous from judicial oversight, prompting authorities to rely on informants or forced confessions for breakthroughs. This dynamic underscored a causal tension: while exposures like Harman's temporarily empowered enforcement by demystifying , they inadvertently documented and perpetuated cant's vocabulary, allowing criminals to innovate variants and sustain cultural insulation against reformative pressures. In contexts like prisons or urban underclasses, such anti-languages persisted as markers of deviance, complicating broader efforts at and normalization until modern supplanted manual deciphering.

Representations and Debates

Depictions in Literature and Media

In Elizabethan-era rogue literature, featured extensively in pamphlets and plays targeting popular audiences, portraying it as the exclusive argot of a shadowy criminal to both warn and titillate readers with glimpses of secrecy. Works like Robert Greene's A Notable Discovery of Cozenage (1591) and subsequent conny-catching tracts included cant glossaries alongside exposés of scams, framing the language as a tool for coordinating deceptions while heightening public fascination with rogues' insularity. John Gay's (1728) integrated cant-infused dialogue among highwaymen, pickpockets, and informants, using the argot to underscore parallels between criminal slang and the opaque of politicians, thereby satirizing elite corruption through lowbrow authenticity. The play's success, running for 62 performances in its debut season, popularized such depictions, blending with rogue vernacular to critique societal hypocrisy. Charles Dickens incorporated thieves' cant into Oliver Twist (1837–1839) to evoke the gritty realism of Victorian London's pickpocket dens, where figures like Fagin instruct apprentices in terms like "ketch" for capture and "prig" for steal, alienating protagonists like Oliver from the gang's coded exchanges. Linguistic analyses highlight Dickens' reliance on 19th-century flash dictionaries, such as those by James Hardy Vaux (1812), though the novelist amplified sensational elements for narrative immersion, potentially blending genuine slang with invented flourishes to emphasize criminal otherness. Modern media often fictionalizes cant's essence rather than replicating historical forms, as in Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange (1962), where the protagonist's —a synthetic anti-language fusing Russian loanwords with English—mirrors cant's role in insulating delinquent groups from authority, serving as both and stylistic barrier. In cinema, the series (2001–2018) employs bespoke thief for heist coordination, echoing cant's secretive function but prioritizing dramatic pacing over linguistic fidelity, as confirmed by production notes on its ad-hoc creation. Such portrayals sustain cant's allure as a symbol of subversive , though they risk conflating authentic cryptolects with invented esoterica for entertainment value.

Scholarly Controversies on Authenticity and Fabrication

Scholars have long debated the extent to which represented an authentic cryptolect employed by vagabonds and criminals in early modern , or whether it was substantially fabricated or exaggerated by pamphleteers and dramatists to sensationalize the underworld for moralistic or commercial purposes. Thomas Harman's A Caveat or Warening for Common Cursetors (1566), the earliest known compilation of cant vocabulary, purported to document a secret argot gathered from direct encounters with rogues, including terms like abram for a feigned sick person and doxy for a beggar's female companion, framing it as essential for illicit coordination under laws that punished repeat offenders with death. However, Harman provided no independent verification beyond his narratives, and subsequent texts by Robert Greene and Thomas Dekker largely replicated his lists without novel fieldwork, raising suspicions of iterative invention rather than empirical observation. Critics, including linguists analyzing print dissemination, argue that cant's "enregisterment"—its recognition as a distinct register—was a literary construct, with drawn from jest books, , and simple inversions of English rather than a coherent, pidgin-like system evolved among outlaws. Paula Schintu, examining seventeenth-century drama, identifies over 75 cant terms recycled across plays like Thomas Shadwell's The Squire of Alsatia (1688), suggesting dramatists amplified sporadic into an exoticized "" to authenticate rogue characters, but lacking corroboration from non-literary sources such as court records or magistrates' reports, which show no evidence of widespread cant usage in actual crimes. This view posits that while genuine existed—possibly influenced by Romani or Low Countries argots amid sixteenth-century economic displacement and enclosure—Harman's portrayal exaggerated it into a full secret to warn readers and justify punitive policies, with perpetuating the fabrication for profit. Defenders of greater authenticity counter that dismissing cant overlooks oral traditions unrecorded in official documents, pointing to persistent terms in later criminal slang compilations, such as those in (1773–1836), as evidence of organic evolution among marginalized groups evading surveillance. Yet, empirical scarcity undermines this: linguistic analyses reveal cant's limited and heavy reliance on English roots, incompatible with a functional cryptolect for covert planning, and its allure in —like Dekker's pamphlets—likely stemmed from cultural fascination with deviance rather than fidelity to reality. The controversy underscores broader tensions in , where source credibility hinges on distinguishing firsthand from didactic fiction, with most evidence favoring cant as a hybridized, print-amplified artifact over a purely phenomenon.

References

  1. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/thieves-cant-dictionaries-etymology
  2. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/86148/uncovering-thieves-cant-elizabethan-slang-underworld
  3. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160211-the-secret-anti-languages-youre-not-supposed-to-know
  4. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/cants-and-anti-languages-the-secret-history-of-cryptolects
  5. https://daily.jstor.org/why-did-thieves-cant-carry-an-unshakeable-allure/
  6. http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/dictionary/cant-language
  7. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/2/items/acaveatorwarnin00harmgoog/acaveatorwarnin00harmgoog.pdf
  8. https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/10366/125464/1/TG_SchintuMart%C3%ADnezP_Linguisticanalysis_.pdf
  9. https://www.wordorigins.org/harmless-drudge/jargons-and-argots-and-cants-oh-my
  10. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/2812/argot-vs-jargon
  11. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-cant-and-slang
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/cant
  13. https://www.ranker.com/list/history-of-cant-secret-language/genevieve-carlton
  14. https://jonathongreen.substack.com/p/the-kingdom-of-argot
  15. https://www.scribd.com/document/458768977/10-Argot
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4172535
  17. https://academic.oup.com/book/5792/chapter/148970552
  18. https://earlymodernscribbling.com/2025/06/06/a-guide-to-tudor-englands-criminal-underworld-and-the-writers-who-invented-it/
  19. https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-classical-dictionary-of-the-vulgar-tongue-1788
  20. https://www.academia.edu/1701704/_A_kind_of_gibberish_used_by_thieves_and_gypsies_The_social_significance_of_cant_in_the_eighteenth_century
  21. http://www.joannawaugh.com/cant-.html
  22. https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/dictionary-of-modern-slang/
  23. http://languagecontact.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/McrLC/casestudies/HT/HT_Polari.pdf
  24. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/polaris-etymology
  25. https://pascalbonenfant.com/18c/cant/vauxsubject.html
  26. https://www.utne.com/arts/polari-zm0z12mjzros/
  27. https://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/szleng/szl_kut/01szl_ut/14fr_rez.htm
  28. https://www.etymonline.com/word/argot
  29. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50354/50354-h/50354-h.htm
  30. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_50/April_1897/The_Language_of_Crime
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23532151
  32. https://shadydetectives.com/2025/05/04/argot-slang-and-the-imaginary-criminal-underground/
  33. https://cpercy.artsci.utoronto.ca/courses/6362-ellis
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229735152_Anti-Languages
  35. https://www.rosettatranslation.com/anti-languages-and-argots/
  36. https://toppandigital.com/translation-blog/closed-societies-develop-anti-languages/
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370158773_Revisiting_antilanguage_cryptolects_the_underworld_and_resistance_identity
  38. https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/434661
  39. https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/cant/
  40. https://crimereads.com/on-rotwelsch-the-central-european-language-of-beggars-travelers-and-thieves/
  41. https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/rotwelsch-secret-language-travelers-german-yiddish-hebrew-romani-czech-latin/
  42. https://languagehat.com/rotwelsch/
  43. https://www.vice.com/en/article/remembering-polari-the-forgotten-language-of-britains-gay-community/
  44. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-forgotten-secret-language-of-gay-men
  45. https://wander-argentina.com/lunfardo/
  46. https://www.tangomasterclass.com/blog/lunfardo
  47. https://www.capstan.be/rotwelsch-the-european-travelers-tongue-has-united-outcasts-for-centuries/
  48. https://psyche.co/ideas/how-a-secret-european-language-made-a-rabbit-and-survived
  49. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2wBwyjwuZs
  50. https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=heckethorn&book=secret&story=beggars
  51. https://www.everyculture.com/Europe/Gitanos-Orientation.html
  52. https://alphaomegatranslations.com/foreign-language/lunfardo-the-slang-dialect-of-argentina/
  53. https://africtionary.com/definition.php?word=Tsotsi%2BTaal
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309291537_OVERVIEW_OF_THE_TSOTSITAALS_OF_SOUTH_AFRICA_THEIR_DIFFERENT_BASE_LANGUAGES_AND_COMMON_CORE_LEXICAL_ITEMS
  55. https://languagehat.com/yakuza-japanese/
  56. https://www.lingualift.com/blog/speak-like-yakuza/
  57. https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/l/leet.htm
  58. https://interestingengineering.com/culture/leetspeak-101-what-exactly-is-it
  59. https://www.ninjaone.com/it-hub/endpoint-security/what-is-1337-speak/
  60. https://lithub.com/the-language-police-were-terrifyingly-real-my-grandfather-was-one/
  61. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0251.xml
  62. https://beggarsopera.net/crime-and-punishment/
  63. https://britishart.yale.edu/exhibitions-programs/among-whores-and-thieves-william-hogarth-and-beggars-opera
  64. https://rosa.uniroma1.it/rosa03/status_quaestionis/article/view/13837
  65. https://8thlight.com/insights/pattern-language-of-thieves
  66. https://www.sederi.org/s28/sederi-yearbook-28-5/
  67. https://www.academia.edu/37786495/Paula_Schintu_The_gully_hole_of_literature_On_the_enregisterment_of_cant_language_in_seventeenth_century_England_SEDERI_28_2018_99_117
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.