THE THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION OF ARGOT AS A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PHENOMENON

Abstract

Argot is one of the most disputed terms in the description of socially marked vocabulary. In different linguistic traditions it has been used for the secret speech of criminal groups, the restricted vocabulary of occupational communities, the informal language of subcultures, and, more broadly, any group-specific lexical repertoire that is difficult for outsiders to understand. This terminological variation has often caused argot to be treated as a complete synonym of jargon, slang, cant, cryptolect, or sociolect. The present article examines the historical development and theoretical scope of argot and proposes a set of criteria for distinguishing it from adjacent phenomena. The study is based on comparative, descriptive, historical-semantic, and functional analysis of ten representative sources published between 1628 and 2022. The findings show that neither secrecy nor group restriction alone is sufficient to define argot. A more reliable account must consider the type of speaker group, communicative purpose, intended opacity, degree of outsider accessibility, lexical specialization, social evaluation, and the possibility that argotic items may spread into general colloquial usage. In its narrow sense, argot is a deliberately opaque lexical subsystem associated mainly with socially closed or marginalized groups and used for concealment, recognition, and solidarity. In its broad sense, it overlaps with jargon and slang as a group- marked register. The article argues that this overlap should be represented as a continuum rather than as evidence that the terms are identical. Such an approach clarifies the place of argot within sociolinguistics and offers a practical basis for the consistent use of the terms argot, jargon, slang, cant, cryptolect, and anti-language in English and Uzbek linguistic research.