International Journal Of Literature And Languages
97
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
97-101
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue07-26
Socially Restricted Lexis in English And Uzbek: A
Comparative Theoretical Overview
Raimova Nafosat Olimovna
Uzbek State University of World Languages, independent applicant, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 May 2025;
Accepted:
29 June 2025;
Published:
31 July 2025
Abstract:
This article studies the concept of socially constrained lexis in Uzbek and English, including sociolects,
jargon, and argot. The study talks about how these linguistic patterns manifest in various social groupings and
how they represent identity and culture. Both theoretical viewpoints and real-world examples are used to create
a comparative study.
Keywords:
Sociolinguistics, English, Uzbek, jargon, argot, sociolect, and socially constrained lexicon.
Introduction:
Language is a mirror of social reality as
well as a means of communication. Depending on their
age, occupation, social standing, and geographic
location, people in every society use language in
different ways. As a result, words and expressions that
are only used by members of particular social groupings
are created, a phenomenon known in linguistics as
socially restricted lexis.
Jargon, sociolects, and argot are examples of socially
constrained lexicon. Frequently, formal or standard
language does not use these parts. Rather, they
reinforce
social
identification,
in-group
communication, and even secrecy. For example,
professional circles, youth communities, and criminal
organizations all have a tendency to develop their own
jargon that may be difficult for outsiders to grasp. By
contrasting
their
structures,
functions,
and
sociocultural roles, this research seeks to examine the
usage and traits of socially restricted lexicon in Uzbek
and English. Bernstein and Halliday's theoretical
frameworks, as well as the research of Uzbek linguists
like Z. To‘rayeva, serve as the foundation for the
analysis. Lexical classification, real-world examples,
and comparative language analysis are some of the
techniques employed.
The three primary categories of socially restricted
lexicon are sociolect, jargon, and argot. Certain social
groups utilize argot, a coded or informal language, to
keep outsiders out. It is frequently linked to
marginalized populations, young subcultures, and
criminal organizations. The informal, perhaps secret
nature of argot and its frequent linguistic innovation
are its defining characteristics. Jargon is the term used
to describe the specific vocabulary used by people in a
given trade, profession, or academic discipline. It serves
to make expert communication more accurate and
effective.
Although
jargon
is
frequently
incomprehensible to outsiders, it is generally more
stable than argot. The term “sociolect” describes the
range of languages used by a specific social group,
which is frequently distinguished by factors such as
class, age, geography, or ethnicity.
Several social and communicative purposes are served
by the use of socially limited language:
Group Identity and Solidarity: Members of a group can
identify one another and feel a sense of belonging
when they use specialized jargon.
Exclusion and Privacy: Groups preserve their privacy
and control over information by use terminology that is
foreign to outsiders.
Effective Communication: Jargon facilitates clear,
concise communication in business settings.
Cultural Expression: Argot and sociolects frequently
convey
group-specific
cultural
meanings
and
conventions.
METHODOLOGY
Some scientists has researched different works
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
98
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
abvout this topic. For example, according to Bernstein's
(1971) Code Theory distinguishes between developed
and limited codes, with the latter frequently taking the
form of socially constrained language employed in
close-knit communities.
Labov's Variationist Sociolinguistics: Examines how
lexical choices and other aspects of language variation
are influenced by social characteristics including class,
age, and ethnicity. The study of Halliday's Systemic
Functional Linguistics looks at how language choices
serve social purposes, such as determining group
membership.
Youth slang, criminal slang, and subcultural vocabulary
are where English argot is most prevalent. Among the
examples are: Young people frequently use terms like
“cool,” “lit,” “bae,” and “ghosting,” which are derived
from internet or music cultures. Criminal slang: To keep
things secret, terms like “snitch” (informer), “stash”
(hidden goods), and “cuff” (arrest) are employed.
Cockney rhyming slang, online memes, and African
American Vernacular English (AAVE) are all
incorporated into English argot, which is incredibly
inventive. English jargon is used in many different
professions, such as: Words like “stat” (immediately),
“code blue” (emergency), and “anemia” are examples
of medical jargon. Words like “bug,” “server,”
“firewall,” and “cache” are
examples of computer
jargon. Jargon is frequently taught formally in
professions and helps with accurate, technical
communication.
There are significant regional, socioeconomic, and
ethnic differences in English sociolects. Among the
examples are: Regiona
l sociolects: “mate” in British
English, “y'all” in Southern US English. Chicano English
and African American Vernacular English (AAVE) are
examples of ethnic sociolects. Sociolects have unique
grammatical, phonetic, and vocabulary characteristics.
Young people's speech and casual contexts frequently
contain Uzbek jargon. Among the examples are:
“Baliq” is slang for “money.”
“Shabada bermoq” is to make fun of or tease someone.
“Potop” means to be punished or caught.
Russian and Persian linguistic influences can also be
seen in Uzbek argot.
In domains including technology, education, and
medical, Uzbek jargon isbecoming more prevalent. For
instance:
In medical history, “Anamnez.”
Diagnoz means “diagnosis.”
“Koding” refers to programming or coding.
Because of historical and international influences, this
jargon is frequently taken from or modified from
Russian or English terminology. In Uzbek, sociolects are
strongly associated with socioeconomic groups and
regional dialects. For instance:
Regional dialects in Samarkand or Bukhara are very
different from the Tashkent dialect. Certain slang and
loanwords influenced by English and Russian are used
by young people and students.
RESULTS
Uzbek and English socially constrained lexicons: mark
the identify of the group, keep outsiders from
comprehending, change quickly, particularly in
terminology used by young people, borrow terms from
other languages as a result of cross-cultural
interactions.
Here are some differences between two languages.
Uzbek argot is more local and regional, whereas English
argot is more impacted by the media and world culture.
Because of its widespread usage, English jargon is more
well-established and codified, whereas Uzbek jargon is
evolving and more influenced by borrowings.
Uzbek sociolects are strongly linked to regional dialects
and social classes, whereas English sociolects are varied
due to their extensive geographic dispersion.
Words from Cockney, African American Vernacular
English, and other dialects are frequently borrowed
into English to enhance argot. The most common
sources of borrowing in Uzbek are English and Russian.
In social and professional settings, code-switching
between English, Russian, and Uzbek is typical. Social,
political, and cultural factors influence language use
over time, as seen by the beginnings and development
of socially constrained lexis in both English and Uzbek.
The study of argot has a long history in English, dating
back to the 16th and 17th century thieves' cant, which
was used as a covert code by criminal underworlds to
avoid being discovered by authorities. According to
linguists like (Partridge, E. 1933. A Dictionary of Slang
and Unconventional
English. Routledge.) “ these early
argots were full with coded language, such as “prig” for
thief or “cove” for man, which were purposefully
hidden from outsiders as a means of social exclusion
and defense.”
The history of socially restricted vocabulary in Uzbek is
closely linked to the region's complicated geopolitical
past, which includes centuries of Arabic and Persian
influence before a predominately Russian influence
during the Soviet era. According to academics like
(Abdullaev, I. 2002. Language Contact and Lexical
Borrowing in Uzbek. Tashkent: National University
Press), “Russian was used as a lingua franca and as a
source of specialized language that permeated society
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
99
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
during the Soviet era. Because of this multilingual
setting, Russian lexical elements were commonly used
in Uzbek jargon and argot, reflecting both the power
dynamics present in language contact situations and
practical borrowing.” Globalization and the emergence
of English as a universal language have brought about a
new wave of lexical invention and borrowing since
Uzbekistan's independence, particularly among young
people and urban professionals.
Power systems and language are inextricably
intertwined, and socially constrained lexicon is crucial
to upholding or challenging these arrangements.
According to (Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and
Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.), “language
is a type of symbolic capital, and having access to
specialist terminology is frequently a sign of authority
and social standing. Jargon reinforces social hierarchies
by using technical terminology to indicate participation
in an elite group of professionals. On the other hand,
slang and argot can be used as linguistic resistance
tools, allowing underrepresented groups to establish
areas of identity and autonomy separate from the
prevailing culture.”
In a similar vein, Russian-origin language has mixed
connotations in Uzbek society. The promotion of a pure
Uzbek language identity is made more difficult by the
fact that Russian technical words can be seen as both a
reminder of colonial linguistic control and a mark of
modernity and expertise. In order to fight cultural
imperialism, intellectuals like (Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o.
1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language
in African Literature.) the significance of reclaiming
indigenous languages, which is reflected in this tension
and other post-colonial discussions regarding language
and identity. In this situation, socially constrained lexis
turns into a location of complex intersections between
sociopolitical power and linguistic identity.
Another significant factor affecting how socially limited
terminology is used and perceived is gender. Men
typically use more aggressive or taboo argot to assert
dominance or camaraderie, while women may use a
wider range of expressive and relational vocabulary, as
evidenced by Cameron's (1997) research. Studies have
shown that men and women frequently adopt different
strategies in their lexical choices. These patterns, which
show how social duties and expectations influence
language use within social groups, may be seen in a
variety of languages, including English and Uzbek.
Robust approaches that integrate qualitative insight
and quantitative data analysis are necessary for the
study of socially constrained lexis. A vital instrument for
monitoring the evolution of slang and jargon over time
is corpus linguistics, which is the methodical analysis of
enormous databases of real-world language use.
According to McEnery and Hardie (2012), researchers
can spot new trends and regional or socioeconomic
variances by examining the frequency, collocations,
and contexts of lexical words in spoken and written
corpora. One way to see how digital communication
speeds up lexical innovation is to compare corpora
from social media sites with traditional spoken corpora.
By offering a contextual understanding of how socially
constrained language functions within certain
societies, ethnographic methods serve as a useful
supplement to corpus analysis. Researchers can
capture the attitudes, values, and social functions
associated with particular words through participant
observation and interviews, which is something that
solely quantitative methods could miss. Studying
professional jargon and youth slang in both English-
speaking and Uzbek-speaking populations has
benefited greatly from this method, which has shown
the complex ways that language both reflects and
shapes
social
identity.
Lastly,
experimental
sociolinguistics examines the effects of socially
constrained
terminology
on
perception
and
comprehension through controlled trials. These
techniques can bridge the gap between linguistic
theory and social psychology by measuring, for
example, how exposure to jargon affects speakers'
social judgments or how easy outsiders understand
certain argot phrases.
The dynamics of socially constrained lexis have been
transformed in recent decades by the emergence of
digital technology and social media, making it a very
dynamic subject of research. Rapid lexical invention
and diffusion have been fostered by the internet and
platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. Local
slang has become an international phenomenon as a
result of language elements that used to take years to
spread across social groups but now can be recognized
globally in a matte
r of days. Words like “ghosting” and
“flex,” for instance, sprang from specialized social
circles but swiftly made their way into the general
English language thanks to social media.
Abbreviations, acronyms, and emotive slang are
characteristics of a new register of informal writing that
has been cultivated by mobile communication,
particularly text messaging. These features frequently
translate into spoken language, further obfuscating the
distinction between written and oral sociolects. Similar
to this, Uzbek youth modify these forms to represent
their multilingual circumstances by using English
acronyms and producing hybrid terms. The
normalization and dissemination of socially limited
words are greatly aided by media like music and
movies. Rap and hip-hop, which have their origins in
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
100
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
African American culture, have made AAVE and related
slang widely known and influenced young people's
speech everywhere, even in Uzbekistan. This cross-
cultural spread is a prime example of how socially
constrained language may serve as a potent tool for
globalization and cultural identification.
Because socially restricted lexis is so contextually and
culturally established that it defies simple equivalency,
it poses serious problems for translation and language
instruction. The challenge for translators is to transmit
not just the denotative meaning of slang and argot, but
also its connotative and social nuances. For instance, in
order to maintain their communication impact in the
target language, idiomatic idioms or culturally
distinctive jargon frequently need to be creatively
adapted. In language teaching, socially restricted lexis
is often neglected due to its informal status and
perceived instability. However, ignoring slang and
jargon deprives learners of crucial pragmatic
competence and authentic language use. As
researchers like Schmitt (2010) argue, integrating
awareness of socially restricted vocabulary into
curricula better prepares learners to engage in real-
world interactions, understand cultural references, and
avoid miscommunication. This is particularly important
in multilingual settings like Uzbekistan, where learners
must navigate complex linguistic landscapes combining
Uzbek, Russian, and English influences.
In order to shape and communicate social identity,
socially constrained language is essential. Slang, jargon,
and argot are examples of linguistic variants that serve
as indicators of in-group membership by drawing
distinctions between “insiders” and “outsiders,”
according to Fishman . “This setting of bou
ndaries is
both expressive and defensive. Argot helps
underprivileged groups create a sense of unity and
shared identity in addition to acting as a barrier against
outside influence. African American Vernacular English
(AAVE) slang is a powerful illustration of how language
can strengthen socially disadvantaged populations by
promoting cultural pride and cohesiveness, as (Labov,
W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the
Black English Vernacular. University of Pennsylvania
Press) highlighted. Slang is unique in that it is flexible
and imaginative, frequently capturing the vibrancy of
adolescent culture. Adolescent slang, according to
Eckert, has two functions: it distinguishes children from
adults and gives peer groups a chance to express their
independence and creativity. Slang frequently defies
standardization due to its quick evolution and
ephemeral character, reflecting the fleeting nature of
cultural movements.
Looking ahead, multidisciplinary approaches that
combine computational linguistics, ethnography, and
psycholinguistics have a lot to offer the study of socially
constrained lexis. Slang and jargon may now be
automatically identified in large datasets thanks to
developments in natural language processing, which
makes it easier to track lexical evolution in real time. By
highlighting
commonalities
and
distinctive
developments, cross-cultural comparative research can
help clarify how globalization changes socially limited
lexicon in various language communities.In both Uzbek
and English, socially constrained lexicon is essential. It
represents cultural norms, professional roles, and
social identities. Argot, jargon, and sociolect all serve
the same purposes even though the sociolinguistic
contexts of the two languages are different. To
understand how language interacts with society,
identity, and culture, one must have a solid
understanding of these languages. Through fieldwork
and corpus studies, additional study can enhance
understanding.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, complex social systems and cultural
identities are reflected in the socially constrained
lexicon of both Uzbek and English. Slang, jargon, and
argot are effective means of negotiating power
dynamics, expressing group membership, and
upholding social boundaries. The ongoing development
of socially constrained vocabulary emphasizes how
language is a social phenomenon that is dynamic,
particularly in light of globalization and digital media. It
takes interdisciplinary approaches that blend
quantitative and qualitative methods to comprehend
these linguistic variations.
REFERENCES
Abdullaev, I. (2002). Language Contact and Lexical
Borrowing in Uzbek. Tashkent: National University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power.
Harvard University Press.
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing Gender Identity:
Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual
Masculinity. In Language and Masculinity. Blackwell.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in
the
Black
English
Vernacular.
University
of
Pennsylvania Press.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics:
Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University
Press.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The
Politics of Language in African Literature.
Partridge, E. (1933). A Dictionary of Slang and
Unconventional English. Routledge.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
101
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A
Vocabulary Research Manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in
Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University
Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). Sociolinguistic Theory:
Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women
and Men in Conversation. William Morrow.
