Prison language is heavily influenced by its environment and is noteworthy for its use of metaphor and metonymy. This study examined the use of metaphor and metonymy, including metaphtonymy, in prison language and how they are influenced by aspects of the environment. The metaphoric and metonymic expressions were selected from the language of incarcerated people and of correctional officers (COs). Data for this study was collected from the podcast Ear Hustle that is produced from inside San Quentin State Prison in California, USA and has been qualitatively analyzed using grounded theory. Additionally, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was used to identify and format metaphor and metonymy found in the data. The conventional metaphors and metonymies and metaphtonymy found in the data were used by both incarcerated people and COs. The expressions were compared to the metaphors discussed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in their work on CMT. In this case, conventional metaphors and metonymies were often used in reference to prison structure. However, incarcerated people also use the unique metaphors INCARCERATED PERSON IS AN ANIMAL and PRISON IS A ZOO that are not evident in the speech of COs. This particular difference occurred in the data when the incarcerated individuals have more negative associations with the issue in question than do the COs. COs instead use the metaphor PRISON IS A TOOL, relying more on legal jargon and technical terms. All three of these metaphors are used by prison abolitionists when talking about prison. The results provide insight into what prison conditions are like for incarcerated people, given how prison environment influences language development, as well as the often-complicated relationships between incarcerated people and COs. Furthermore, the results illustrate that other conceptual metaphors can be found in different language varieties beyond the conventionalized ones found in non-prison discourse.

<p>This work concerns the linguistic relativity hypothesis, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which, in its most general form claims that ‘lan-guage’ influences ‘thought’. Past studies into linguistic relativity have treated various aspects of both thought and language, but a growing body of literature has recently emerged, in this thesis referred to as neo-Whorfian, that empirically investigates thought and language from a cross-linguistic perspective and claims that the grammar or lexicon of a particular language influences the speakers’ non-linguistic thought.</p><p>The present thesis examines the assumptions about language that underlie this claim and criticizes the neo-Whorfian arguments from the point of view that they are based on misleading notions of language. The critique focuses on the operationalization of thought, language, and culture as separate vari-ables in the neo-Whorfian empirical investigations. The neo-Whorfian stud-ies explore language primarily as ‘particular languages’ and investigate its role as a variable standing in a causal relation to the ‘thought’ variable. Tho-ught is separately examined in non-linguistic tests and found to ‘correlate’ with language.</p><p>As a contrast to the neo-Whorfian view of language, a few examples of other approaches to language, referred to in the thesis as sociocultural appro-aches, are reviewed. This perspective on language places emphasis on prac-tice and communication rather than on particular languages, which are vie-wed as secondary representations. It is argued that from a sociocultural per-spective, language as an integrated practice cannot be separated from tho-ught and culture. The empirical findings in the neo-Whorfian studies need not be rejected, but they should be interpreted differently. The findings of linguistic and cognitive diversity reflect different communicational practices in which language cannot be separated from non-language.</p>

This work concerns the linguistic relativity hypothesis, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which, in its most general form claims that ‘lan-guage’ influences ‘thought’. Past studies into linguistic relativity have treated various aspects of both thought and language, but a growing body of literature has recently emerged, in this thesis referred to as neo-Whorfian, that empirically investigates thought and language from a cross-linguistic perspective and claims that the grammar or lexicon of a particular language influences the speakers’ non-linguistic thought. The present thesis examines the assumptions about language that underlie this claim and criticizes the neo-Whorfian arguments from the point of view that they are based on misleading notions of language. The critique focuses on the operationalization of thought, language, and culture as separate vari-ables in the neo-Whorfian empirical investigations. The neo-Whorfian stud-ies explore language primarily as ‘particular languages’ and investigate its role as a variable standing in a causal relation to the ‘thought’ variable. Tho-ught is separately examined in non-linguistic tests and found to ‘correlate’ with language. As a contrast to the neo-Whorfian view of language, a few examples of other approaches to language, referred to in the thesis as sociocultural appro-aches, are reviewed. This perspective on language places emphasis on prac-tice and communication rather than on particular languages, which are vie-wed as secondary representations. It is argued that from a sociocultural per-spective, language as an integrated practice cannot be separated from tho-ught and culture. The empirical findings in the neo-Whorfian studies need not be rejected, but they should be interpreted differently. The findings of linguistic and cognitive diversity reflect different communicational practices in which language cannot be separated from non-language.