Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:39:23.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics of winning and losing1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Michael K. Smith  and
Michael B. Montgomery
Michael K. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Michael B. Montgomery
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Headlines reporting the outcomes of professional and college football games for an entire football season from two major newspapers were analyzed in an attempt to answer three questions: (1) What kind(s) of language do sportswriters use in attempting to be playful or humorous? (2) Is there a pattern to the number of ways winning and losing can be described? (3) What effects might creative use of language in such headlines have on the English language in general? Of the 930 headlines collected, there were 222 different transitive verbs (e.g., ambush, batter, burn, flog, maul, smash) and 81 intransitive verbs (e.g., breeze, cruise, lose, rally, win). On a descriptive linguistic level, most headlines (a) were in the form of subject–verb–object; (b) used alliteration and punning (Rice Burns Baylor); and (c) used almost any action verb to denote winning. On a psycholinguistic level, an argument is presented for semantic generativity, the ability of the context and the metaphorical possibilities of words to have almost any verb make sense in a headline. Finally, on a historical linguistic level, it is suggested that continued use of a verb for winning and losing (such as maul and pulverize) may lead to a change in their meaning. (Semantics, language change, language of sports)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 31 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American heritage dictionary. (1982). 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Angell, R. (1982). Late innings: A baseball companion. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Basso, K. (1972). Ice and travel among the Fort Norman Slave: Folk taxonomies and cultural roles. Language in Society 1(1): 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1965). The atomization of meaning. Language 41: 555–73.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1968). Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20: 129–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior 8: 240–47.Google Scholar
Edie, J. (1976). Speaking and meaning: The phenomenology of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1983). Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society 12(2): 153–72.Google Scholar
Gluckman, M. (1959). The technical vocabulary of Barotse jurisprudence. American Anthropologist 61: 743–59.Google Scholar
Greenough, J. B., & Kittredge, G. L. (1901). Words and their ways in English speech. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Honeck, R., & Hoffman, R. (eds.) (1982). Cognition and figurative language. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39: 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. (1988). The three grand dialects of Tennessee. Paper presented at the Tennessee Conference on Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (ed.). (1982). Metaphor and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pitts, M., Smith, M., & Pollio, H. (1982). An evaluation of three theories of metaphor production using an intentional category mistake procedure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11: 347–68.Google Scholar
Pollio, H., Fabrizzi, M., Sills, A., & Smith, M. (1984). Need metaphoric comprehension take longer than literal comprehension? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollio, H. R., & Smith, M. (1979). Sense and nonsense in thinking about anomaly and metaphor. Bulletin Psychonomic Society 13: 323–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J., & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schultz, J. R. (1930). Varying the verb. American Speech 5: 26.Google Scholar
Schultz, W. E. (1951). Football verbiage. American Speech 26: 229–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. K. (1982). Metaphor and mind. Rev. of G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by. American Speech 57: 228–34.Google Scholar
Smith, M. K., Pollio, H. R., & Pitts, M. K. (1981). Metaphor as intellectual history: Conceptual categories underlying figurative usage in American English from 1675–1975. Linguistics 19: 911–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stork, W. (1934). Varying the football jargon. American Speech 9: 237–39.Google Scholar
The talk of the town. (1958). The New Yorker, 06 21.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Trier, J. (1934). Das sprachliche Feld. Neue Jahrbucher Fur Wissenschaft und Jugenbildung 10: 428–49.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1972). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wentworth, H., & Flexner, S. B. (eds.). (1975). Dictionary of American slang. Second suppl. ed. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. Cognitive Psychology 3: 1–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar