boxing contest

It seems as if cognitive/cultural models can be said to be hierarchically ordered in the sense that boxing in this example is the superordinate term and prerequisites, actual boxing contest and boxer are subordinates of boxing.

3.2. Prerequisites

What is striking about the prerequisites of boxing is that the words, which describe them are general words, brought into boxing, where they have received a specific meaning. This seems fairly logical since boxing has many points in common with the real world and real life.

Thus it is likely that the specific language of boxing will consist of a mix of pure jargon and everyday words which have been given a specific meaning in boxing. Also a basic sport such as boxing should quite easily find links to the world around it, and these connections should of course be reflected in the lexis. The prerequisites are good examples of how man, culture and language are linked together. In the final analysis, this is also what this essay attempts to describe, namely boxing as a cognitive model.

Many of the words used in the meta-language of boxing are polycentric categories since they refer to different cognitive categories, on the one hand to boxing and on the other hand to other linguistic or real world cognitive models. A monocentric word refers in principle to only one cognitive model. But often it is quite problematic to draw clear boundaries between polycentric and monocentric words.

1. Bell is a noun which is both monocentric and polycentric, meaning basically:

"A hollow body of cast metal, formed to ring or emit a clear, metallic sound, by the sonorous vibration of its entire circumference, when struck by a clapper, hammer or another appliance…" (CEOED, 1987:V1, 196-197).

The bell can, however, be of different sizes:

"The larger kinds…used for giving signals of various importance (time, danger, etc) to the inhabitants of a town or a district and especially in connexion with public worship …; the smaller kinds are used for similar purposes in the a house (e.g. door-bell, dinner-bell, electric bell)".

The bell in boxing can be compared to the smaller kinds, since it is being used to start and to end the rounds. The sound of it is, however, very distinct, fateful and decisive, resembling important events in life, time, funerals, and threatening dangers of various kinds.

2. Decision is a polycentric noun, which has nothing to do with the actual fighting, but rather with what follows a contest.

A boxer wins a contest by decision, if both boxers have managed to finish the stipulated number of rounds. The bout can also be declared a draw. The meaning of decision here is "The action of deciding (a contest, controversy, question etc); settlement; determination" (CEOED, 1987:V1,661).

Decision in boxing is consequently neither the meaning of decision found in "formally pronounced in law", nor the decision, when a person makes up his or her mind (CEOED, 1987:V1, 661). But it is still closely related to these everyday life occasions.

The word decision can also be found as an attribute and in combinations:

"decision-maker, making, taker, taking…" (CEOED, 1987:S,188).

Ring, along with bell and decision, are the rules of boxing. They transform the ordinary street fight into a boxing contest. They are the prerequisites. In his Technical Terms, Nat Fleischer pointed out that the ring in boxing, is not a ring in the literal meaning of the word, but rather a squared circle. The squared circle is the term Fleischer uses to describe the present day’s square, which is the actual ring in today’s boxing.

The explanation of this is that a ring originally was: "A space originally defined by a circle of bystanders for a prize-fight or wrestling match".

Over the years the improvised "literal ring", has been transformed into a "formalized squared circle". The word is the same, but the reference has changed in an interesting way. boxing as real life referent has become predominant over the actual shape of the so-called arena. In the 20^th century we still use the same word as in the 18^th century though the concept has changed from an improvised ring of bystanders to a concrete object formed roughly as a square. But since the sport is still boxing, we still refer to the item as a ring. In linguistics it is also a reminder to those who think of language in synchronic terms only. Instead past and present interacts with each other.

There is also a metonymic use of the word: "Pugilsm, as an institution or profession" or "those interested in boxing"(CEOED, 1987:VII, 2551-2). The meaning of the word has extended in comparison with its original sense. Probably since the original meaning of the word has been so widely and effectively used that it has come to cover new areas of meaning. It is possible to find many examples of this kind of meaning extension. An utterance such as: Shakespeare is on the top shelf, does not of course mean that the bard literally lies on the top shelf. Instead we more or less take for granted that Shakespeare, here stand for books by that author. He is so extremely well known that his name is no longer just a name. Thus the ring through the impact and popularity of sport in our century is no longer just a squared circle with ropes.

3.3.The Actual Contest

The jargon describing the action in the ring also partly comprises of words which have been brought into boxing from the standard language and received a specific meaning. But the jargon also contains specific technical terms, which have expanded their meaning thus enriching everyday language. There is probably more than one reason for this extension of meaning. The spectators of the contests have most likely seen a resemblance between boxing and their own lives and their own experience of the world. They have thus accepted parts of the jargon as a good way of describing and discussing life in general. The other way around, boxing, as one of many popular and powerful sports during the past 150 years, has been very influential. We must not forget that language is undoubtedly subject to change due to various trends in society. First only a small group uses new words or expressions, but then if they are powerful or useful enough they will be accepted in the whole community (cf. Jakobson, 1990:105).

a) Clinch

Clinch is a polycentric word, which can be used as a noun or a verb. The verb can be used both intransitively and transitively. According to Taylor (1995:206-207) transitivity is an example of a prototypical syntactic construction which can be formulated as:

NP₁ V_TRANS NP₂

As a noun it has a number of different meanings and real world references. "A fastening in which the end of a nail is turned over and driven back into the substance through which it has passed…," and "A sharp repartee that twists or turns about the meaning of a word…".

In boxing the noun is an Americanism which originally meant: "A struggle or scuffle at close grips", but it went into boxing with the specific meaning "Grappling or holding after and exchange of blows" (CEOED, 1987:V2,502, CEOED, 1987:S,137). The main reason for the added meaning here is probably that over the years people have seen a similarity between war and boxing .

In the sense of boxing the verb can be used in the intransitive mode or the transitive:

IT: "They clinched".

But it is also possible to have a person as an object, in the following example a prepositional object.

T: "I clinched with Kilrain" (1910 J J Corbett - My Life&Fights).*²

Clinch has also turned into a slang expression meaning: "to embrace" (Phytian, 1976:39). The word has extended its meaning into a figurative expression. Two people are standing close to each other. But they are no longer in a combat situation, they are probably in love. Boxing jargon has then continued into another variety of language and a new and humorous meaning of the word has been added.

1. Counter

Counter is another polycentric word. It can be used as a noun, a verb, an adverb or as a prefix (CEOED, 1987:V1, 575-576).

The adverb counter generally means: "In the opposite direction, back again" or figuratively meaning "In opposition or antagonism…" Counter is used in other sports than boxing such as fencing but also in a military context, so it is hard to say if the metaphoric use comes from boxing specifically. Instead, since the word counter is used also in military strategy, boxing may have borrowed the term because there is a possible underlying metaphor:

+boxing is war+

2 All quotations marked with an asterisk *, are excerpts from the The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (COED)

It is plausible that the reason for this is that at the centre of both cognitive models war and boxing, there are similar attributes such as ‘fighting’, ‘blood’ ‘bravery’, ‘ruthlessness’ etc.

Counter in boxing, of course has nothing to do with "one who counts" or "anything used in counting or keeping account".

As a noun it means: "A blow delivered as the adversary leads off, really a time hit, which if stronger than the adverse one, secures the advantage".

Counter is both a transitive or intransitive verb:

T: "We are glad to set down the author of such smart hits as an misantrophe, because it is easier to counter than to parry them" (1865 Sat. Rev 9 Dec 724).*

IT: "Instead of thus countering on the head, the blow may be aimed at the ribs" (1859 Badminton Libr. Boxing 1966).*

c) Duck

"As the punch comes, drop from the waist, being careful not to duck into the punch…" (Cooper, 1975:26)

In the CEOED there is no direct reference to boxing, but duck is both monocentric and polycentric. It can be used as a noun or a verb or an as an attribute (CEOED, 1987:V1,

812-3).

We can eliminate the meanings ‘bird’ or ‘terms of endearment’, since here there is no direct reference to boxing.

Rather, in the noble art of self defense the meaning of the noun is: "An instantaneous lowering of head or body."

The verb can be used intransitve: "He ducked" or intranstive "He managed to duck the blow" (CCED, 1992:438).

d) Feint

Feint can be used as a noun or a verb, more rarely as an adjective nowadays.

(CEOED, 1987:V1, 979)

Feint is usually used in military or boxing contexts. The proper meaning is: "A feigned or false attack." This is, perhaps, another piece of evidence for the existence of the conceptual methaphor: +boxing is war+

In both of these two real world phenomena there is a need for tactics, to fool the opponent into making mistakes and to profit from them. And more specifically: "A blow, cut or thrust, aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of the attack."

Feint has been used in a figurative sense for a long time, meaning: "An assumed appearance, a pretence…"

In 1852 Charles Dickens wrote in Haunted Man: "Mar Williams … made a feint accidentally knocking the table with the decateur."*

e) Hook

Hook is a very complex lexical item and puns are easily produced. "…Mike Tyson’s so-called managers, who never knew a left hook from a barbed hook…" (USA Today:07/04/97)

The left hook is, of course, "to strike (one’s opponent) a swinging blow with the elbow bent." (CEOED:S:369), the barbed hook, a hook used for fishing.

The verb can be exemplified by the following example.

"Bugner rather clubs than hooks" (Times, 14 febr, 1973).*

The use of hook in sport, boxing or golf, is a figurative use of the literal meaning of the word. At one time or another somebody has noticed the similarity between the motion in the air and the concrete hook and formulated this discovery using an old word naming a new concept, a new reference.

Its proper meaning is: "A length of metal, or piece of wood or other material, bent back or fashioned with a sharp angle, often a part of something, as pole, chain etc…"

But the verb has sometimes also a meaning of "to make hook-like or "to bend or curve sharply". Then it is a transitive verb (CEOED:1:374).

f) Infighting

Infighting is a compound noun, and consists of the adverb in and the verbal noun fighting. It is a term specific for boxing and has been brought into ordinary English as a metaphor.

In boxing jargon it means: "Fighting or boxing at close quarters: the practice of getting close to an opponent" (CEOED, 1987:V1, 1429).

Jack London used the word figuratively in his novel Iron Heel, 1907.

"He was unused to this fierce infighting, and Ernest called it."*

When The Times, 25 1973 writes: "Inside the Politburo, he is known as a tough infighter"*, the meaning is of course not the literal meaning "a boxer who practices the method", but it is rather a "mental infighter", a metaphoric use of the original meaning. Politics is an area of sometimes very abstract conflict, and to use boxing language is sometimes a very pedagogical way for a newspaper to explain the situation for its readers. Here it is perhaps even possible to assume yet another underlying metaphor:

+politics is boxing+

The verb to infight, can also be used in a simlar way (CEOED, 1987:S, 407):

"Jack glued his chin to his chest, and smothered, watching his opportunity to infight". (J B Cooper, Coo-oo-se, 1916)*.

The use of infight/ing, in the two examples above, indicates a conceptual metaphor +life is boxing+, since ‘conflict’ is an attribute of both boxing and life.

g) Jab

In the CEOED the noun jab is described as originally a colloquial or dialectal word: "An act of jabbing; an abrupt blow with something pointed (or in pugilistic slang) with the fist

(1987:V1, 1496).

Perhaps jab quickly became associated with boxing jargon. In modern slang it also means: "injection with a needle."(CEOED:S:432).

As a verb jab can be used both intransitively and transitively in boxing. An example of the latter could be:

"Time and time again he jabbed and patted Smith cleverly on the nose with the left hand".

(Eugene Corri, 30 Years as a Boxing Referee).*

h) Knock out

Knock out is a phrasal verb, consisting of knock, a noun or a verb, and the adverbial particle out. The result is the individual cognitive category, which, to many people, seems to be the very essence of boxing.

The proper meaning of knock out is: "to strike out or dash out with a blow" (CEOED, 1987: V1, 1548-9).

In boxing the proper meaning has acquired a figurative sense:

"To drive out of contest. To vanquish, exhaust. To knock out of time (Pugilistic), to disable an opponent so that he is unable to respond to the call of time". Since the days of the Marquis of Queensberry, the period of time has been ten seconds.

With reference to boxing the term has then been used, metaphorically as an adjective, a metaphoric way, in literature or advertising.

As an adjective knock out means "overwhelming or surpassing quality" (CEOED, 1987: V1, 1548-9) regarding a thing a or a person.

It is plausible that the reason for this is that in boxing there is nothing beyond the knock out, the bout ends right there, there is nothing more to gain. Consequently knock out could be used in other contexts than boxing instead of prefixes such as mega or ultra, to indicate that something is the very best.

"Chasing a knock out sound? You´ll find the most rewarding instrument in the Hammond organ" (Crescendo, Aug., 1941)*.

"Hi, there it´s great to be with you and welcome to another knock out show" (Listener, 5 Sept., 1968).*

As a noun knock out is used in a metaphoric way in poetry and fiction.

"One of us got the knock out, blown to chops" (W Owen, Coll. Poems, 1963).*

"Got up (after cycling smash) within in ten seconds, but had subsequently to admit knock out" (G B Shaw, Letter 17, 1965).*

All the figurative senses probably suggest underlying conceptual metaphors. In a commercial context the metaphor +boxing is exceptional+ , probably underlies the figurative uses of knock out.

The literary examples provide once again evidence for the metaphors boxing is war (Owen) and life is boxing (Shaw)*.

9. Swing

A swing in boxing, is one of the punches allowed in a contest. As a noun it means: "A punch delivered with a sweep of the arm, a swinging blow" (CEOED, 1987:S, 1217). The same noun is found in an often heard colloquial phrase:

"If I stand here much longer, I´ll be tempted to take a swing at you" (W Winword, Last&Greatest Art, 1983).*

The verb in boxing is transitive:

"The soldier swung a slow, heavy right hand at Tom"(CCED, 1992:1480-1).

Swing as a verb or a noun has a number of abstract senses (CEOED, 1987:V2, 3199). The sense of boxing of the word relates to the following variant: "the act of swinging or waving about a weapon or other body: a movement describing a curve…".

j) Uppercut

Uppercut is a compound noun. The adjective upper is the comparative form of up, meaning: "ocurring or taking place in, directed towards a higher or the highest position" (CEOED, 1987:V2, 3565).

Cut is a complex monocentric and polycentric word, but as a noun it can be used to refer to sports in general: "A particular stroke in various games…" (CEOED, 1987:V1, 632).

One of the punches thrown in a boxing contest is called an uppercut:

"Upper cut … a counter, delivered upwards with either hand, when an opponent leads off or rushes in with his head down" (Encyl Sports 1897).*

Uppercut has not gone beyond boxing jargon. It is not used in the standard language in a metaphoric sense. It is difficult to state why this is the case with certainty, but it is likely that people in general have not seen much of a similarity between this punch and other significant aspects of real life.

3.4. The boxer

Only a few of Fleischer’s technical terms deal with the boxer himself, so perhaps it is possible to assume that focus or what is highlighted in boxing is rather the action or the contest, rather than the people who contribute to the action. This also seems fairly logical since the specific action is a good example or attribute of boxing, while ‘man’ is an attribute to a great many cognitive models and not specifically to boxing. One of them is glass jaw, which of course does not mean an actual jaw made of glass. Instead, it means that a certain boxer seems to be as fragile as ordinary glass, if an opponent punches him on the jaw.

1. Southpaw

Southpaw is a compound word consisting of the adjective south and the noun paw. According to the CEOED, 1987:S, 1141) the word has an American colloquial background, originally in baseball. But the term is also used in boxing.

The noun paw means "A person’s left hand" or "In boxing: a southpaw leads with his right hand".

"On the same bill Joe Lucy, the young south-paw meets…" (Sport, 6-12 April, 1951).*

But southpaw can also function as adjective and an attribute, meaning "left-handed".

"Jack Bodell, has just become the first south-paw heavyweight champion in British Boxing History" (New Scientist, 6 Nov., 1969).*

It is also possible to find examples of southpaw, meaning "left foot"

In boxing southpaw has also the connotation of being ‘strange or difficult to handle’

"For some reasons they (southpaws) seem more awkward than other boxers" (Cooper, 1975:43).

With the latter meaning, southpaw is also possible to use in the standard language and metaphorically.

"This was, however, a southpaw kind of compliment" (1957 R Watson-Watt, Three Steps to Victory).*

The meaning of the above expression may be a bit obscure to readers with no direct reference to boxing, but since southpaws in boxing are regarded as more or less strange people, a southpaw compliment then consquently is a strange compliment.

 

2. Stance

Stance is a noun, meaning: "A standing place, station, position". (CEOED, 1987:V2, 3012) or in reference to sports: "In golf or other games: The position of the player’s feet in playing a stroke". Here boxing has to be included in "other games", since a boxer also has his specific stance.

The word can be used in a transferred meaning: (CEOED, 1987:S, 1167) "the position of the player’s body in readyness or playing a stroke".

"Driscoll instantly dropped into a boxing stance, right fist guarding his chin, left fist pumping exageratedly back and forth" (J G Driscoll, Troubles, 1970).

This example is another indication of the possible existence of the conceptual metaphor

+life is boxing+.

3.5. Boxing Jargon in Everyday Language

Boxing jargon has entered everyday English and everyday life not only in the form of single lexical items, but also as catch phrases or idioms, used in a figurative sense. Here it seems particularly evident that language users make a comparison between the cognitive model boxing and real life. This section will then subsequently deal with idioms that I believe are derived from conceptual metaphors.

3.5.1 Beat to the punch

"We´ll have have to decide now whether we want this house or someone else will beat us to the punch"(DEI, 1996:265).

This original boxing phrase, which stresses the necessity to strike first, has become a colloquial metaphor meaning "do something or obtain something before someone else."

3.5.2 Blow by blow

Blow by blow is an Americanism "used attributively to designate a detailed account of the series of punches given…"(CEOED, 1987:S, 75).

But the phrase is also frequently used in a transferred sense.

"Radio announcers… describe the struggle as they see it, give the blow by blow account of its progress", (American Speech Oct., 1933)*.

Nowadays the phrase has become so established that it has been listed as a cliche, a term so often used that is should be avoided (Hicks, 1995:75).

A main reason as to why this attribute of boxing has become so frequently used is probably that early radio broadcasts were linked to this sport. The first major broadcast took place as early as 1921 when Jack Dempsey defended his world heavyweight title against France’s Georges Carpentier, in Jersey City, USA (Fleischer: 1970:810).

3.5.3 Pull the punches

The literal meaning of to pull the punches in boxing is, according to the CEOED, 1987:S, 879), "to hold back or check one’s blow".

But the phrase is also used figuratively: "to use less force than one is capable of exerting, to be gentle or lenient, esp. in criticism or punishment".

"Either because Vidor pulled his punches at the revolution or because … he was confused"

(L Jacobs, Rise of American Film 1939).*

According to the Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms (CDI, 1995:312), not to pull your punches or pull no punches are among the most frequent of English Idioms³.

3.5.4 Saved by the bell

In boxing the bell, which indicates the end of the round, can save a boxer from a knock out. This fact has been turned into a catch phrase with a metaphoric use, meaning: "Saved or spared by a lucky incident" (Partridge, 1993:262). According to Partridge the phrase came into practice about a hundred years ago, at the turn of the century. Real world practice in boxing has however changed over the years and it is nowadays only possible to be saved by the bell in the final round of a boxing contest, it used be in any round. It seems, though, as if this change have not affected to meaning of the idiom.

3 The CDI presents 4 400 idioms in British and American English based on a corpora of 211 million words. The idioms are divided into four different levels depending on how frequent they are (CDI:1995, xvii). Group one, contains the most common idioms and group four the least common in the corpora. The frequncy levels are not introduced into this essay entirely because of statistical reasons, but to add further emphasis to the fact that the language of boxing is transferred into everyday language. The CDI also presents a number of other idioms, with their roots in boxing, than those discussed here, e.g. down for the count, out for the count, a knock down drag out fight, come out fighting etc

In Alan Sillitoe’s, novel Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner, 1959,* there is an example of its use:

"Aint´t it next door to a pub then? I wanted to know. He answered me sharp: No. It bloody well ain´t. Then I don´t know, I told him, saved by the bell".*

Saved by the bell, belongs to group 3 out of 4, of the listed idioms, referring to frequency. (CDI:1995, p. 26).

3.5.5 To roll with the punches

In boxing the idiom to roll with the punches means: "…to move the body away from the opponent’s blow in order to lessen their impact" (CEOED, 1987:S:986).

This expression has developed into a catch phrase with a figurative meaning: "to adapt oneself to difficult circumstances, take troubles in one’s stride".

"He had mastered the trick of rolling with the punches, rendering himself invisible when a crisis darkened the neighbouring skies" (Kurnitz H, Invasion of Privacy, 1956).*

To roll with the punches belongs to the least common groups of idioms (CDI,1995:312).

3.5.6 To throw up the sponge/in the towel

The reason for the variation of this phrase is the change of practise in boxing. On the whole - to throw up the sponge is a term from 19^th century boxing, the London Prize Ring, while to throw or chuck in the towel - reflects the practice in our century.

To throw up the sponge is originally a slang term (CEOED, 1987:V2, 2976):

"To throw up the sponge, to submit, give over - from the practice of throwing up the sponge to cleanse the combatant´s face at a prize-fight, as a signal that mill is concluded".

CEOED, (1987:S, 1281) gives boxing as the origin of the expression to throw in the towel.

Both phrases can be used figuratively: "You stop doing something because you realize that you cannot succeed," (CCED, 1992:1549).

In Inimit Jeeves, 1923*, P G Woodehouse writes:

"He found the going hard and chucked in the towel".*

These two idioms belong to the most common ones in the English language. But there might be a difference in usage, since to throw in the sponge seems to be used mainly in British English (CDI:195, p.312).

3.5.7 The Real McCoy

The origin of the idiom The Real McCoy is debated. The Dictionary of English Idioms suggests the American boxer Charles "Kid" McCoy (1873-1940), who in his prime was regarded as an exceptional boxer. The metaphoric meaning is being "the real, original thing".

"The beer that they serve in this hotel is the real McCoy…" (DEI, 1996:215)

Others consider the livestock trader Joseph McCoy, as the origin of the idiom. He was the first man to bring cattle from Texas to Chicago in the 1870’s (McCrum, 1992:275). But even if Joseph McCoy was the real origin of this idiom, it is obvious that "Kid" McCoy to some extent has overshadowed his predecessor. He is in fact often is credited for this idiom and the example from DEI is just an example of this tendency. Perhaps it is correct to assume that "Kid" McCoy in his prime was a more well-known character to the general public than Joseph McCoy. After all sports, boxing included, is likely to be more in focus in media than livestock trade.

The idiom is listed in group 3 out 4 referring to frequency in English (CDI, 1995:256).

All the first six examples of idioms in English related to boxing suggest the conceptual metaphor Life is Boxing, while the last one The Real McCoy, probably indicates that there is a metaphor +boxing is exceptional+.

4. Experiental view

Cognitive linguistics believes that: "our shared experience of the world is …stored in our everyday language" (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996: introduction xii). Consequently there is really no need to distinguish between linguistic abilities and the real world influence, when we investigate how we perceive the world. According to the cognitivist approach, our experience of the world will be reflected in the world and vice versa. A certain language can also indicate how the users picture the world.

Over the past 20 years cognitive linguists have conducted different practical experiental experiments, when they have asked language users about what goes on their mind when they talk and read. But the most well-known work within the experiental view (see section 1: p.6) is probably that of showing that metaphors are more than poetry and colourful language. They help us to transform abstract and complex social, scientific and political ideas into concrete and comprehensible language. They also contribute to our conceptualization of the world.

When people in general think about a metaphor they will probably refer to authors such as William Shakespeare or William Wordsworth. Metaphor has traditionally been looked upon as a poetic way of describing an object or a notion, by using another word or another expression, which has the qualities you want to express. But seen from a cognitive viewpoint metaphor is rather an extension of meaning, where man conceptualises "one cognitive domain in terms of components more usually associated with another cognitive domain" (Taylor, 1995:133).

If Evander Holyfield for example, for some reason, is accused of being a mouse, we do not actually believe that the heavyweight champion suddenly has become a small hairy animal with sharp white teeth. Instead we take for granted that Holyfield acts as if he were a mouse, i.e. a coward. But the metaphoric meaning is hard to explain unless we take extralinguistic knowledge into account. On the whole, cognitive lingustics sees language as an instrument which links together man and the surrounding world, the context for utterances lies generally in the real world, not in the linguistic system per se. In the example above evander holyfield must be understood against the background of a semantic unit, a cognitive model, boxing, sometimes also called a domain. To interpret them both we need encylopeadic knowledge or reference to culture in general. In Evander Holyfield is a mouse, mouse belongs to another cognitive model than boxing which results in the extended meaning of the word, the metaphor.

Computers used for translation purposes still find it very difficult to distinguish between the dictionary meaning and the transferred meaning. But since man has the ability to distinguish between a so-called literal meaning and a transferred meaning without much trouble, this capacity could indicate a basic trait in how man handles language.

Metaphors are a challenge to cognitive linguistics, since this branch of linguistics wants to deal with all aspects of language, or at least as many as possible. The autonomous view of language (see section 2: p.7), however, tends to regard language as a system of its own. It does not really take man into account or only to some extent, "…language remains a self contained system, with its own structure, its own constitutive principles, its own dynamics" (Taylor, 1995: p.16). If man is a part of the analysis, his ability to interact with language must of course be taken into consideration. An autonomous analysis would probably not go further than to discuss language as "an autonomous component of mind, is in principle independent of other faculties" (Taylor, 1995:17).

The structuralist tradition going back to Saussure accepts the idea that language must be understood in a context, but since language to the structuralists is a self-containted system, the context lies in the linguistic system. The modern generativist school does not generally discuss context at all, since to them, what is important in language study, is the innate, mentalistic faculty (cf. Joseph, 1995:234 – 237).

Traditionally much of what has been written on metaphors, has been produced by people with their roots in the history of literature. But during the last two or three decades metaphors have become increasingly more interesting to linguists working in the cognitive paradigm.

The definite breakthrough was Lakoff’s and Johnson’s (1980) book Metaphors We Live By, in which the authors claim that "much of our understanding of everyday experience is structured in the terms of metaphor" (cf. Taylor,1995:133).

In their book they point out they "have … found that the metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language and action. Our conceptual system…is fundamentally metaphorical in nature" (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:3). They also offer the metaphor as a synthesis, instead of a traditional objectivist or subjectivist way of looking at language. "What… both miss is the way we understand the world through interaction" (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:194). Lakoff and Johnsson divide the areas of human experience into a limited number of methaporic concepts.

An example of this way of reasoning could be a situation, where a man says to his wife: I´m crazy about you. Such an utterance does not mean that he is actually crazy. Nor is it necessarily a poetic way of describing his extreme devotion. Instead there is a basic metaphor, structuring the concept of love, namely +love is madness+. I´m crazy about you is just an example of utterance people produce because of the existance of this concept. She drives me out of my mind, is another example, which supports the existance of such a metaphor.

The example +love is madness+ is a structural metaphor where one concept is structured in terms of another. So is +time is money+, e.g. You are wasting my time or Do you have much time left.

But there are also other groups, e.g.:

Orientational metaphors, e.g. +happy is up, sad is down+, e. g. "I´m feeling up" or "I fell into a depression".

Ontological metaphors, e. g. +the mind is a machine+ e.g. "I´m a little rusty today" or "My mind just isn´t operating today".

Personification and metonomy are specific types of ontological metaphors. In "Life has cheated me", life has been tranformed into a being, while in "He´s got a Picasso in his den", the name of the producer is used instead of the product.

Container metaphors, e.g. +the visual field+ e.g. "The ship is coming into view"or "I have him in sight".

Causation metaphors, e. g. +the object comes out of substance+ e.g. "Mammals developed out of reptiles".

It is obvious that there is a considerable difference between metaphors. A structural metaphor is "purely metaphorical" since it uses words from one domain to describe another. Orientational metaphors which deal with spatialization are, however, "directly emergent", and understood by the human intellect directly. According to Lakoff and Johnson this type of metaphor "organises a whole system of concepts with respect to one another" (1980:14).

Language is at least to some extent a result of our experience. Lakoff and Johnson (1980:59-60) discuss three different areas of basic experience: spatial, social and emotional. They present the following example:

Harry is in love.

The first example Harry is in the kitchen, is not a metaphorical concept, since it comes directly from our spatial experience, while the two other examples are metaphoric expressions. They can not be understood literally.

When the American writer Joyce Carol Oates discusses boxing as a metaphor for something else, she concludes: "Life is like boxing in many unsettling respects. But boxing is only like boxing" (Oates, 1987:4).

The reason for the metaphoric use of boxing jargon, e.g. roll with the punches, saved by the bell, knock out, etc, must obviously be that people in general recognise a similarity between life and boxing. It is here also necessary to point out what Taylor writes: (1995:140): " The experiental base of the metaphors are no doubt to be found in physical environment of the speaker". Physical environment is to be understood as man’s own body or the immediate environment, which surrounds him or her. Since boxing probably can be traced back to ancient times when man stood faced with the binary choice of running or fighting, it belongs at least indirectly to basic our physical environment. Over the years fighting for survival has been refined into a modern combat sport along the lines of such people and such institutions as James Figg, The Marquis of Queensberry and the Amateur Boxing Association.

Thus we can postulate a metaphoric concept:

+life is boxing+

Of course, it is not a question of one hundred per cent agreement between metaphor and reality. But neither is love always madness, time always money. Life and boxing differ in many ways, but the examples from standard language are sufficient evidence for the existence of a conceptual metaphor +life is boxing+

But Oates could be jumping to conclusions when she says that "boxing is only like boxing". She is a highly respected author, but not a linguist working in the cognitive paradigm. The material presented in this essay, not only supports Oates’ view that life sometimes is like boxing, but also indicates that boxing, in fact to some extent is like life. It seems as if man, language and boxing as parts of culture are linked together into one unity. The reason why ordinary words like decision, bell, and hook were brought into boxing could have been that the fathers of the sport felt that boxing reminded of dramatic things in life. Thus in the material presented in this essay it is possible to find evidence for possible metaphors such as:

+boxing is war+ and +boxing is exceptional+

The reason for this is probably that the cognitive model boxing could be divided into four different subgroups or cognitive categories:

1. A British combat sport with roots in the 18^th century
2. General fighting in all sorts of contexts with roots in ancient times
3. Exceptional physical experiences and drama
4. Life is sometimes a struggle and then reminds people of boxing

Sport is on the whole a 20^th century phenomenon, at least when it comes to events, which can be followed, by a huge crowd at an arena, or even larger audiences listening to the radio or watching TV. Sports have a tremendous impact on people and probably also on language. This is probably the reason why sports jargon is brought into standard language and sometimes turned into metaphors for concepts in life.

5. Attentional View

In chapter four I discussed metaphors as a conceptual tool in the framework of the experiental view. Another approach in cognitive linguistics is the attentional view (see section 1:p.6). The attentional view focuses on "which parts of an event attract our attention" (Ungerer&Schmid, 1996:introduction xi). They also provide an example to illustrate that people express only certain parts of a situation they have experienced. A short sentence such as The car crashed into the tree does not cover every element in this violent and destructive event. It rather seems as if we select certain more important pieces of information and highlight them, while other information is left in the background or completely left out. It is necessary for man to organise the real world in conceptual terms, otherwise the sensory input will create chaos and anarchy. On the whole there seems to be, to some extent, a practical redundancy principle in the human communication system, otherwise it would be completely impossible for two people to be talking to each other on a noisy street corner for instance. It is also fairly obvious that if we read a newspaper article we do not need to understand all words to get a general understanding of it. Categories such as nouns and verbs will provide enough meaning for a reader to understand the context, while isolated prepositions and conjunctions will leave him or her completely in the dark.

How we focus our attention on certain elements and leave others out is important when we consider how certain parts of our lexis extend their meaning and move from a specific meta-language or jargon such as boxing and into everyday language.

One approach to show this selection of what we perceive is the so-called script. Ungerer and Schmid (1996:213 – 217) show two well-known examples of scripts in their book: the [flying on a plane] script and the [restaurant] script. The first example illustrates "event sequences" in a situation, which takes place regularly. The flight, which involves one person, is described as a routine flight, nothing extraordinary happens at all. The restaurant script is however more detailed. There are five people in this script and it allows a limited number of various events to take place.

In the [boxing] script below I have restricted myself in certain aspects. The script is a chain of events as in [flying on a plane], but it involves a number of people. More importantly, the point of view is different. It is seen from a spectator of a contest, since it is likely that people who are influenced by an event of some kind will start to use language connected with that very event, particularly if they are present. It is less likely that the contestants themselves, the boxers in this case, cause language change with the direct action.

The [boxing] script does not allow for an alternative sequence of events since such a script would tend to be extremely complex. What can happen after the first sound of the bell? Who starts the leading off? A or B? In what way? Conventionally with a left lead or is it a southpaw, who leads with his right hand? Or is it an unconventional opening with one of the contestants trying to finish the bout with a surprise direct right cross or a swing? If we compare the [boxing] script, with the [restaurant script] for instance, the latter one allows only for a limited number of expected events. The situation starts with the fact that the customer has money and is hungry. Nothing more unexpected may happen than that the cook informs the waiter that there is no food. I used the comparison with a chess game previously and it seem fairly obvious that a [boxing] script is more related to a possible chess script than the existing restaurant script. It is also important to stress that this script wants to point out significant events in a contest, which is likely to influence a spectator.

In the [boxing] script I have restricted the pre-contest stage into what is normally seen by the spectators. The pre-contest stage is also not really reflected in the part of the lexis, which has entered everyday language. It is also important that the script is based on amateur or olympic boxing, so-called AIBA-rules. We have already noted the cognitive model boxing is complex and will allow for different starting points in a script.

5.1. SCRIPT

[boxing]

Viewpoint: A spectator

1. Pre-contest stage

Enter ring R > Enter BC, BC1, BC2 > Enter RC, RC1, RC2, > R check BC, RC > R calls BC; RC centre ring > R gives sign > T bell sound

2. Contest

RC beats BC to punch with left lead > RC not pull punches > BC rolls with punches > RC hits below belt > R cautions RC > BC, RC clinch > BC keeps guard up > RC throws overhand right to chin of BC > BC leads with his face > BC knocked down > RC to neutral corner > R counts to 8 > BC standing up, gloves raised > R commands "box" > BC1 throws in towel > R signals contest over > BC, RC, return to respective corner > R fetches scorecards from J1, J2, J3, > R hands scorecards to J > R calls BC, RC to centre of ring > S "winner by retirement, not a ko" RC > R raises hand of RC

3. Post-contest stage

In the introduction I suggested that there is no idiom concerning the fact that the referee may have to relace the boots of one of the boxers. The reason for this is probably that such an event, though recurring, is not significant for boxing, it is not really an attribute, it is not really in the concept of the sport. The attribute ‘relacing the boot’ normally links with a much more everyday sort of cognitive category than boxing. What goes into everyday language from boxing jargon are instead matters which are significant or perhaps prototypical for boxing. It is even more likely to go into everyday language if it easily can be referred or compared to other real life events. Perhaps some would argue that a script such as [boxing] just states some obvious facts, but that is missing the point of reasoning. Instead, selecting significant or prototypical events and items is a basic notion to cognitive linguistics. Here in this script it helps us to understand why one word of jargon may extend its meaning or is transferred into everyday language. Perhaps it possible to say man has different ways of "construing" the real world, one to focus on what is necessary or important and ignore other less important sensory information.

"Another aspect of construal is our ability to conceive of one structure against the background provided by another. Categorisation is perhaps the most pervasive manifestation of this ability". (Langacker, 1995:335-336)

In the script above I have picked out certain situations which de facto have entered standard language, such as roll with punches, hit below the belt, throw in the towel etc. They are there to illustrate that, what is perceived by spectators as logical and common sense will be used in other linguistic contexts too. Boxing reminds people about life in general, or war or exceptional experiences, since its is very basic sport. Also the fact that sport has enjoyed a steadily increasing popularity in our society in the 20^th century helps to put an emphasis on use of sport jargon as standard language.

5.2. The Voucher of Emphasis

In his book, Jargon, its Uses and Abuses (1993), Walter Nash puts forward the idea that sports jargon offers "a voucher of emphasis" (1993:28) to everyday language. Often in figurative way, sports add color to language, which thus becomes more expressive. This has some reference as to how prestige generally is described in sociolinguistics. In her book Women, Men and Language Jennifer Coates comments on this phenomenon: "Prestige is said to be attached to those linguistic forms normally used by a social group with the highest social status" (Coates:1997:62) and here boxing functions as a "social group with high status" gives its status to a number of words and expressions, which then subsequently will be used in everyday language.

Nash gives a few general examples of situations, which easily can be described metaphorically, in terms of sport:

1. personal relationships
2. controversy
3. competitive endeavour
4. social interaction
5. negotiations in all forms

Nash then turns to boxing specifically to show how people can understand the world through the concept of boxing. He focuses particularly on the scenario of "conflict", where boxing project ideas of:

1. evenly matched opponents,
2. opponents fighting under rules
3. acting in a way not provided for in the rules, when we deal with other people, e.g. low blow
4. both parties abandoning the rules, e.g. gloves are off
5. rule bound conflicts understood as developing in phases e.g. rounds
6. victory, eg. strike a knock out blow
7. some degree of success, e.g. a body blow
8. being rescued from a critical situation, e.g. saved by the bell
9. arguing without taking defensive precaution, e.g. leading with your chin
10. replying effectively to assertive or accusatory argument, e.g. counterpunching

But Nash also points out that boxing can be used to describe people:

11. a debater who specialises in the retort, e.g. a counter puncher
12. an experienced, well-informed contestant, e.g, a heavyweight
13. somebody less equipped to compete in serious affairs, e.g. a lightweight

Nash’s report on boxing language further illustrates how and why boxing language is made use of in the standard language. Human beings tend to highlight and focus on significant or prototypical entities and make use of them in the communication, while other less important factors are put in the background. In the boxing situation it is not pure chance that the spectator pays attention to the knock out punch, but does not bother about boxers rinsing their mouths in the interval between the rounds. Instead it is very logical and in accordance with human perception.

6. Some Contrastive Aspects

Boxing is a sport with its roots in the British Isles almost 300 years ago, but has since spread to all parts of the world, which is also the case of another British sport, soccer football, while cricket has severe problems spreading outside of the former colonies, the Commonwealth countries. The Swedish Boxing Federation was founded in 1919 so our country is no exception from the rule that boxing is practiced everywhere in the world. There are probably many reasons for this. It is not expensive to practice, equipment is not complicated, the rules are easy to understand and seldom changed and it is seemingly basic in its nature, it reflects man’s ancient will to fight for survival and attracts man’s interest in danger. We have also noted that boxing and language both are dialogical in their nature.

In this kind of essay, it is not unimportant to analyse how and why English boxing jargon has affected Swedish, since the cognitive approach wants to show how man and language interact with the world around (see sect 1, p. 5). The general trend in the 20^th century is that English dominates and affects all languages in various aspects. Today the United States is the only political, military and economical super power left, and it influences the world through its language, English. Great Britain is no longer a great power, but the English language has no trouble surviving in the old colonies. Today English stands for status and is a neutral lingua franca, in countries with many rivalling languages (cf McCrum, et al, 1992:10-11).

The cognitive approach to language includes the notion that a language gives a picture of how we picture the world. That is nothing new or very dramatic, but it underlines the fact that language does not seem to be a self-contained system, instead linguistic abilities and real world knowledge interact and help us to perceive to world. Frans Boas, more or less the creator of modern American linguistics, thought that language was a key to the understanding of culture and his followers Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf adopted at one time a rather extreme position. Their hypothesis suggested that language forces us to perceive and interpret the world in a specific way.

The difference in cultural background could also explain the differences, which exist when we look at the specific boxing jargon in English and Swedish. The two languages are fairly closely related, since they are both Indoeuropean Germanic languages (cf. Pyles & Algeo, 1993:75), so we can hardly expect large differences in the conceptualization of the world. The American linguists previously mentioned were all interested in the Indian languages of North America, where the gap can be substantial as compared to that between English and Swedish.

In Swedish we recognize the idioms att slå någon under bältet (to hit someone below the belt), meaning ‘to be unfair’ and att kasta in handduken (to throw in the towel), meaning ‘to give up’. But we would hardly say that we måste rulla med slagen (roll with the punches), meaning that we have ‘to adapt to a present difficult situation and hope for better times to come’. The implication is also that if we panic and do not adopt we will run into even worse trouble. In vernacular Swedish we would rather försöka gilla läget (approve of the present situation) when asked to roll with the punches. Neither will we hardly say räddad av gonggongen (saved by the bell), rather räddad i sista sekunden (saved at the last moment), meaning saved by the bell. But as a joke we would accept an expression such as gå i clinch med vår fru eller flickvän (clinch with our wife or girlfriend).

On the whole it is correct to say that there are more examples of boxing jargon brought into everyday language in English than in Swedish. It also seems logical that we can assume that there is no boxing idiom in Swedish that does not exist in English, since here English affects Swedish, and not the other way around. We can compare the situation with the fact the one of the few modern Swedish words that exists in English is ombudsman. The system with people who represents the public, ombudsmän, is originally Swedish and subsequently the lexical item representing the function was transferred into English.

The reason why an idiom as to hit somebody below the belt exists in both languages is probably that this notion is very strong in boxing and in real life. In boxing this rule, which prevents a boxer from hitting or kicking somebody below the waistline, makes it ‘a noble art of self-defense’, helps to make it different from other variants of fighting. It is simply an important attribute of boxing. In real life we expect quality i.e. not to be told lies, not to be treated unfairly etc. A stroke below the belt in boxing is a very striking and concrete example of something unfair. The situation has caught the attention of the whole community and then gone into everyday language as an idiom.

As for knock out, Swedish, as other languages, has not bothered to translate the category. It is has gone into Swedish both as boxing jargon and into everyday language with extended meaning. Knock out exists in no other sport but boxing, thus it is yet another strong attribute of boxing

It is more difficult to speculate about why kasta in handduken has been accepted in Swedish too, other than in general terms. The situation in boxing when a boxer or rather his chief second gives up the contest for him is very suggestive. It perhaps possible to use terminology from Ronald W. Langacker and suggest that the trajectory of the towel against the landmark of the ring, obviously has become a strong symbol or attribute for give up (cf. Ungerer and Schmid:1996:161).

The reason why we find more boxing idioms or examples of extended meaning inEnglish than in Swedish is probably that boxing reflects English culture and English language more than Swedish language and Swedish culture. After all, boxing is a British sport originally, not a Swedish. Perhaps two World Wars have made the British more inclined to roll with the punches than just gilla läget. On the whole Sweden has been a peaceful country for the past two hundred years and Swedish people are consequently less liable to associate boxing with areas of conflict, less liable to use boxing as an attribute of life, war and exceptional experience.

7. Conclusion

In this essay I have attempted to show how boxing jargon has affected everyday language and discuss this matter from a general congnitivistic standpoint. However, I have also tried to use other perspectives, since man has shown an interest in language and boxing in one form or another since ancient times. I have used a cognitive approach since it is hardly possible to write about these matters without taking extralinguistic knowledge into account. It is also a fundamental cognitivist notion that the real world and the linguistic system interacts in how man perceives the world. The sources I have used have been of various kinds: dictionaries, linguistic books and general material.

John Taylor’s book Lingustic Categorization and An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics by Ungerer & Schmid were particulary useful when the cogntivist approach was discussed, while Nat Fleischer´s Ring Record Book was the basis for the discussion on specific boxing jargon. In the discussion some emphasis was put on the fact that a number of these terms and expressions have crept into everyday language, and are often used in a metaphoric sense.

Within the framework of the experiental view I have provided a survey of the basic concepts of metaphors in language. The structural conceptual metaphor +life is boxing+, as introduced by Lakoff and Johnson, was also presented.

The attentional view offered a possibility to show why certain aspects of boxing jargon have crept into everyday language, while others have been left out.

I have also discussed some contrastive aspects between English and my own mother tongue, Swedish, to show why there are differences in the use of boxing jargon in the standard language of the two languages.

To sum up:

1) sports jargon in general, and boxing jargon in particular, has moved into everyday life and language most likely because of the immense popularity sport has enjoyed in our century.

2) the reason why certain lexical items or expressions from boxing jargon is transferred into everyday language is man’s fundamental ability to highlight what is important and necessary among the real world stimuli.

3) the fact that there are more examples of boxing jargon in English everyday language than in Swedish, is likely to reflect the cultural differences between the two countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. References

A Commentary to the Rules of AIBA (1980). Halle. World Boxing Magazine.

André, S. and Fleischer, N. (1997) A Pictorial History of Boxing. Feltham. Hamlyn

Bryson, B. (1990) Mother Tongue. London. Penguin

Coates, J. (1997) Women, Men and Language. Glasgow. Longmans

Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1992) Ed. Sinclair, J. London. HarperCollins

Cooper, H. (1975) Boxing. London. Pelham Books.

Culler, J. (1986) Saussure, Glasgow. Fontana Press

Cunliffe, M. (1975) The Literature of the United States. Hammondsworth. Penguin

Dictionary of English Idioms. (1996) Ed. Long, T.H. London, Longman

Fahey, T. (1990) The Joys of Jargon. New York. Barron´s

Fleischer, N. (ed) (1961 and 1970) The Ring Record Book and Encyclopedia New York. The Ring Book Shop Inc

Hicks, W. (1995) English for Journalists. London. Routledge

http://www.usa.today.com/sports/07/04/97

Jakobson, R. (1990) "Langue and Parole: Code and Message" In On Language. Cambridge. Mass. Harvard University Press

Joseph, John E. (1995) "Saussurean Tradition in Linguistics". In Concise History of Language Sciences. Koerner & Asher.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago. Chicago University Press

Langacker Ronald W., (1995) "Cognitive Grammar" In Concise History of Language Sciences. Koerner & Asher..

MacCrum, R., Cran, R. McNeill, R. (1992) The Story of English. London. Faber&Faber

Mailer, N. (1976) The Fight, New York. Bantam Books

Nash, W. (1993) Jargon - It´s Uses and Abuses. Oxford. Blackwell

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1989) Ed. Cowie A.P. Oxford. Oxford University Press

Matthews, P.H. (1997) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press

Oates, J.C. (1987) On Boxing. New York. Dolphin/Doubleday

Palmer, F.R: (1993) Semantics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Partridge, E. (1993) A Dictionary of Catch Phrases, Ed. Beale, P. London. Routledge

Phytian, B.A. (1976) A Concise Dictionary of English Slang. London. Hodder&Staughton

Pyles, T. And Algeo, J. (1993) The Origins and Development of the English Language. Fort Worth. Harcourt Brace&Company

Sampson, G. (1980) Schools of Linguistics. Stanford. Stanford University Press

Saussure Ferdinand de. (1966) Course in General Linguistics. New York. McGraw-Hill Book Company

Taylor, J.R. (1995) Linguistic Categorization. Oxford. Oxford University Press

The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1987), Oxford, Oxford University Press

Ungerer, F. And Schmid H. J. (1996) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, Longman

.

.