i

AN ANALYSIS TOWARDS THE INDIVIDUAL LINGUISTIC

FEATURES OF FOOTBALL COMMENTARY REGISTER IN

BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE (BPL)

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan

Putra Pamungkas Budiman

112011100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS

UNIVERSITAS KRISTEN SATYA WACANA SALATIGA

2017

ii

iii

iv

i

iii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for

examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or

diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this

contains no material previously published or written by any other person

except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2017. Putra Pamugkas Budiman and Dian Toar Y.G.

Sumakul, M.A.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduces by any

means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the

English Language Education Program, Faculty of Language and Arts,

Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga.

Putra Pamungkas Budiman

iv

Table of Contents

Approval Page ii

Copyright Statement iii

Introduction 1

Review of Literature 3

Register ........................................................................................................................ 3

Individual Linguistic Features in SAT ...................................................................... 4

Simplification ........................................................................................................................ 5

Subject-Dependent Inversion ................................................................................................ 6

Result Expressions ................................................................................................................ 6

Heavy Modifiers .................................................................................................................... 7

Diminutive Elements ............................................................................................................. 8

Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device ................................................................................ 9

Discourse Deixis ................................................................................................................. 10

Previous Studies ........................................................................................................ 11

The Study 14

Context and Object of the Study ............................................................................. 14

Research Instrument ................................................................................................ 14

Data Collection Procedure ....................................................................................... 14

Data Analysis Procedure .......................................................................................... 15

Findings and Discussion 15

v

Table 1. Findings on Individual Linguistic Feature. .................................................. 15

Simplification............................................................................................................. 16

Subject-Dependent Inversion ................................................................................... 17

Result Expressions .................................................................................................... 18

Heavy Modifiers ........................................................................................................ 19

Diminutive Elements ................................................................................................. 20

Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device ................................................................... 21

Discourse Deixis ........................................................................................................ 22

Discussion................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion 25

Acknowledgement 27

References 28

Appendix 30

1

An Analysis Towards the Individual Linguistic Features of Football Commentary

Register in Barclays Premier League

Putra Pamungkas Budiman

Abstract

Soccer, or football, is a widely known sport in many countries. In broadcasted

matches, announcers (or commentators) have an important role of delivering the

occurrences of the match to the audience. Since sport announcers‟ language form has its

own uniqueness, sport announcers‟ language style is considered as a set of register called

Sport Announcer‟s Talk (SAT). This study was aimed to find out the Individual

Linguistic Features in the register of sport announcers.

As a qualitative research, this study looked at sport announcers‟ utterances in some

certain minutes of the matches in 2015-2016 Barclays Premier League (BPL) in the

United Kingdom. The study was done through transcribing the commentaries of certain

matches and then categorizing the utterances into the proper Individual Linguistic

Features. The result of the study shows that there are seven Individual Linguistic Features

which are: Simplification, Subject-Dependent Inversion, Result Expressions, Heavy

Modifiers, Diminutive Elements, Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Devices, and Discourse

Deixis.

Key words: commentary, commentators, register, individual linguistic features.

A. INTRODUCTION

Football (British English) or Soccer (American English) is said to be one of the most

well known sport across countries. Many people are fond of this sport. In fact, there are a

lot of countries that already have their own football league. Football has also been

broadcasted internationally; nowadays, we can watch a football match in other countries

from our television, or just simply stream it via Internet. In football broadcast, two

commentators are hired to give explanation about the progress of the match.

Lewandowski (2008) explains that these commentators consist of a play-by-play

commentator and a color commentator. A play-by-play commentator has the duty of

2

delivering a detailed process of what happened in the match; this kind of commentator is

usually an expert commentator who knows when and what to say during a particular

time. On the other hand, a color commentator is usually a former player or coach whose

duty is to give a summary of an event that occurs in the match and to explain to the

audiences about what happens in the match based on the players‟ point of view.

The language of the football commentary itself has their own uniqueness. For

example, football commentary is very seldom in using a complete sentence due to the

time pressure in delivering the speech. According to Lewandowski (2012), a football

commentary contains a lot of unfinished utterances and interruptions. Therefore, the

discourse of a football commentary does not have a lot of coherence. Furthermore,

football commentary is considered to be a branch of a language register called Sport

Announcers Talk (SAT) register. Lewandowski (2008) argues that the language of

football itself can also be considered as a register instead of a sociolect due to its‟ use that

is bound to a particular time and situations rather than habitual use. Furthermore, Balzer-

Siber (2015) introduces the term „individual linguistic features‟ as he adapts the so-called

„linguistic routines‟ from Ferguson (1983) in his study toward SAT. These individual

linguistic features are Simplification, Subject-Dependent Inversion, Result Expressions,

Heavy Modifiers, Diminutive Elements, Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Devices, and

Discourse Deixis.

This study aimed to find out the individual linguistic features of Barclays Premier

League (BPL) football commentary. In other words, this study wanted to find the answer

to the following research question: “What are the linguistic features used in BPL football

commentary”. It was expected that the results of this study would help the English

3

language learners to understand the language structure of BPL football commentary and

to contribute in the field of Sociolinguistics, particularly on registers.

B. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this section, the broad term of register by using Agha (2004) and Biber and

Conrad‟s (2009) overview toward register that has a certain connection toward this study

will firstly be elaborated. Then, to make this study more comprehensible, the individual

linguistic features of football commentary from Ferguson (1983), in Balzer-Siber, 2015

(pp. 29-45) that is going to be used in conducting this study will be explained. Finally,

some previous studies toward SAT will be introduced.

Register

According to Agha (2004), in his explanation toward the variation of register in

intuitive terms, register represents the image of the person speaking, the speaker-

interlocutor relationship, and the conduct of social practices (p. 43). They are all leading

to the hint at the kinds of speech in cultural models. He also explains that a person can

acquire more than one register depending on the range of the social activities that the

person has participated. Simply put, register is a repertoire in a linguistic context that

culturally associated with some social practices and the people who engage in those

practices (p. 44).This overview does not have many differences with Biber and Conrad

(2009) overview toward register. However, the latter has some points that become the

basic of this study.

From Biber and Conrad (2009) point of view, register is “a variety associated with a

particular situation of use (including particular communicative purposes)” (p. 6). This

4

description has three major components, which are situational context, linguistic features,

and the functional relationships between situational context and linguistic features.

Linguistic feature is a component of register which is described based on its‟ typical

lexical and grammatical characteristics. Correspondingly, situational context can be used

as a way in describing register; whether the registers are being produced through oral or

written process, whether they are interactive enough, and what the primary purposes in

the context of communication are. Functional analysis occurs because of the belief that

linguistic features are always functional; they tend to appear within a register because

they are considered well suited toward registers‟ purpose and situational context. This

study will analyze the linguistic features component of football commentary register as

the commentary has their own unique lexical and grammatical characteristics that will be

elaborated further later in this study.

Individual Linguistic Features in SAT

SAT is considered as a kind of register since its use depends on a particular situation

rather than the speakers‟ geographical background or social structure. According to

Lewandowski (2008), sport announcers (in this case is football commentators) will talk

differently depending on what happens on the pitch and who is talking to whom (coach to

player, player to coach, player to player, referee to player, etc.). Therefore, in his study in

2010, Lewandowski added that register‟s characteristic that corresponds to a variety of

situation supports the argument of putting SAT under register category.

According to Ferguson (1983), there are five syntactic characteristics of SAT which

are Simplification, Inversions, Heavy Modifiers, Result Expressions, and Routines. In

addition, Balzer-Siber (2015) develops these syntactic characteristics into seven

5

individual linguistic features of SAT which are Simplification, Subject-Dependent

Inversion, Result Expressions, Heavy Modifiers, Diminutive Elements, Deictic Adverbs

as Signposting Devices, and Discourse Deixis. Those categories will be explained below

and the examples are taken from Balzer-Siber (2015) dissertation.

Simplification

Simplification is the omission of copulas and sentence-initial subject, which is used

as a marker to many registers, including SAT. It involves the omission of particles,

pronoun, and prepositions. Below is the example of Simplification:

(1) Here‟s Higuaín (.) [he’s] having a drop back to find

possession as we expected and the Galaxy [is] able

to clear it away, [it’s] Keane now for the Galaxy

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

From the example, which are taken from live action reporting, there are many

occurrences of simplification. In the commentary, the commentator decided to omit the

pronoun [he’s] since he had already mentioned the player‟s name. The commentator also

decided to omit the word [is] and [it’s] as it did not cause any significant changes to the

meaning of the utterance.

By using simplification, sport announcers can focus more on what the player is doing

on the pitch due to the time pressure of delivering the commentaries. Simplification is not

limited only to the sentence-initial subjects or copulas; it also occurs in other elements,

such as conjunctions, articles, or prepositions.

6

Subject-Dependent Inversion

Subject-Dependent Inversion happens when the verb is being placed in the front of

the sentence, which means that the verb, not the subject, is the topic of the sentence. Take

for an example, if a sport announcer wants to put more emphasize on the action on the

pitch, he/she can say “wide is the header” instead of saying “his header goes wide”, it

means that the announcer pays more attention to the header that goes wide, rather than

the player who does the header. Below is the example of Subject-Dependent Inversion:

(1) Ahead is this long ball (.) searching for

Wondolowski, it curled out of play in the air

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

In this utterance, the commentator use Subject-Dependent Inversion to put more

emphasis on the direction of the long ball. This is because the delivery of the long ball

has more importance than the person who kicked the long ball. Subject-Dependent

Inversion, however, is rather stylistic than functional. The use of this Subject-Dependent

Inversion is often used merely to enhance the style of delivering the commentary.

Result Expressions

Result Expressions goes under two constructions, which are for + noun (… for a

corner) and to + verb (… to keep the ball alive). In soccer commentary, Result

Expressions are used more by the play-by-play commentator, which indicates that Result

Expressions contains a deeper communicative function. Below are the examples of Result

Expression:

7

(1) Oyongo didn‟t fall for the fake (.) stayed with the

play, deflects it out for the throw-in

(2) Sean Johnson to deny Tim Cahill

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

Example (1) is present to represent the for + noun constructions, which were often

used regularly after a play that led to a dead-ball position. The result itself was thus not

only in the completion of an action. Instead, it gave a mark of the change of ball

possession. Interestingly, this construction usually coincides with a short pause from the

announcers as well. Example (2) represents the to + verb construction. It signaled only

the completion of an action and was often preceded by the player‟s name.

By using Result Expression, sport announcers can reduce their effort in delivering

their commentary because they can simply just put the given fact that happens on the

pitch into the expression template that is mentioned earlier. This makes the sport

announcer can put their focus on delivering an accurate report, rather than worrying about

the linguistic form.

Heavy Modifiers

Heavy Modifiers are further explanations or background about a particular player that

are given by the commentators. For example, the commentators can say that this player

has this nationality, this player plays in this position, or the commentators can even

explain about the interview result with this player that is conducted the day before. Below

is the example of Heavy Modifiers:

8

(1) Red Bulls bring Roy Miller, the Costa Rican, into

the attack

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

In the example, the commentator mentioned the nationality of Roy Miller, who comes

from Costa Rica. The use of Heavy Modifiers depends on the time pressure that occurs to

the commentators. For example, when a player commits a foul and receives a card from

the referee, the commentator will have quite plenty of time to use this feature compared

to when the game is on progress where the commentators should focus more on the

progress of the game.

Diminutive Elements

Commentators, to avoid biased utterances in their commentaries, tend to use this

feature. For example, when a player does a big mistake but it does not make the team

conceded a goal in a game, of course the commentators need to be wary about what they

are going to say. Instead of pointing out to the mistake, commentators can just say that

the player was a little bit lucky to avoid negative reactions from the fans. Another

example is when a player is “diving” (pretending to be fouled), commentators also need

to pay attention that they should not say bluntly that this player dives to get a foul.

Instead, commentators can just say that this player is trying to do a little bit much. Below

is the example of Diminutive Elements:

(1) And Shaun Francis is a little bit lucky here (.) too

indecisive on the ball and Zarde just (.) wasn’t

expecting it from Robbie Keane to win the ball in

9

that position and just (.) a foot offside, he‟s

definitely offside but (.) Francis needs to be a little

bit more decisive (.) one way or another (.) put it out

of play (.) don‟t mess around with it in those

positions (..)

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

The example shows the most commonly used diminutives: “a little (bit)” and “just.”

SAT has been known for its‟ simplicity, where many particles are deleted but not those

with significant roles in putting emphasizes in the utterances. In the example, the

announcer is able to soften the criticism by using this feature. Shaun Francis, the

defender, could be considered very lucky that his mistake did not lead to a goal from his

opponent. In this occasion, the announcer should have a high awareness in delivering the

utterances. Therefore, the use of “a little bit” here undermines the player‟s

underperformance. As a conclusion, Diminutive Elements are used by sport announcers

to answer audience‟s expectation and to protect themselves from the judgment of the

fans.

Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device

Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device can be interpreted as adverbs that are

referring to a specific situation. In a set of commentary in football game, the

commentators refer to an action that occurs in the game by using many adverbs of time

and space. The commentators use adverbs like here, now, there because they know that

the audiences share the same visual image. Therefore, the adverbs are used to refer to the

10

situation in the game in the moment of the utterance. Below is the example of Deictic

Adverbs as Signposting Device:

(1) Gordon is Fouled here outside his own penalty area

(..) and Hilario Grajeda is gonna have a little

discussion here with Felipe, yellow card

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

In the example, both occurrences of “here” do not really show the place of action, but

also pointing at the moment when it happens. Here, Deictic Adverbs as Signposting

Devices is used because, of course, the commentators cannot use their hands to point out

a situation in the game. Hence, the lack in using body language changes the linguistic

behavior.

Discourse Deixis

This feature is used by the commentators to refer to the statements that have been

stated before in the progress of the game. For the commentators, repeating a statement

will spend too much time due to their time pressure. It will also be redundant to repeat the

utterances that have already been stated. Therefore, the commentators use this feature by

saying the phrases like “we talked about”, “again”, and” like you said”. This feature also

enables the commentators to strengthen their argument and to credit his colleague with

the analysis that has been made before. Below is the example of Discourse Deixis:

(1) We talked about that lack of creativity (.) in the

central part of the midfield (.)

(Balzer-Siber, 2015)

11

The Example contains the short phrase “we talked about,” which points that the

statement that is made is redundant and does not need further explanation or evidence.

Discourse Deixis often serves as a help for the commentators as they do not need to

reiterate previous statement. Instead, they can simply use this individual linguistic

feature.

Previous Studies

Some studies towards sport events commentary had also been done previously.

Halbert and Latimer (1994) analyzed the language used by sport commentators in a

televised coed tennis competition. In their study, there were six categories of commentary

that were delivered during the coed tennis matches, which are: Asymmetrical Gender

Marking, Gendered Hierarchy of Naming, Ratio of Praise to Criticism, Type of Praise,

Character Portraits, and Gendering of the Athletics Event. Throughout those categories,

the result found that female players were more likely to receive criticism from the

commentators more than male players did.

Theodoropoulou (2008), analyzed the formation of football register in EURO 2004

where Greece came out as the champion of the competition. This study aimed to develop

the Sport Announcer Talk (SAT) register from Ferguson (1983) into the so-called

“football” register or “the language of football”, in which the usage was not merely to

describe a football game, but also to give a comment toward the impact of the game in

society. The study found that Greece‟s triumph in EURO 2004 and its impact on the

media such as newspapers and magazines was causing the term „triumphalese‟ to emerge.

This term was a sub-register that has repertoire characteristics that interact with football‟s

12

social practice. Therefore, this „triumphalese‟ sub-register should be considered as a

salient dimension under the umbrella term “football language.”

In another study toward sport commentary, Desmarais and Bruce (2009), analyzed

how local pressures took part in producing different broadcast in 2 cultural contexts. The

study was done through a cross-cultural analysis toward 10-year televised rugby union

matches between France and New Zealand. Furthermore, the study was also done through

interviews with the leading commentators in both countries. The study found that there

were some differences toward the kinds of audiences that should be captured, and these

lead to the different emphasis and practices in the live broadcasts. The study also

suggested that in each country, broadcasts were the outcome of a rather complex set of

pressures that took part in producing broadcasts that had a “local” taste and

characteristics.

Humpolik (2014), did an analysis towards live English football commentary and its

types. In his thesis, he tried to find the similarities and differences among TV football

soccer commentary, radio commentary, and football commentary in computer game. The

results showed that both radio and TV commentary were extremely similar syntactically.

All the differences were just caused by the duty of each commentator and their

responsibility in delivering the speech. Football game commentary, as predicted, was

similar to the TV commentary, especially in the level of segmentation, since the

commentary in the computer game was an imitation of the TV commentary. Starting

from the paralinguistics to syntactic and lexical features, computer game commentary

imitated the TV commentary. The only difference is that the level of subject substitution,

13

which is higher in the computer game commentary, compared to what happens in TV

commentary that has high incidence of inexact demonstratives or personal pronouns.

Prasetyo (2014), conducted a research toward the type of register used in the 2013

UEFA Champions League between Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich FC. In this

study, Prasetyo used a commentary transcript as the data. He conducted a descriptive

qualitative method based on M.A.K. Halliday‟s approach toward register. The finding

stated that there were 28 words that belong to the register of football and those words had

different meaning when used outside the context of football.

Another study towards the topic of SAT is done by Marco Balzer-Siber (2015). In his

dissertation, he did a research towards the discourse analysis of the register of Major

League Soccer (MLS) – American‟s soccer league – TV broadcast. He analyzed the

register of MLS based on a six 20-minute transcription of various MLS matches. The aim

of his study was to find out whether the particular register was able to fulfill a

communicative function or whether they are of stylistic nature. To fulfill the aim of his

study, he tried to identify the individual linguistic features in his transcriptions and later

categorized the transcription results into some categories, such as Simplification, Heavy

Modifiers, Discourse Deixis, etc. He also tried to categorize the collective communicative

features of SAT into some features, such as Taking the Floor, Repair, etc. In this study,

he found that signposting devices, discourse deixis, and diminutives could provide an

answer in responding the intriguing situations in the commentary and dealing with threats

to announcers‟ public image.

14

C. THE STUDY

In this section, the context of the study, instruments, data collection procedure and

data analysis procedure will be presented and explained.

Context and Object of the Study

This study aimed to find the individual linguistic features of the BPL commentary

register as a tool to enhance the study of sociolinguistics, given the fact that the kind of

study towards the language of sports is quite rare. The objects of this study were

transcripts of six matches from 2015-2016 BPL matches. The selected matches came

from the top four teams in the BPL standings by the end of January 2016.

Research Instrument

This study used transcription as the instruments of the data collection. The

transcriptions were obtained from sportsmole.co.uk, a British sports website that

provided live commentaries from BPL matches.

Data Collection Procedure

The data in this study were collected through the following steps. First, the researcher

looked for top four teams in the BPL standings by the end of January 2016. Second, the

researcher looked for the top four teams‟ match schedule started from February 2016.

Third, the researcher looked for the live commentary transcriptions that are provided by

sportsmole.co.uk.

15

Data Analysis Procedure

The analysis of the data was done in a form of categorization process, following the

framework from Balzer-Siber (2015) in defining the Individual Linguistic Features in

Major League Soccer (MLS). The phrases/sentences in the transcription containing

individual linguistic features were put under the particular category that fit the

characteristic of a certain individual linguistic feature.

D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section discusses the findings from data analysis. The result from the data

analysis was then used to answer the research question “What are the individual linguistic

features in BPL football commentary?”

As what have been mentioned earlier, there were seven individual linguistic features,

which are Simplification, Subject-Dependent Inversion, Result Expressions, Heavy

Modifiers, Diminutive Elements, Deictic Adverb as Signposting Devices, and Discourse

Deixis. In this section, the utterances from the commentary will be broken down to the

appropriate categories.

To sum up the findings, below is the table containing all individual linguistic features

that are found in the transcriptions:

Table 1. Findings on Individual Linguistic Feature (based on six 20-minute

transcriptions of six BPL matches).

Kind of individual

linguistic feature

Times of being

mentioned Content

Simplification 5 times

“...but then [he] volleys

wide...”

“Dier [is put] into the book...”

16

“Change at [the] left-back

[position] for the home side”

“Davis [is] on for Rose”

“...and Oxlade-Chamberlain

[is] taking advantage”

Subject-Dependent

Inversion 3 times

sing the King Power Stadium

faithful

into the feet of Firminho

is met by Giroud

Result Expression 5 times

for a corner

for goal

for offside

to collect the loose ball

to win the ball back

Heavy Modifiers 8 times

the Belgian Striker

the Brazilian

the Argentine

the Spaniard

the Frenchman

the Brazilian defender

the German

the Frenchman

Diminutive Elements 4 times

it looked risky

a little tricky

he should have done better

should do better

Deictic Adverbs as

Signposting Devices 2 times

there

from there

Discourse Deixis 2 times speak of the devil

I was just typing

Simplification

From the transcriptions, five Simplification linguistic features are found. Below are

two examples of Simplification:

17

“... as Navas, who chests the ball down but then [he] volleys wide with a

difficult chance”

In this utterance, the commentator tried to save some time in delivering his

commentary. Since it has been mentioned that Navas was the player that is being talked

about, the commentator did not have to bother mentioning his name again or using a

pronoun to refer to Jesus Navas.

“Dier [is put] into the book for tugging back Welbeck”

Giving the situation that the focus of the commentary is on the action of the match,

the commentator needed to save time on his speech when delivering a speech about a

player getting a yellow card since the match had already been resumed. Therefore, the

commentator had to omit some words without altering the meaning of the utterance.

Ferguson (1983), argues that the omission of subjects and copulas in Simplification is

a clear marker of many registers, including SAT. Based on the examples mentioned

above, we can conclude that the data in this study support the argument that was

proposed by Ferguson.

Subject-Dependent Inversion

From the transcriptions, there are three Subject-Dependent Inversion linguistic

features. Below are two examples of Subject-Dependent Inversion:

“sing the King Power Stadium faithful”

18

In this utterance, the commentator wanted to show that Leicester City‟s fans were

singing their chant so loudly that it felt like the whole stadium was singing the chant. The

verb that came before the noun functioned as an emphasis from the commentator.

“The resulting corner is met by Giroud...”

This inversion did not mark any emphasis on the commentary since there was nothing

to be highlighted when this utterance was spoken. However, the commentator still made

the inversion in order to enhance or to add a variation in the way he delivered the

commentary.

From two examples above, we can see that these two examples have different

characteristic. The first example uses the Inversion to add an emphasis on the verb rather

than putting it on the noun. However, the second example shows the Inversion from its

stylistic purpose. There is actually no necessary emphasis to add, but the commentator

used the Inversion to enhance his delivery of commentary. These two different

characteristics are just like what have been proposed by Balzer-Siber (2015, p. 35)

Result Expressions

From the transcriptions, there are five Result Expressions Linguistic Features. Below

are two examples of Result Expression:

“The ball is blocked behind for a corner...”

This part of commentary used for + noun construction, in which the noun often

indicated a dead ball position. In this part of commentary, the action of the blocked ball

led to a dead ball position, which was the corner kick.

19

“Cech gets down really well, though, and then manages to collect the

loose ball...”

This part of speech used to + verb construction. The Result Expression that is used

here indicates the effort from Petr Cech to prevent his opponent‟s chance of scoring a

goal.

Ferguson (1983) states that he finds two (2) constructions (for + noun and to + verb)

to express a result in SAT. From the examples above, as its name had suggested, the

utterances contained the expression of stating a result from the game on the pitch.

Therefore, these two examples strengthened Ferguson‟s argument toward the use of

Result Expression‟s constructions that aimed for a result.

Heavy Modifiers

From the transcriptions, there are eight Heavy Modifiers linguistic features. Below

are two examples of Heavy Modifiers:

”...and he in turn finds Origi. The Belgian striker has men in support

but...”

In this part of speech, the commentator used Heavy Modifier to refer to Liverpool‟s

Divock Origi as “The Belgian Striker”

“The Argentine still spins away from him...”

The Heavy Modifier used here is “the Argentine” to refer to Manchester City‟s

Sergio Aguero.

20

According to Balzer-Siber (2015 p. 37), there are actually a lot of variations of Heavy

Modifiers. Using this feature, the commentators have various additional backgrounds to

add to his utterance. These various backgrounds include player‟s nationality, age,

position, and the player‟s career background. In fact, the commentator can use more than

one additional background in an utterance. However, the length of Heavy Modifiers

depends on the time pressure on the commentator. For example, if the game stops for a

while because there is a foul or substitution on the pitch, the commentator can use a

rather long Heavy Modifier compared than if the match is still on the progress.

Diminutive Elements

From the transcription, there are four Diminutive Elements individual linguistic

feature. Below are two examples of Diminutive Elements:

“I‟ll wait until I see a replay of that one, but it looked risky from Sakho.”

In this part of speech, the commentator seemed to realize that Liverpool‟s Mamadou

Sakho had done a reckless tackle to Leicester City‟s Shinji Okazaki. However, to avoid

bias on his commentary, the commentator chose to use the word “risky” instead of

“reckless”

“All they need is a goal to give them a bit of belief, but getting that could

prove a little tricky”

Having been trailing 2-0 in the first half for Bournemouth meant that they could

barely win the game, especially against Tottenham Hotspurs. The commentator, who was

aware of the situation, avoid bias by stating that the odds for Bournemouth to win the

21

game was “a little risky” instead of using the word that might cause some negative

comments like “nearly impossible.”

DeNu (2010), in Balzer-Siber (2015 p. 38), mentions that Eric Wynalda – a Soccer

Hall of Famer – had once fired from his job as a color commentator for being too reckless

in stating his commentary. This occasion results in the cautiousness of American

announcers in delivering their commentary. In BPL, same thing also applies for the

commentators. They need to be careful to their utterance to avoid bias in the commentary.

Furthermore, according to Balzer-Siber (2015 p.39), SAT has the tendencies to simplify

things; omitting many particles as long as it fulfills the communicative purpose.

However, Diminutive Elements maintain some particles in order to soften the criticism

from the audience.

Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device

From the transcription, there are two Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Device

individual linguistic feature:

“...into the path of Vardy at the back post, who is never going to miss from

there”

In this part of speech, the commentator used the preposition “there” in order to fulfill

the locative aspect of the commentary. Since the commentator could not use his hands to

point to a location in the pitch, he used the preposition “there” in his commentary.

“From there, it is a relatively simple finish...”

Just like in the previous example, the preposition “from there” here is used to fulfill

the locative aspect of the commentary.

22

Lewandowski (2008) suggests that the use of this feature makes the commentary

more inclusive and creates a shared experience. In the examples above, the commentators

used the adverb of place „there’. Here, as Lewandowski had stated, by using the adverb

of place, the commentators indirectly ask the audience to share the same visual image.

The audience may not know if the commentator is pointing at a certain direction.

However, by seeing the action on the pitch and using the adverb of place, the

commentator creates a shared experience with the audience.

Discourse Deixis

From the transcription, there are two Discourse Deixis individual linguistic feature:

“Speak of the devil, here comes Christian Benteke.”

Here, the commentator used the phrase “speak of the devil” when Christian Benteke

came in as a substitution for Jordan Henderson to remark his previous utterance that

something needed to change in Liverpool‟s offense.

“I was just typing that arsenal will have a chance or two in the final 15

minutes and they‟ve just taken one!”

In this part of speech, the commentator said “I was just typing” to remark his

prediction that Arsenal would take the one or two advantage in the final 15 minutes.

Birner (2013), in Balzer-Siber (2015), claims that Discourse Deixis is a referential

category in which the purpose is to make a connection to some previous stretches of

discourse. Simply put, Discourse Deixis serves as a remark of something that has been

said before by the commentator. On the examples, there are two kinds of Discourse

23

Deixis, which are ‘Speak of the devil’, and ‘I was just typing.’ In this case, the

commentator used this idiom when he was just finished talking about a substitution, and

then a substitution happened. In the second example, the commentator has proven what

Birner has suggested. By saying „I was just typing’, the commentator connects what

happens at the pitch to what he had stated before. This use of Discourse Deixis makes the

commentators do not have to be redundant in delivering their speech.

Discussion

Throughout the data analysis, it was found that Heavy Modifiers was the most

commonly used individual linguistic feature in the 2015-2016 season of BPL. Even

though the Review of Literature gave many kinds of example of Heavy Modifiers

(mentioning the player‟s nationality, position, age, or former club of the player) and some

examples are rather complex (mentioning some player‟s background at once), one

interesting thing that was found through the data analysis was the pattern and the

simplicity of the Heavy modifier used in the commentary. Of eight results, six Heavy

modifiers mentioned only the player‟s nationality while the other two also mentioned the

nationality but with the addition of only the player‟s position. This consistent pattern and

simplicity may appear because of two triggers. The first trigger is the fame of the BPL

itself, which has a lot of players with different nationalities. Therefore, it is considered

important to mention the nationality of the player, especially if the player is famous

enough. The second trigger is the time pressure of delivering a commentary. Using a

rather complex Heavy Modifier will consume more time for the commentators while they

have to keep up with the game on the pitch. Therefore, besides player‟s nationality, the

commentators can only afford to add the player‟s position in their commentary.

24

The finding of this study confirms many of the arguments that are mentioned in the

Review of Literature. Agha (2004) mentioned that register is more like a linguistic

repertoire in that has a strong connection with some social practices and the people who

engage in those practices (p. 44). This argument reinforces the fact that sport

commentators, in this case football commentator, have their own language repertoire to

fit their job, which is the Sport Announcer Talk register. Since the SAT has a strong

connection with the people who engage with the practices like the fellow commentators

and the audience, the theory implies that other people that do not engage in these

practices (those who do not watch a broadcasted football matches) are more likely to

have a difficulty in understanding this kind of repertoire.

The theory from Ferguson (1983) is also found to be a valuable backbone to this

study. His findings in his study toward the individual linguistic features of football

commentary emerge in the data analysis process. In this study, although the data were

only taken in a twenty-minute time length, it was enough to discover all the features. For

an argument that has stood for more than thirty years, Ferguson‟s theory can still be used

as a reliable tool and references for this kind of study since the theory still has the

relevancy that adapts to the development of the studies toward SAT.

The findings of this study also confirm Biber and Conrad (2009) who say that register

is a variety of language which the usage depends on a particular situation of use. Here,

the utterances from the commentators serve as a part of the job, instead of a part of

habitual or daily use. The commentators only use this kind of language because that is

what their job needs them to do. The usage of this kind of register will not fit anywhere in

term of communicative purpose outside their job environment.

25

Biber and Finegan (1994) state that the study of register is almost as broad as the

study of Sociolinguistics itself due to its variety that depends on the context of use.

Moreover, Biber (1995) explains that registers should be viewed as a continuous

construct, instead of a discrete one. This means that the study towards register is still

developing and is more likely to enrich itself in the future. Furthermore, Meyerhoff

(2006) states that the field of Sociolinguistics is very broad that it can be used to give the

imagery to various ways of learning a language. Correspondingly, this study looked to

take part in the development of the study towards registers.

E. CONCLUSION

This study attempted to find out the individual linguistic features in the context of

2015-1016 Barclays Premier League (BPL). The data for this study were six live

commentary transcripts of the top four teams in the 2015-2016 BPL standings that were

provided by sportsmole.co.uk. These data were collected through categorization process.

The findings of this study were able to answer the research question by discovering

all the individual linguistic features (Simplifications, Subject-Dependent Inversion,

Result Expressions, Heavy Modifiers, Diminutive Elements, Deictic Adverbs as

Signposting Devices, and Discourse Deixis). Furthermore, in the findings, the theories

that were stated in the Review of Literature section were also used to support this study.

This study looked to take part in the development of the study of registers,

particularly on SAT. This could provide examples to EFL learners how language is used

26

differently in different contexts. Moreover, this also could offer a new model for EFL

learners on how language use could be analyzed using different theories.

However, there were still improvements needed for this study. This study could not

apply as a generalization, since the data were taken following Balzer-Siber (2015)

dissertation that used six 20-minute transcriptions of football matches. Furthermore, the

finding of this study could not become a guarantee to another football league. This was

due to the different atmosphere of the certain league could affect the delivery of the

commentary and the register itself. For further research, it was suggested that this kind of

study can once again be conducted. However, the aim of the study could be altered to

find out the collective linguistic features. The time span for the data can also be extended

to 30 until 45 minutes of the match to give the possibility of richer data and variations to

the findings.

27

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank God for only because of His grace and blessings I can finish this

study. I realized how the strength He gave me is one of the reasons I can go through the

ups and downs in finishing this study.

This thesis would also not have been possible without the support from many people,

especially my supervisor, Dian Toar Y.G. Sumakul, M.A. and the examiner, Joseph

Ernest Mambu, Ph.D. since their feedbacks and guidance are the things that keep me

going in doing this study. I would also give my gratitude to my former supervisor, Neny

Isharyanti, M.A. for without her support and guidance, I would not be able to even start

this study.

I would also give my Gratitude to my family, especially my parents and my sister for

their financial supports and the encouragements throughout my whole study in the

Faculty of Language and Arts, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga. Without

their support, I may not be able to finish my study.

The last but not the least, I would like to give my gratitude to my loved ones: Brevet,

Demas, Bayu, Jeje, the DeKesan group, Ivora Yesica, and Smanssa Fighters for all the

support and motivation in finishing this study. Unfortunately, I cannot mention every

helpful people in the making of this study. Simply, I would like to say thank you to those

who have been there for me from the start until I have finished this study.

28

References

Agha, A. (2004). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.

Balzer-Siber, M. (2015). Functional and Stylistic Features of Sports Announcers Talk: A

Discourse Analysis of the Register of Major League Soccer Television Broadcast.

1-67.

Biber, D. (1995). Dimension of Register Variation. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). SOCIOLIGUISTICS PERSPECTIVES ON REGISTER.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Desmarais, F., & Bruce, T. (2009). The Power of the Local in Sports Broadcasting: A

Cross-Cultural Analysis of Rugby Commentary. International Journal of Sport

Communication , 129-145.

Ferguson, C. A. (1983). Sports Announcer Talk: Syntactic Aspects of Register Variation.

Language in Society, Vol.12, No. 2 , 153-172.

Halbert, C., & Latimer, M. (1994). "Battling" Gendered Language: An Analysis of the

Language Used by Sports Commentators in a Televised Coed Tennis

Competition. Sociology of Sport , 298-308.

29

Humpolík, R. (2014). Language of Football Commentators: An Analysis of Live English

Football Commentary and its Types. 1-56.

Lewandowski, M. (2010). Sociolects and Registers - a Contrastive Analysis of Two

Kinds of Linguistic Variation. INVESTIGATIONES LINGUISTICAE VOL. XX ,

67.

Lewandowski, M. (2012). The Language of Online Sports Commentary in a Comparative

Perspective. Lingua Posnaniensis vol. LIV , 65-76.

Lewandowski, M. (2008). The Language of Soccer - a Sociolect or a Register? Język,

Komunikacja, Informacja (Language, Communication, Information) , 21-32.

Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; Taylor

& Francis Group.

Prasetyo, A. (2014). The Register of Football: An Analysis of Types of Register in the

Final UEFA Champions League 2013 Borussia Dortmund Versus Bayern Munich

FC.

Theodoropoulou, I. (2008). FOOTBALL REGISTER FORMATION: THE CASE OF

GREECE‟S TRIUMPH IN EURO 2004. Language in Performance, vol 38 , 333-

342.

30

Appendix

Leicester City VS Liverpool (min 60-81)

February 2, 2016 7.45pm UK at King Power Stadium

60 min Leicester break the deadlock, and in some style too! It is Vardy who gets the

goal, and this may be the best of his 17 in the league this season. Mahrez sent the ball

over the top and it sat up nicely for the England international, who unleashes a stunning

half-volley past Mignolet and into the top corner. Brilliant goal.

62 min "We're Leicester City, we're top of the league" sing the King Power Stadium

faithful. They most certainly are, and with moments like that they may stay there for a

while longer. It was a stunning strike, worthy of winning any game.

64 min I wouldn't be too surprised to see Klopp turn to his bench soon. Benteke may not

have been in the best form lately, but Firmino has not been in this match at all and

something needs to change in Liverpool's attack here.

66 min LIVERPOOL SUB: Speak if the devil, here comes Christian Benteke.

Henderson is the man who makes way for the big Belgian.

68 min Liverpool break into the box, with the ball being fed into the feet of Firmino, but

he can't keep hold of the ball and Leicester are able to clear their lines.

70 min PENALTY SHOUT! Brilliant football from Leicester as they string some slick

one-touch passes together on their way into the Liverpool box. Okazaki pushes the ball

past Sakho, who stretches out a leg that Okazaki tumbles over. The referee says no, but

he certainly had a decision to make. I'll wait until I see a replay of that one, but it looked

risky from Sakho.

72 min GOAL! Leicester 2-0 Liverpool (Jamie Vardy)

72 min He's done it again! Vardy doubles both his personal tally and Leicester's lead,

although this one is a little more straightforward than his opener. First and foremost it is

poor defending from Sakho, who lets the ball bounce and then puts in a poor headed

clearance that only falls to Okazaki. The striker slips while shooting, and the ball spins

off a defender and into the path of Vardy at the back post, who is never going to miss

from there.

74 min Is there any way back for Liverpool now, then? It must be said that it looks

unlikely. They have still not forced Schmeichel into a meaningful save this evening and

have looked far too toothless in the final third.

31

75 min LIVERPOOL SUB: A second change for the Reds as Joe Allen comes on

for Can.

79 min LEICESTER SUB: January signing Demarai Gray is going to get a run-out

here as he replaces Albrighton for the final 10 minutes or so.

81 min Clyne tries to finally work Schmeichel, making his way into the area down the

right channel before going for goal with a loan drive. The ball is blocked behind for a

corner before it can trouble the keeper, however

Liverpool VS Manchester City (min 46-66)

March 2, 2016 8pm UK at Anfield Stadium

46 min KICKOFF: Liverpool get us back underway for this second half, and the

visitors have made a change at the break, with Wilfried Bony replacing Sterling on the

latter's unhappy return to Anfield.

48 min SAVE! Liverpool have made a bright start to this second half too, and Hart needs

to make an important stop here. Flanagan finds Milner in a good position and he in turn

finds Origi. The Belgian striker has men in support but, with the angle against him, goes

for goal himself. It is a decent effort, but Hart gets down well to turn it away and

Fernandinho completes the clearance.

50 min Liverpool have made the brighter start to this second half of the two teams. Their

work off the ball really has been impressive, with a cluster of red shirts around all of

City's key players every time they get the ball.

52 min Goals from Adam Lallana and James Milner are currently sending Liverpool to

back-to-back Premier League wins for the first time in 2016.

54 min Pellegrini appears to be readying another attacking change in the early stages

of the second half, which is a sign of how damaging he thinks defeat could be here.

Iheanacho is getting his instructions on the sidelines.

55 min MAN CITY SUB: There is the change as Fernandinho makes way for Kelechi

Iheanacho. City now have three strikers all on - it will be interesting to see how they set

up now.

57 min GOAL! Liverpool 3-0 Man City (Roberto Firmino)

57 min It's surely game over now! Otamendi's horrendous touch gifts the ball to

Henderson, who in turn feeds it towards Origi. He can't quite collect it, but Lallana picks

32

up the loose ball before timing his pass to perfection to send Firmino clean through on

goal. From there, it is a relatively simple finish for the Brazilian as he curls it into the

bottom corner.

60 min SAVE! Liverpool want a fourth here! They move the ball about nicely again and

it is Milner who has the chance to shoot this time. He curls his effort towards goal, but

Hart pushes it over the top.

62 min UPDATE: Leicester appeared to have dropped two points last night, but now it is

looking like a valuable point gained! Swansea have just taken the lead against Arsenal

through Ashley Williams, which means that Tottenham, Arsenal and Man City are all

losing tonight.

64 min Good work again from Milner as he dances past Zabaleta with some nice

footwork before going for goal, but he fires his effort off target.

66 min City may be playing with three strikers and have no option but to throw caution

to the wind, but it is still Liverpool who have looked by far the more dangerous of the

two sides in this second half. They will have more space going forward as City get more

and more desperate too, so they could well get more here.

Tottenham Hotspur VS Bournemouth (min 20-41)

March 20, 2016 4pm UK at White Hart Lane

20 min SHOT! Spurs' tails are certainly up as Eriksen blazes over from an acute

angle. Bournemouth's defensive line is just ridiculously high. Spurs are getting through at

will. Howe will need to fix this before it gets embarrassing.

23 min Bournemouth have done a little better but they can't get the ball up to Afobe. He's

been gobbled up at every opportunity by Alderweireld, to the point where I feel quite

sorry for him.

27 min Tottenham are about as cool as Fonzie today; passing out of defence with the

nonchalance of a Barcelona. It's really quite impressive. Worryingly for the visitors,

Spurs aren't even in top gear.

30 min Fifteen minutes to go until the break and it's such a long way back for

Bournemouth, who may have to switch from their 4-4-2 system because it's just not

working.

32 min SHOT! Danny Rose volleys into the side netting. Again, just too easy for Spurs

to fashion that half chance.

33

35 min Eriksen fizzes a brilliant free kick into the box, but it's blocked by his own player

Eric Dier. Not to worry - there'll be more chances to add a third. I wouldn't say it's

imminent, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came before the break.

37 min Ugh, Bournemouth have a corner, which they take short, but Arter then floats it

back into the box, though there's nobody there to connect with it. So poor. If

Bournemouth were a dog you'd shoot them.

39 min OFFSIDE GOAL! Dele Alli finishes a Harry Kane flick, but it's chalked off for

offside. I'd be interested to see it again because it would've been very close.

41 min OVER THE BAR! This is half a chance for Bournemouth as captain Cook heads

over the crossbar from a free kick. He might've done better there you know. All they need

is a goal to give them a bit of belief, but getting that could prove a little tricky

Manchester City VS Manchester United (min 1-21)

March 20, 2016 4pm UK at Etihad Stadium

1 min KICKOFF: Here we go then! Man City get us underway and go straight on

the attack, with Darmian conceding an early corner by putting a Navas cross behind.

1 min United don't deal with the corner too well initially, but after a bit of pinball the

visitors do clear the danger.

3 min UPDATE: No goals in the derby so far but there has been a very early one in the

other 4pm Premier League kickoff, with Harry Kane giving Spurs a 1-0 lead against

Bournemouth in the very first minute. Not good news for City's slim title hopes.

5 min City almost get in behind down the left as Silva moves to the edge of the box. He

looks up and waits for support, but his low ball into the box is blocked.

7 min SHOT! Again City come bursting forward down the left, with Silva this time

playing in Sterling down the left. His eventual cross is only cleared as far as Navas, who

chests the ball down but then volleys wide with a difficult chance.

9 min United have seen a fair amount of the ball in the opening exchanges, but it is

notable that they are being very deliberate in possession, taking their time and just

looking to settle into it. City, meanwhile, are looking to get forward quickly.

10 min YELLOW CARD! Smalling becomes the first man in the book today having

come a long way out of defence to follow Aguero. The Argentine still spins away from

him, though, and Smalling tugs him back to earn the card.

12 min Still no big chances to report from this one, with Navas's volley the only shot for

34

either side so far. The game is being played at a good tempo, though, and the atmosphere

is helping to add to the occasion.

14 min SAVE! City do come close here as Toure drives forward from midfield, eluding

one challenge after picking up a loose pass. He slips on the edge of the box but manages

to get the ball to Silva anyway, and the Spaniard moves it on to Sterling. His cross finds

Navas, whose powerful low drive is stopped by the feet of De Gea.

16 min GOAL! Man City 0-1 Man Utd (Marcus Rashford)

16 min He's had a few highlights in his short career to date, but this will be right up there

for Rashford as he scores on his Manchester derby debut! It is a fine solo effort too as he

bursts past Demichelis before keeping his composure to slot the ball beyond Hart.

Demichelis was beaten far too easily, though, and Hart may feel that he should have done

better too.

18 min SAVE! Almost a second for United in quick succession! Again Demichelis

should do better as Martial collects the ball and lines up an effort from 25 yards. He gets

plenty behind the strike, but Hart beats it away to safety.

19 min Another quick break from United sees Rashford and Martial link up to almost

found Lingard, but the final pass through is just behind him. That goal has given the

visitors a real boost, though.

21 min There is concern for City over Raheem Sterling here as he went down under a

sliding challenge that gives the hosts a free kick just outside the area...

Tottenham Hotspur VS Arsenal (min 70-90)

March 5, 2016 12.45pm UK at White Hart Lane

70 min STAT: Arsenal have now conceded 2+ goals in FOUR consecutive games

across all competitions.

72 min Spurs well on top in driving rain now at White Hart Lane as Kane spins in the

box before dragging a shot wide of the mark.

73 min BOOKING! Dier into the book for tugging back Welbeck. Giroud on shortly

for Arsenal...

75 min ARSENAL SUB: It's Elneny off. Wenger has to go for it here.

76 min GOAL! SPURS 2-2 ARSENAL (ALEXIS SANCHEZ)

35

76 min I was just typing that Arsenal will have a chance or two in the final 15 minutes

and they've just taken one! Bellerin gets his second assist, slipping the ball in to Sanchez,

who doesn't strike it that cleanly but the ball bobbles past Lloris into the far corner. It's so

slippy out there in this heavy rain!

78 min Arsenal would definitely take a point given that they are down to 10 men, but

how many men are Spurs willing to push forward as they chase top of the table?

78 minSPURS SUB: Change at left-back for the home side. Davies on for Rose.

79 min It should be 10 against 10! Dier clearly tugs Giroud's shirt and then slides in to

wipe out the Frenchman, but Oliver decides against booking the Spurs midfielder for a

second time!

80 min SAVE! Loads of room for Alli 20 yards out, but his driven low shot is easy

enough for Ospina to save.

82 minSPURS SUB: Third and final change from Poch, with Son Heung-Min on for

Dembele.

83 min Mason next to have a go, but his tame effort drifts wide of the mark.

84 min Arsenal, even though they are a man down, have numbers forward but Alexis

makes a real mess of a through-ball trying to find Welbeck.

85 min ARSENAL SUB: Wenger's second swap sees Flamini on for Welbeck. Can

the Frenchman stay out of trouble? Remember he gifted Barca a penalty last month in the

Champions League shortly after coming on.

85 minSHOT! Eriksen produces a fine dipping effort that Ospina spectacularly tips over

the top. One for the cameras, if you will.

88 minArsenal win a free kick 30 yards out and Sanchez's curling effort is up and over

the wall, but Lloris is across and punches it clear.

89 min CLOSE! Oh my word! Eriksen's low cross should easily be dealt with by

Gabriel, but the Brazilian defender slices it wildly and the ball loops over Ospina and

onto the roof of the net. So close!

90 minARSENAL SUB: Last throw of the dice from Wenger as Campbell comes on

for Ozil.

Arsenal VS Leicester City (min 11-31)

36

February 14, 2016 12pm UK at Emirates Stadium

11 min Arsenal have enjoyed 71% of the ball in the opening 10 minutes, and perhaps

more importantly have stopped Leicester from getting any joy on the counter-attack. It

has been pretty much one-way traffic so far.

14 min Leicester finally get their foot on the ball and threaten the Arsenal defence,

and the Foxes almost have a chance to open the scoring too. The ball is floated in to

Okazaki, who finds himself unmarked in the penalty area with only the keeper to beat. He

misses the chance anyway, but the linesman's flag was incorrectly raised against the

striker.

15 min CHANCE! It all suddenly opens up for Arsenal as Ramsey finds himself

through on goal, but Schmeichel comes racing out and almost 30 yards from his own goal

makes a vital tackle. Great sweeper keeping.

16 min CHANCE! Huge chance for Leicester at the other end moments later as the

ball is crossed in by Albrighton to Vardy at the back post and he rises highest to nod a

downward header towards the bottom corner. Cech gets down really well, though, and

then manages to collect the loose ball before Vardy can bundle the rebound home on the

line.

18 min There is concern over Simpson here, who looks dazed after being clattered

into by Monreal. He should be fine to continue, though.

19 min Again Arsenal seem to be in as Giroud flicks the ball on for Ozil, but the

linesman's flag is raised and the German is denied a one-on-one opportunity. That looked

to be another tight one.

21 min Good defending from Morgan as Arsenal come forward again, with Fuchs

giving the ball away and Oxlade-Chamberlain taking advantage. He drives down the right

flank before playing a low ball into the middle, but Morgan slides in to prevent Giroud

from getting a clean shot away.

23 min Midway through the first half here and we're still goalless, despite Arsenal

putting the Leicester defence under a lot of pressure. The Gunners look the most likely to

open the scoring, but Leicester always have that threat on the break.

24 min Drinkwater does well to win the ball back for Leicester deep in Arsenal's half

before dropping it back to Mahrez. He in turn squares it for Kante, who tries an ambitious

long-range strike that flies comfortably over the crossbar.

25 min CHANCE! Another huge piece of defending from Morgan! It is lovely football

from Arsenal as Ozil and Giroud combine to set up Sanchez inside the Leicester box. He

looks certain to sweep it home, but Morgan throws himself in the way of the ball.

37

26 min CHANCE! The resulting corner is met by Giroud, but he is under pressure

when climbing and can't get over the ball, instead nodding it over the crossbar.

28 min This really is developing into a good tussle between these two sides. Still no

goals, but the game is being played at a really good tempo and it would be a major

surprise if it was to finish 0-0.

29 min Almost a good chance for Leicester to break as Kante steps in to collect a

Mertesacker pass intended for Coquelin, but Vardy can't take his subsequent pass under

his spell. This is a real tug of war at the moment.

31 min DISALLOWED GOAL! Arsenal have the ball in the back of the net, but Giroud

is denied by the offside flag! It was Ozil's ball over the top to the Frenchman, who

glanced a clever backward header past Schmeichel, but he has strayed just half a yard

offside. It is another close one, but the linesman got that right.

1) Simplification (5)

“... but then [he] volleys wide ...” (Man. City vs Man. United)

“Dier [is put] into the book for tugging back Welbeck.” (Tottenham Hotspur VS

Arsenal)

“change at [the] left-back [position] for the home side” (Tottenham Hotspur VS

Arsenal)

“Davis [is] on for Rose” (Tottenham Hotspur VS Arsenal)

“... and Oxlade-Chamberlain [is] taking advantage” (Arsenal VS Leicester City)

2) Subject-Dependent Inversion (3)

“sing the King Power Stadium faithful” (Leicester City VS Liverpool)

“... with the ball being fed into the feet of Firmino...” (Leicester City VS Liverpool)

“The resulting corner is met by Giroud...”(Arsenal VS Leicester City)

38

3) Result Expressions (5)

“The ball is blocked behind for a corner...” (Leicester City VS Liverpool)

“... before going for goal...” (Liverpool VS Manchester City)

“... but it‟s chalked off for offside...” (Tottenham Hotspur VS Bournemouth)

“... and then manages to collect the loose ball...” (Arsenal VS Leicester City)

“Drinkwater does well to win the ball back for Leicester..” (Arsenal VS Leicester

City)

4) Heavy Modifiers (8)

“The Belgian striker has men in support...” (Liverpool VS Manchester City)

“...it is a relatively simple finish for the Brazilian as he curls...” (Liverpool VS

Manchester City)

“The Argentine still spins away from him...” (Man. City vs Man. United)

“... but manages to get the ball to Silva anyway, and the Spaniard moves it to

Sterling...” (Man. City vs Man. United)

“... and then slides in to wipe out the Frenchman, but Oliver decides against booking

the Spurs...” (Tottenham Hotspur VS Arsenal)

“... Eriksen‟s low cross should easily be dealt with by Gabriel, but the Brazilian

defender slices it wildly...” (Tottenham Hotspur VS Arsenal)

“... but the linesman‟s flag is raised and the German is denied a one-on-one

opportunity” (Arsenal VS Leicester City)

“It was Ozil‟s ball over the top to the Frenchman, who glanced...”

39

5) Diminutive Elements (4)

“I‟ll wait until I see a replay of that one, but it looked risky from Sakho” (Leicester

VS Liverpool)

“All they need is a goal to give them a bit of belief, but getting that could prove a

little tricky” (Tottenham Hotspur VS Bournemouth)

“... and Hart may feel that he should have done better too” (Manchester City VS

Manchester United)

“Again Demichelis should do better as Martial collects the ball...” (Manchester City

VS Manchester United)

6) Deictic Adverbs as Signposting Devices (2)

“... into the path of Vardy at the back post, who is never going to miss from there”

(Leicester City VS Liverpool)

“From there, it is a relatively simple finish...” (Liverpool VS Manchester City)

7) Discourse Deixis (2)

“Speak of the devil, here comes Christian Benteke” (Leicester City VS Liverpool)

“I was just typing that Arsenal will have a chance or two in the final 15 minutes and

they‟ve just taken one!” (Arsenal VS Leicester City)