Cover not available
Part of
Language in Place: Stylistic perspectives on landscape, place and environment
Edited by Daniela Francesca Virdis, Elisabetta Zurru and Ernestine Lahey
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 37] 2021
► pp. 147–166

Chapter 8
“Boston Strong”

Place-making practices and enregisterment in the Boston Marathon discourse 2013/2014

ORCID logo | Heidelberg University |
Marathons connect both runners and onlookers to a space in unique ways and thus constitute a prime example of the reciprocal relation between language and space. This analysis draws on the Boston Marathon 2013/2014 to highlight the role of place-making practices and enregisterment connected to the world’s oldest marathon and the city it takes place in, both before and in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings (BMB) in 2013. In line with recent sociolinguistic work on language in the urban space, this paper uses a corpus-based approach to analyse how the city is discursively created as the place of the event and, in the year after the BMB, reclaimed as a place of cheerful celebration and resilience in the wake of the incident. This study compares newspaper texts and then draws on selected semiotic artefacts that were utilized as place-making strategies in the two years analysed, thus highlighting the creative and meaning-making potential of social actors. Furthermore, the analysis discusses the role of local and supra-local social actors in the linguistic “placing of memory” (Cresswell 2004: 85) on the Boston cityscape through enregisterment before and after the BMB.
Keywords: urban space, place-making, marathon, enregisterment, corpus-based, place memory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Place-making, enregisterment, and resulting methodology
  • 3.Place-making strategies in the Boston Marathon Corpora
    • 3.1Description – content – discourse – place aboutness
    • 3.2Modality – commitment and distancing
    • 3.3Trauma and transitivity
    • 3.4Reclaiming Boston 2013 and 2014 – linguistic and social performance of belonging
  • 4.Conclusion: “Boston Strong” – short-term enregisterment as place-making
  • References
Published online: 15 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.37.08ber
References (69)
References
Agha, A. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(2): 38–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23: 231–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Baker, P. & Egbert, J. (eds). 2016. Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boston Athletics Association. 2015. Boston Marathon history. BAA.org, <[URL]> (18 December 2015).Google Scholar
Beal, J. 2009a. Enregisterment, commodification, and historical context: “Geordie” versus “Sheffieldish”. American Speech 84(2): 138–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. “You’re not from New York City, you’re from Rotherham”: Dialect and identity in British Indie music. Journal of English Linguistics 37(3): 223–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Britain, D. 2009. “Big bright lights” versus “green and pleasant land”? The unhelpful dichotomy of “urban” versus “rural” in dialectology. In Arabic Dialectology, R. Jong & E. Al-Wer (eds), 223–248. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion Of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Busse, B. & Warnke, I. H. (eds). 2014. Place-Making in urbanen Diskursen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015. Urban linguistics – Konzeption und Forschungsfelder. In Handbuch Sprache und Wissen, E. Felder & A. Gardt (eds), 519–538. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Busse, B. 2019. Patterns of discursive urban place-making in Brooklyn, New York. In Corpus Linguistics: Context and Culture, V. Wiegand & M. Mahlberg (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. 13–42.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. 1973. The Interplay of Social and Linguistic Factors in Panama. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. et al.. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2): 151–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chouliaraki, L. 2006. The Spectatorship of Suffering. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2008-2017. The Corpus of Contemporary American English, 1990-present. <[URL]> (18 December 2015).Google Scholar
2013. Oppositions and Ideology in News Discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Dubois, L. 2013. “Boston Strong” emerges as rallying cry, from stadiums to tweets. NBC News, 21 April 2013, < [URL]> (28 January 2016).Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Emmott, C. & Alexander, M. 2014. Foregrounding, burying and plot construction. In The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, M. Burke (ed), 329–343. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eversley, M. 2014. Ohio man was first to tweet “Boston Strong”. USA Today, 22 April 2014, < [URL]> (28 January 2016).Google Scholar
Friedmann, J. 2010. Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory & Practice 11(2): 149–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haarman, L., & Lombardo, L. (eds). 2009. Evaluation and Stance in War News: A Linguistic Analysis of American, British and Italian Television News Reporting of the 2003 Iraqi War. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. 2014. Log ratio: An informal introduction. CASS, 28 April 2014, < [URL]> (15 August 2017).Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. 2010. Opposition in Discourse: The Construction of Oppositional Meaning. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2009. Pittsburghese shirts: Commodification and the enregisterment of an urban dialect. American Speech 84(2): 157–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Indexing the local. In The Handbook of Language and Globalization, N. Coupland (ed.), 386–405. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2014. “100% Authentic Pittsburgh”: Sociolinguistic authenticity and the linguistics of particularity. In Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, V. Lacoste et al. (eds), 97–112. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Enregisterment: How linguistic items become linked with ways of speaking. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(11): 632–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Characterological figures and expressive style in the enregisterment of linguistic variety. In Language and a Sense of Place: Studies in Language and Region, C. Montgomery & E. Moore (eds), 283–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
et al.. 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”. Journal of English Linguistics 34(2): 77–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. & Pollak, C. 2016. Mobilities, materialities, and the changing meanings of Pittsburgh speech. Journal of English Linguistics 44(3): 254–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karp, D. & Yoels, W. 1990. Sport and urban life. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 14(2): 77–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966 [2006]. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, M. & Hillman, C. 2015. Whiners go home: Tough mudder, conspicuous consumption, and the rhetorical proof of “fitness”. Communication & Sport 3(1): 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Litosseliti, L. 2006. Gender and Language: Theory and Practice. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. 1977. Language, Social Class and Education: A Glasgow Study. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2014. Corpus stylistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, M. Burke (ed), 378–392. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Massey, D. 1985. New directions in space. In Social Relations and Spatial Structures, D. Gregory & J. Urry (eds), 9–19. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Modan, G. 2007. Turf Wars: Discourse, Diversity, and the Politics of Place. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molotch, H. 2002. Place in product. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(4): 665–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paganoni, M. 2015. City Branding and New Media: Linguistic Perspectives, Discursive Strategies and Multimodality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
P3R. Cheerathoner registration 2018. ThePittsburghMarathon.com, <[URL]> (11 April 2018).Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2007. Wmatrix corpus analysis and comparison tool. Lancaster: Lancaster University, <[URL]>.Google Scholar
2018. Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. UCREL, <[URL]> (11 April 2018).Google Scholar
Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 1999. WordSmith Tools Help Manual: Version 3.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012. WordSmith Tools Version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, P. R. Clyne et al.. (eds.), 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23: 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer Assisted Studies of Language and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suozzo, A. 2003. The Chicago Marathon and urban renaissance. Journal of Popular Culture 36: 142–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuan, Y. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Van Dijck, J. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnke, Ingo H. 2017. Raum, Ort, Arena und Territorium – vier Ebenen der Analyse verorteter Schrift. In Nachhaltigkeit und Germanistik. Fokus, Kontrast und Konzept, J. Zhao & M. Szurawitzki (eds.), 135–158. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zimmer, B. 2013. “Boston Strong”, the phrase that rallied a city. Boston Globe, 12 May 2013, < [URL]> (18 December 2015).Google Scholar