This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 14 November 2014, At: 20:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Metaphor and SymbolPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20

Chess Metaphors in American English andHungarianJudit Simó aa Case Western Reserve UniversityPublished online: 16 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Judit Simó (2008) Chess Metaphors in American English and Hungarian, Metaphorand Symbol, 24:1, 42-59

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926480802568463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Metaphor and Symbol, 24: 42–59, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1092-6488 print / 1532-7868 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10926480802568463

HMET1092-64881532-7868Metaphor and Symbol, Vol. 24, No. 1, November 2008: pp. 1–33Metaphor and Symbol

Chess Metaphors in American English and Hungarian

Chess Metaphors in American English and HungarianSimó Judit SimóCase Western Reserve University

This study investigates the range and importance of source domains that are drawn on in the meta-phorical expressions used to describe a chess game or a chess event in two languages, AmericanEnglish and Hungarian. Results show that about half of the source domains overlap in the twolanguages and that both languages use domains that are employed for other games and sports aswell. At the same time, less explored source domains also emerge. Motivation for the findings isdiscussed in terms of the possible effects of culture, subculture, embodiment, and language. The the-oretical implications of the study include an argument for the benefits of a data-based source domainanalysis at the expense of focusing on conceptual metaphors. Moreover, the data suggest that anempirical investigation of metaphorical expressions may challenge the notion of universal concep-tual metaphors that build on the narrow, bodily experience sense of embodiment.

INTRODUCTION

Chess is a well-known board game throughout almost all of the world. Those who pursue it pro-fessionally would probably agree to it being described as a sport, an art, and a science, all in one.Although at the international level both Hungary and the United States boast numerous suc-cesses, chess still has a different status in these two countries. As Hearst and Wierzbicki (1979)point out, interest in chess in the United States soared after the 1972 Fischer-Spassky worldchampionship match; however, after Fischer’s retirement this enthusiasm quickly declined.In Hungary, chess has been a popular sport for decades, even though the country has never had amale world champion. Big events are covered substantially in the media, and the successes areas important to sport fans as those in other sports. The present study, apart from its theoreticalimplications, will try to shed light on our understanding of this game through a cross-linguisticexamination of the metaphors—as understood in conceptual metaphor theory—that are used inconnection to it.

Cross-linguistic studies within the framework of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980, 1999) vary in the degree to which they emphasize the existence of conceptualmetaphors that hold across cultures. This difference in emphasis often goes together with adifference in methodology and in the presentation of findings, although there is no one-to-onecorrespondence between these factors.

Address correspondence to Judit Simó, Case Western Reserve University, Department of English, 11112 BellflowerRoad, Cleveland, OH, 44106. E-mail: tapolca70@yahoo.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 43

A prominent group of studies centers on providing proof for the universality of certain con-ceptual metaphors by analyzing researcher-generated or introspectively elicited metaphoricalexpressions in two or more languages, mainly choosing an emotion as the target domain(Emanatian, 1995; Kövecses, 2002; Yu, 1995). These studies find an explanation for the strikingsimilarity of conceptual metaphors for these domains in the idea of embodiment (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980, 1999), which claims that humans make sense of abstract concepts in terms ofmore concrete ones. In the narrowest sense, what it means is that the closer the investigatedtarget domains are to immediate bodily experience, the more likely it is that humans will experi-ence them similarly. As a consequence, the metaphors for these target domains will be sharedacross cultures. Conversely, domains that are less grounded in bodily experience may lead tomore pronounced cross-cultural differences in metaphors. The above cited studies assert thatemotions, being strongly experienced through bodily sensations, lead to highly similar concep-tualization among humans. A weakness of these studies is the overwhelming reliance of what ispossible, as opposed to what is probable, in language. This calls the representativeness of theexamples into question, as users have been shown to not be reliable predictors of language whenchecked against corpus evidence (Deignan, 2005). Naturally, this fact also lessens the strengthof the conclusions about universal conceptual metaphors.

A second group comprises studies that differ from the previous ones in their methodology inthat they work with naturally occurring data, mainly newspaper articles. In spite of this, some ofthese studies remain similar to those in the first group in putting the focus on conceptual meta-phors, whereas others contend with staying at the domain level. Studies that emphasize concep-tual metaphors either work with pre-determined possible conceptualizations by singling outcertain metaphorical models (Boers & Demecheleer, 1997) or they pin down conceptual meta-phors based on the clustering of expressions in their data (Charteris-Black & Musolff, 2003).Either way, whereas providing more convincing evidence, these studies still remain biased intheir results by artificially narrowing down the scope of the investigation or possible conclu-sions. Finally, some studies focus on exploring in more detail a wider range of the emergingsource domains, and give conceptual metaphors secondary importance (Semino, 2002). Thevalue of this kind of investigation is that it results in a finer discussion of the similarities and dif-ferences in the metaphorical representation of the target in the two languages by paying moreattention to all source domains in their own right, and also to the wording of the metaphoricalexpressions themselves.

The present study was conceived of in the direction of this latter type of investigation.Since the main concern is teasing out source domains that contribute to the representation ofthe target, all metaphorical expressions were considered. As has often been noted, in general,certain source domains are more likely to be drawn on than others—a phenomenon dubbedmultivalency (Goatly, 1997). Therefore, if we want to find out what is unique about a certaintarget as expressed by metaphors, and how it plays out across cultures, it is necessary to gobeyond the well-established sources. Drawing conclusions as to the existence of conceptualmetaphors was not an aim of the study for several reasons. First of all, the small size of thecorpus does not allow such generalizations. Moreover, it is believed that “forcing” expres-sions into conceptual metaphors may involuntarily lead to an undesirable masking of excitingnuances. Finally, I will argue that a detailed analysis of metaphorical expressions at the sourcedomain level in naturally occurring data can significantly contribute to our understanding ofembodiment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

44 SIMÓ

The chosen target of the present study, chess, is rather underrepresented in metaphorresearch, claiming significance in Ritchie’s (2003) critique of Lakoff’s “ARGUMENT IS WAR”metaphor. According to Ritchie, many of the expressions cited to support this metaphor could aswell be expressions from a chess match. And in fact, chess and war are often used metaphori-cally to describe each other. Ritchie notes that apart from war, politics is also a possible sourcedomain for chess (as suggested by the names of the pieces). If not chess, other sports and gameshave been investigated as targets of metaphorical expressions. These studies find that metaphor-ical expressions to describe different sports and games most often come from the domains ofwar, art, religion, and violence (Jansen & Sabo, 1994; Nadelhaft, 1993; Novak, 1976; Price,1991; Rosengren, 2004; Ross, 1971; Segrave, 1997). These studies are primarily concerned withthe ideological message and thus mostly remain at the rhetorical level, focusing on certain privi-leged expressions. Also, their single-language focus renders them to secondary importance inthe present framework.

METHOD

Two American newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post), an online version of aHungarian newspaper (Nemzeti Sport, accessed at www.nemzetisport.hu), and a Hungarian web-site (www.sporthirek.hu) were used for this research. These sources were chosen because theyprovided extended coverage of two outstanding chess events held in September and October2004: the classical world championship title match between Vladimir Kramnik of Russia andPeter Leko representing Hungary, and the Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Spain. In the course ofmaterial collection, I realized that different sections of the articles may be read by a differentaudience, which in turn might influence the authors’ choice of metaphorical expressions. Moreprecisely, those parts of the articles that describe a whole chess event (usually the first part) mightbe read by virtually anybody, whereas the analyses of the games are most likely read by practic-ing chess players only. The possible influence of target audience on metaphors is brought up byDeignan (2005) in her speculation on why the representation of euro may differ in the findings ofthe two studies discussed above (Charteris-Black & Musolff, 2003; Semino, 2002). Also, asTannenbaum and Noah (1959) observe, people who as a rule do not read sport pages often missthe exact meaning of metaphorically used verbs in sport articles, so we may suspect that journal-ists adjust their style to their expected audience. Because of these considerations, metaphoricalexpressions in this study are grouped separately depending on whether they appear in the generalreport (i.e., the event) or in the game analysis sections. (This differentiation is called a groupingby “text type” from now on. Note, however, that this grouping, though highly indicative of themore specific target [that is, expression in the general report sections are likely to comment on theplayers or the whole event, whereas those in the analysis sections more likely describe the piecesor the game itself], does not unequivocally divide metaphorical expressions by it.)

The articles fall into three categories: some are pure analyses of games written by grandmasters;others are reports or comments about the event for laymen and include no analysis; a number of thearticles are a mix of these two. I carried out a manual word count to get the number of words usedin the game analyses and the general report sections. Table 1 shows the results of this word count.Nine issues of The Washington Post, six issues of The New York Times, twelve issues of NemzetiSport, and twelve days of coverage from the Website were chosen for scrutiny.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 45

As an exploratory foray into the area, the answers to the following questions were sought:

1. What source domains are used in the metaphorical expressions in the reports on chessevents and during the analyses of chess games in American English and Hungarian?

2. To what extent do these domains overlap in the two languages in the two text types?

Using techniques outlined by Cameron (1999), linguistic metaphors were identified based onthe incongruity of source and target domain relative to the norms for the general American andHungarian speech communities. That is, since the text sources are not specifically written forchess players, expressions were judged metaphorical even if they may not be recognized as suchby chess experts. For instance, “healthy pawn,” which is a highly conventional chess term andthus may not sound metaphorical for players, was included in the analysis as it uses a vehicleterm from the domain of health to describe the topic of value. Subsequent readings by two nativespeakers in both languages either confirmed or identified problems with the initial analysis. Togive an example, “the match is a highly technical affair” was excluded because no single sourcedomain was evoked by it, and therefore its metaphoricity was judged insufficient for thisresearch. Similarly, “exploit the pawn” was dismissed because “exploit” can take too manyobjects to be unequivocally assigned to one domain. Identifying the source domains went alongtwo lines: some of them were identical to those used for other sports or used in other conven-tional metaphors. Thus, “attack” and “fight” were assigned to the source domain of “war.”“Produce a lot of fire” was also considered a “war” metaphor since context suggested that it wasused to refer to gunfire. “Hungry for victory” and “stale play” were put into the “physical state”domain. For metaphorical expressions that seemed to map a salient feature, I generated a sourcedomain: “crawl into first place” and “chess has sidled back” were designated “movement,”while “clinch first place” and “dampen enthusiasm” were assigned to “action.” Sometimesexpressions unexpectedly clustered around an idea; in that case, I changed the initial classifica-tion and crafted a new domain. For example, the Hungarian expressions elgázol–away wades(“runs over”), letaglóz–down fells (“fells”), and nekimegy valakinek–goes for somebody (“wadeinto somebody”) so strongly evoked violence that I moved them from “movement” and designedthe new category “violent act/violent movement.” The same process happened in the Americandata—expressions such as “jam black’s kingside,” “guard the squares.” “suffocate the pieces,”“paralyze the opponent” were put into the domain dubbed “confining action” because they allconveyed a sense of a lack of space. The domains of “supernatural” (“cast a magical spell”) and“gambling” (“lottery”) were designated as one domain, since both involve a lack of human control.As the primary aim of the study was to tease out the source domains themselves, metaphoricalexpressions were counted by type, not token. Table 2 shows the number and distribution of meta-phor types according to their site of appearance (event or game analysis) in the two languages.

TABLE 1The Total Number of Words and their Distribution according

to Text Type in the Two Languages

Total # of Words Event # of Words Analysis # of Words

Hungarian 9,914 6,705 3,209American 8,276 4,109 4,167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

46 SIMÓ

The next section gives a list of the source domains that were found to be drawn on in the meta-phorical expressions in these articles. Also, examples from the most common or most excitingdomains are discussed.

Source Domains Used in Descriptions of Chess Events and in Analyses of Chess Games

As discussed above, metaphorical expressions were grouped based on whether they appeared inthe sections of the articles that commented on the whole event or in those that analyzed an actualchess game. Following this delineation, Tables 3 and 4 show the source domains that were usedin the two languages in the metaphorical expressions during the descriptions of a chess eventand a chess game, respectively.

To answer the first research question, Table 3 reveals that Hungarian uses 13 source domainsin the descriptions of the event of a chess tournament or match, with 76 different metaphoricalexpressions. The domains are the following: war (17 expressions), action (10), health state (9),

TABLE 2The Total Number of Metaphor Types, their Distribution according to Text Type (Event or Analysis),

and the Frequency of their Occurrence in the Two Languages

Total # of Metaphors

# of Metaphors/100 words

# of Metaphors for Event

# of Metaphors/100 Wordsfor Event

# of Metaphors for Game Analysis

# of Metaphors/100 Words for Game Analysis

Hungarian 116 1.17 76 1.13 40 1.25American 139 1.68 39 0.949 100 2.39

TABLE 3Chess as an Event: The Numerical and Percentual Distribution of Hungarian and American Metaphorical

Expressions by Type in their Respective Source Domains

Hungarian American

Rank Source Domains N∑ 76 % Rank Source Domains N∑ 39 %

1 War 17 22.37 1 Physical properties 12 30.762 Action 10 13.16 2 Action 7 17.943 Health state 9 11.84 3 War 6 15.385.5 Movement 7 9.2 4 Movement 5 12.825.5 Spatial relations 7 9.2 6 Art 2 5.135.5 Physical properties 7 9.2 6 Law 2 5.135.5 Violent act/violent movement 7 9.2 6 Violent act/violent movement 2 5.138.5 Other sports 3 3.95 8.5 Supernatural/gambling 1 2.568.5 Supernatural/gambling 3 3.95 8.5 Death 1 2.56

10.5 Music 2 2.63 8.5 Health state 1 2.5610.5 Religion 2 2.6312.5 Book-keeping 1 1.3212.5 Resource 1 1.32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 47

movement (7), spatial relations (7), physical properties (7), violent act/violent movement (7),other sports (3), supernatural/gambling (3), music (2), religion (2), book-keeping (1), andresource (1). In the American sources, 39 metaphorical expressions were found that describe thechess event as a whole, belonging to 10 domains: physical properties (12), action (7), war (6),movement (5), art (2), law (2), violent act/violent movement (2), supernatural/gambling (1),death (1), and health state (1).

A somewhat different group of source domains emerged during the analyses of a chess game.These are shown in Table 4. In the Hungarian data, the 40 metaphorical expressions fall into 11source domains: supernatural/gambling (8), war (7), violent act/violent movement (6), physicalproperties (5), death (4), action (3), movement (3), other sports (1), music (1), religion (1), andhealth state (1). The American data was far more replete with metaphorical expressions in thegame analyses—100 lent themselves to being assigned to one of the 13 source domains: war (23),movement (21), confining action (16), physical properties (16), violent act/violent movement (6),art (5), health state (3), weather (3), cooking (2), other sports (2), supernatural/gambling (1),death (1), and religion (1).

To answer the second research question numerically, altogether, 19 domains are used in thetwo languages to describe either a chess event or a chess game. Out of these, 10 overlap. Breakingit down by text type, for a chess event, there are 7 overlapping and 9 different domains. For theanalysis of chess games, 9 overlapping and 6 different domains are used. In the next sections,I provide examples from both text types and both languages from the most frequently used andthe most remarkable source domains. Example sentences are numbered and prefixed with H forHungarian and A for American. The word-for-word translation of the Hungarian sentences isgiven only where it is necessary to show metaphoricity. Speculations about the similarities anddifferences in the importance of source domains between the two languages are given in thediscussion section.

TABLE 4A Chess Game: The Numerical and Percentual Distribution of Hungarian and American Metaphorical

Expressions by Type in their Respective Source Domains

Hungarian American

Rank Source Domains N∑ 40 % Rank Source Domains N ∑ 100 %

1 Supernatural/gambling 8 20 1 War 23 232 War 7 17.5 2 Movement 21 213 Violent act/violent movement 6 15 3.5 Confining action 16 164 Physical properties 5 12.5 3.5 Physical properties 16 165 Death 4 10 5 Violent act/violent movement 6 66.5 Action 3 7.5 6 Art 5 56.5 Movement 3 7.5 7.5 Health state 3 39.5 Other sports 1 2.5 7.5 Weather 3 39.5 Music 1 2.5 9.5 Cooking 2 29.5 Religion 1 2.5 9.5 Other sports 2 29.5 Health state 1 2.5 12 Supernatural/gambling 1 1

12 Death 1 112 Religion 1 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 SIMÓ

War

War is a prominent source domain in both languages and text types. To describe a chessevent, Hungarian uses the widest range of expressions from this domain. Words include csata–“battle,” legénység–“ranks” (all of the GIs in a unit), and elhódít–“conquer,” among others. Seeexamples H1–H3 below.

(H1) A hetedik partihoz érkezett a nagy csata.“The seventh game of the big battle has arrived.”

(H2) Kállai Gábor legénysége a macedónoktól elszenvedett vereség után ezúttal gyozelmetkönyvelhetett el.“After losing to the Macedonians, the ranks of Gábor Kállai was this time able to posta victory.”

(H3) Lékó nem tudta elhóditani Kramnyik vb-címét.“Leko was unable to conquer Kramnik’s world champion title.”

The same source domain is ranked 3 in the American chess event data. The basic expressions of“fight” and “attack” overlap with the Hungarian. However, the somewhat poetic “belligerent,” seenin A1, and the expression “produce a lot of fire” in A2, have no equivalent in the Hungarian data.

(A1) “Peter Leko, the challenger from Hungary noted for his defensive skill, came out fightingand picked the belligerent Marshall Gambit to confront Vladimir Kramnik’s Ruy Lopez.”

(A2) “Despite 11 draws and one win, Kasparov produced a lot of fire in his games.”

The American articles make the widest usage of this source domain in the analysis of a game.Examples of these varied expressions include “outgun,” “outpost,” and “siege” (A3–A5):

(A3) “Leko gets outgunned in a sharp tactical duel.”

(A4) “Establishing the outpost on c7 for the soft landing of his rook.”

(A5) “30 a5! completes the siege and white can march his king to e7.”

In the Hungarian data, war is ranked as the second domain for the game analysis, and includesmanover–“maneuver,” in H4, and tuz alatt tart–“keep under fire,” in H5.

(H4) A korábban minden kockázatot kerülo Kramnyik meglepo manovere.“A surprising maneuver from Kramnik, who had been shunning all risks so far.”

(H5) Ha nem tartja tuz alatt a d6 gyalogot, akkor sötét sikerrel befejezni a fejlodést.“If he does not keep the d6 pawn under fire, black will be able to finish developing hispieces.”

Physical properties

Physical properties is the most important American source domain to describe a chess event.All of these examples make use of adjectives metaphorically, for example: “tame draw” (A6),“shaky start” (A7), “hungry” (player, A8), and “colorless draw” (A9):

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 49

(A6) “Kramnik had used 3 Nd2 de 4 Ne4 earlier in the match, but had managed only a tamedraw.”

(A7) “Leko gets off to shaky start as world title match begins.”

(A8) “The Hungarian grandmaster was hungrier.”

(A9) “Leko . . . drew game 3 colorlessly with the same opening.”

These expressions can be subdivided further into those that map outer properties and those thatmap inner properties: “narrow,” “colorless,” “short” belonging to the former, while “tame” and“hungry” to the latter category. This source domain (physical properties) to describe an event inHungarian is only ranked 5.5. Again, all examples involve adjectives, for example: könnyebb–lighter [“easier”] (H6), and szoros–“tight” (H7). Interestingly, the Hungarian metaphors maponly outer properties.

(H6) A magyar nok a könnyebb ellenfélnek számító Lettországgal csaptak össze.“The Hungarian women faced Latvia, which is considered a lighter (an easier) opponent.”

(H7) Szoros mérkozésen 2:2-re végeztek ellenük.“They finished 2:2 against them in a tight match.”

Compared to describing a chess event, for the analysis of a chess game, the domain loses inimportance in the American data (rank 3.5), and gains in the Hungarian (rank 4). In the Americandata, in addition to the adjectives, we find two verbal metaphors as well (“soften the pawn,” “clearthe position”). Adjectival examples include “flexible” (A10), “sharp” (A11), “weak” (A12):

(A10) “The night aims for the square f1, leaving white with more flexible options than after10. Nc3.”

(A11) “One of the sharpest lines in the advanced variation.”

(A12) “Preventing 16 Rh4, but creating weak squares on the kingside.”

For the analysis of a game, Hungarian uses the noun gyengeségek–“weaknesses” (H8), and acouple of adjectives, for example, remiszagú–draw-smelling [“likely to lead to a draw”] (H9):

(H8) A játék elorehaladtával kölcsönös gyengeségek alakulnak ki.“With the game advancing, mutual weaknesses emerge.”

(H9) Lékó egyiket sem teszi meg, helyette egy remiszagú folytatásra szavaz.“Leko does neither; instead he chooses a continuation that smells of a draw (is likely tolead to a draw).”

For the analysis of chess games, all metaphors map outer properties in both languages.

Movement

Both languages make use of the movement domain to some extent; however, its relativelygreater importance in the American articles is clear: it jumps from rank 4 to 2 from event toanalysis, whereas in the Hungarian data, it has a medium importance in both types of texts (rank5.5 and 6.5, respectively). When commenting on the whole event, verbs of movement are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

50 SIMÓ

mainly used to describe the standings of teams or individuals. As can be expected, Americanexamples include a number of manner verbs and some prepositional phrases: “trail the Hungarian”(A13), “coast along with one victory” (A14), and “crawl into” (A15):

(A13) “The world champion, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia, is trailing the Hungarian chal-lenger Peter Leko with the score 6–7 and needs to win the last game to keep the title.”

(A14) “Kramnik was coasting along with one victory and three draws.”

(A15) “The Russian grandmaster crawled into first place with two wins and ten draws, fin-ishing with seven points.”

To describe the standings in the comment section of a chess event, Hungarian uses menetel–“march” (H10), botlik–stumble [“lose”] (H11) as well as the language specific prefixed verbselorelép–forwardstep [“advance”] (H12) and feljön–upcome [“move up”] (H13):

(H10) A szenzációsan menetelo magyar nok az oroszokkal szemben elért értékes döntetlentkövetoen . . .“After the valuable draw against the Russians, the sensationally marching Hungarianwomen . . .”

(H11) A címvédo orosz csapat másodszor botlott.“The defending champion Russians have stumbled (lost) for the second time.”

(H12) A szép sikerrel a negyedik helyre lépett elore noi négyesünk.“With this nice success, our four women stepped forward (advanced) to the fourthplace.”

(H13) . . . újabb szép sikert ért el noi csapatunk, Szlovákiát 2,5-0,5-re verték, és feljöttek anegyedik helyre.“. . . our women met a nice success again, they beat Slovakia 2.5-0.5, and upcame(moved up) to the fourth place.”

Interestingly, the Hungarian expressions feature the legs as the body parts that are involved inthese movements, whereas the American examples express more of an involvement of the wholebody.

To describe a game, the domain is ranked second in the American data, and has “steer to adraw” (A16), “march his king” (A17), and “land in trouble” (A18):

(A16) “The new one 16. Qe2 was convincingly steered to a draw in the game Ponomariov-Anand, Linares 2002.”

(A17) “30 a5! completes the siege and white can march his king to e7.”

(A18) “Playing for a win with 24. Bc2? lands white in trouble.”

Hungarian has few expressions in this category, the most vivid being the prefixed jobban jön ki–better come out [“get the upper hand”] (H14):

(H14) A folytatásban Lékó gyalogot áldoz, és a bonyodalmakból nagymesterünk jobban jön ki.“Afterwards Leko sacrifices a pawn, and he better comes out (emerges with the upperhand) from the complications.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 51

Since the movement of pieces is so fundamental to chess, we would expect a strong usage of thisdomain when analyzing a game. This, however, happened only in the American articles; theHungarian writers seemed to hold it more important to comment on other aspects of the game, orchose such violent verbs that were put into the domain to be discussed next, violent act/violentmovement.

Violent act/violent movement

This domain also appears in both languages but plays a bigger role in the Hungarian articles:it is ranked 5.5 in the event texts, and ranked 3 in the analysis texts. In American, the domain isranked 6 and 5 in the two text types, respectively. To describe a chess event, Hungarian haselgázol–away wades [“smashes”] (H15), and letaglóz–fells [“devastates”] (H16):

(H15) Az amerikaiak elgázolták a házigazdák legjobbjait.“The Americans away waded (smashed) the best players of the hosts.”

(H16) Alekszej Shirov világossal túlkomplikálta a spanyol megnyitást, veresége “letaglózta”a társakat.“Aleksei Shirov overcomplicated the Spanish opening with white, his defeat “felled”(devastated) his teammates.”

In the American articles, the classical “break through” appears (A19):

(A19) “Although Kramnik was close to a few victories, he was unable to break through.”

In both languages, violent act/violent movement, compared to other domains, is used morewidely in the game analysis section of articles—rank 3 in the Hungarian, and rank 5 in theAmerican articles. Hungarian examples include: behatol–“penetrates” (H17) and nekemjön–tome comes [“runs at me”] (H18):

(H17) Nagymesterünk remek technikával erosítette pozícióját, minoséget nyert, királyávalbehatolt a sötét táborba.“Our grandmaster strengthened his position with excellent technique, won anexchange, and penetrated into the black camp with his king.”

(H18) Kramnyiknak nincs vesztenivalója, nekem kell jönnie.Kramnik-Poss has no to lose thing, to-me needs to come.“Kramnik has nothing to lose, he needs to run at me.”

American expressions use the words hit (A20) and destroy (A21), among others:

(A20) “Trying to disturb white’s development by hitting the b-pawn.”

(A21) “Several sacrifices are needed to destroy the pawn protection of the Black king.”

With this domain, we can observe an interesting difference in the two languages in the expres-sions describing a chess event. When reporting on the whole event, in the Hungarian expressionsthe salient feature of violence is to annihilate the “enemy” (see the example with “elgázol”above), while the American only wants to achieve his aim, maybe in a more pacific way: (e.g.,“break through”). Consequently, the Hungarian examples usually include the “sufferer” of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 SIMÓ

events in the object position. When analyzing a game, we do not get this difference in the fea-tures that map; for example, both languages use the highly conventional “penetration” and“breakthrough.”

Confining action

This is an emergent domain, motivated by the outstanding trend in the American expressionsto entail some kind of limitation of space in the analysis of games. The domain exists only in thistext type, and only in the American articles. A main mapping is TO LIMIT MOVEMENT IS TOPUT OUT OF PLAY as in “cut off” (A22) and “jam” (A23):

(A22) “After16. Bxb5 black cuts off the bishop with 16..c4!”

(A23) “After 6. e6! the pawn sacrifice jams black’s kingside.”

Interestingly, this mapping is sometimes further elaborated into a mapping chain, where TOLIMIT MOVEMENT IS TO PUT OUT OF PLAY and TO BE OUT OF PLAY IS TO DIE/TOBECOME ILL, as in “suffocated pieces” (A24) or “black is paralyzed” (A25):

(A24) “White keeps a grip on the suffocated black pieces.”

(A25) “After 42. Qf4 black is paralyzed.”

These examples are thus closely related to the domains of death and health state; neverthe-less, they are still kept in this domain as the lack of space seems such a pivotal feature in theseexpressions. Another mapping in the domain is PHYSICAL CONTROL IS SPATIAL CON-TROL, e.g., “get a firm grip” (A26) or “tie down” (A27):

(A26) “White got a firm grip on the center after 13..Bxa8.”

(A27) “Although this move does not spoil anything, white had two ways to tie Kramnik down.”

Supernatural/Gambling

While this domain plays a small part in the American data, its jump from rank 8.5 to 1 fromdescribing an event to describing a game in the Hungarian articles is remarkable. Mappings inthe supernatural domain include AN UNLIKELY MOVE IS A MIRACLE: csodát muvel–miraclecraft [“he is working wonder”] (H19) and varázsol–“conjure” (H20):

(H19) . . . a meggyengült sötét királyállás ellen a sötét mezokön tud-e Péter csodát muvelni.“. . . can Peter craft a miracle (work wonder) on the dark squares against the weak-ened black king.”

(H20) Amikor nagymesterünk futóját d4-re varázsolta, már egyre jobban bíztunk anyerésében.“When our grandmaster conjured his bishop to d4, we started to believe in his victorymore and more.”

and SAVING A WORSE POSITION IS UNEARTHLY POWER: földöntúli erofeszítés–earth-overly effort [“unearthly effort”] (H21):

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 53

(H21) Földöntúli erofeszítéssel, szinte vért izzadva eléri a remit.Earth-over effort-with, almost blood-Acc sweating achieves the draw.“He achieves the draw with unearthly effort, almost sweating blood.”

Mappings in the gambling domain express A RISKY MOVE/PLAN IS GAMBLING, as in min-dent vagy semmit–“all or nothing” (H22):

(H22) A középjátékban Kramnyik nem sokat cicázik, mindent vagy semmit alapon indíttámadást.“In the middle game, Kramnik is not delaying action much, he launches an all-or-nothing attack.”

The bigger weighing of this domain in the Hungarian articles, and within that, in the game anal-ysis sections, suggests both influences of culture and subculture, to be discussed below.

Spatial relations

The domain spatial relations, mostly used to indicate position in the tournament or the result of agame, was found only in the Hungarian sources and only to describe a chess event. It is includedhere to illustrate how language typology may have an important say in metaphorical expressions. Ofthe seven examples, five include prefixed verbs, among them alulmarad–below stay [“lose”] (H23),összebukik–together fall [“collapse”] (H24), and felülmúl–overpass [“win over”] (H25). The mainmappings are TO LEAD/TO WIN IS TO BE ON TOP and TO LOSE IS TO BE UNDER:

(H23) Az elso táblás Almási Zoltán, valamint a negyedik táblás Ruck Róbert alulmaradt.“Zoltan Almasi on first board and Robert Ruck on fourth board below-stayed (lost).”

(H24) Lékó Péter összebukott a 14 partis címmérkozés végére.“Peter Leko together-fell (collapsed) by the end of the fourteen-game world champi-onship title match.”

(H25) Most Lékó kétszer is felülmúlta Kramnyikot.“This time Lékó has overpassed (won over) Kramnik even twice.”

A nice example that does not use a prefixed verb is toronymagasan vezet–tower-highly lead[“have the clear lead”] (H26):

(H26) A kínaiak továbbra is toronymagasan vezetik a tabellát, annak ellenére, hogy averseny folyamán eloször kikaptak.“The Chinese still tower-highly lead (have the clear lead), despite having lost for thefirst time during the tournament.”

These metaphorical expressions seem to be instantiations of the schematic conceptual metaphorGOOD IS UP (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).

Health

This domain has little significance in the whole American data, and also in the game analysissections in Hungarian. However, in the descriptions of a chess event, it is ranked 3 in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

54 SIMÓ

Hungarian data and gives some very vivid expressions to comment on the circumstances or theplayers’ mental fitness. Examples are lázba hoz–“throw into a fever” (H27), gyengélkedik–feelout of sorts [“play badly”] (H28), and nem érzi jól magát–doesn’t feel well [“doesn’t feel com-fortable”] (H29):

(H27) Lékó Péter nyolcadik fordulóban aratott fantasztikus gyozelme, egypontos vezetéselázba hozta a sakkrajongókat.“Peter Leko’s fantastic victory in round eight, and his one-point lead threw the chessfans into a fever.”

(H28) Változatlanul gyengélkedik férfi válogatottunk.“Our men squad is still feeling out of sorts (is still playing badly).”

(H29) Lékó Péter a világos bábukat vezetve láthatóan nem érezte jól magát a vezérindiaivédelem egyik változatában.“Peter Leko, playing with the white pieces, seemingly did not feel well (comfortable)in one of the variations in the Queen’s Indian.”

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

The numbers displayed in Table 2 show that the American articles use different metaphoricalexpressions more frequently than the Hungarian ones in the whole text (1.68 vs. 1.17/100words) and almost twice as many in the analysis sections (2.39 vs. 1.25). Hungarian authors usemore metaphor types per 100 words than the Americans in the event sections, but only slightly(1.13 vs. 0.949). Also, both languages use different metaphorical expressions more frequently inthe game analyses sections than in the event sections; this tendency is especially remarkable inthe American data. These facts might be attributable to a number of factors: the difference in thesources (daily newspapers vs. a sport paper/sport Website) or the fact that the analyzed articlesthat covered the Kramnik-Leko world champion title match involved a Hungarian. As meta-phors were counted by type and not token, it is not possible to draw strong conclusions aboutoverall metaphor density of the texts in the two languages.

Even though chess’s status as a sport is debatable, especially in the United States, this analy-sis has shown that source domains that have most often been identified for sports and games—war, violence, art, and religion—are also present in chess articles in both languages. Richie’s(2003) observation that war is a frequent source domain for chess is also supported by the data.At the same time, some new domains have also been discovered, most of all the domains ofsupernatural/gambling, health, confining action, movement, and spatial relations. As chess is amental activity, the fact that expressions that denote action and movement would be more meta-phorical in relation to it than in relation to physical sports is not surprising. The other emergingdomains, though, may not be chess-specific and may be worth investigating for other sports aswell. The ubiquity of certain source domains was borne out by this study, too. Domains found inthe studies exploring the target of economy (for example, health, war, movement, sports) alsoappeared in the descriptions of chess.

Examining the numerical overlap of source domains by text type showed that for a chessevent, there are 7 overlapping and 9 different domains, whereas for the analysis of chess games,9 overlapping and 6 different domains are used (see PP: 5–6). That is, in general, for describing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 55

the games themselves there is a bigger overlap in source domain usage between the two lan-guages than for describing a whole chess event. Also, within the same domains, the features thatmap are closer in the analysis sections than in the event report sections, as has been shown withthe domains physical properties and violent act/violent movement (see PP: 7–8 and PP: 10–11).Possible explanations for why there is this slightly bigger overlap in source domains used todescribe the game itself than in those describing the whole event can be found in the differentsenses of the idea of embodiment (Rohrer, 2007). In the narrower sense, embodiment refers toexperience related to the body. In the present data, the actual movement and configuration of thepieces on the board is the same for everybody—we see the same thing. Moreover, the kines-thetic experience of moving the pieces is also the same. Therefore, the element of bodily experi-ence in the metaphorical expressions describing the games is more pronounced, which mayyield more shared conceptualization than the event itself. This hypothesis could only be indis-putably verified if metaphorical expressions were examined one-by-one to find out the exactmappings. While this detailed investigation was not systematically carried out for this study, theexamples in the violent act/violent movement domain point in this direction: the metaphoricalexpressions in the analysis sections do describe the movement of pieces (that is, something thatis explicitly seen and done), and their mappings are closer than those in the expressions describ-ing the achievement of players/teams found in the general comment sections. The same ten-dency is true with the physical properties domain: the expressions in the analysis sections allapply to the position/pieces, and they map outer properties in both languages. Another specula-tion for the bigger overlap in source domain usage for the expressions in the game analysissections relies on a broader understanding of embodiment, experientialism, which includes cul-tural experience. In the present data, culture possibly comes into play at two levels: first, at thelevel of American/Hungarian cultures in general, and second, at the level of the subculture ofchess players. Whereas the metaphors describing the whole event may be more culturallyloaded, the metaphors describing the game itself may rather reflect the perceptions of the sub-culture of chess players, which is a very strong one, sharing a set of behaviors and also paralan-guage across cultures. This speculation is supported by examples from two source domains(religion and other sports) that have not been discussed in detail because of the scarcity of theexamples they provide. The only expression (“sacrifice”) in the religion domain in the gameanalysis sections is exactly the same in the two languages. This usage is in fact highly conven-tional in both languages. Also, it is in the game analysis section where the domain of othersports appears for both languages, with one expression in each language coming from a contactsport. These examples suggest that the repeated similar experiences of chess players may lead tosimilar conceptualization of phenomena related to a chess game, whether or not they involveimmediate bodily sensation.

Thinking further, what these speculations imply about embodiment in general is that even itsnarrowest sense—the bodily experience—may vary with groups of people both within one cul-ture and across cultures. Would a non-chess player use the same metaphorical expressions todescribe the movement of pieces (something that is seen) as a chess player? While the presenttarget, chess, may be a too specialized topic for this assumption, the implication is that true“pure,” and thus universal, bodily experiences may be hard to find, as they are very difficult toseparate from other confounding experience.

The most striking differences in the whole data set arise with the supernatural/gambling, con-fining action, and spatial relations domains. We may speculate as to the motivation of these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

56 SIMÓ

domains, finding it both in culture and in the specifics of the languages involved. The dominantrole of the supernatural/gambling domain to comment on a game in Hungarian may beaccounted for by the not so practical and slightly dreamy character of this nation. On a moregeneral level, it may be the case that the feeling of reliance and dependence on powers beyondour control is more entrenched in Hungarian culture, as evidenced by the examples and specula-tions of Banczerowski (2005) and Kövecses (2003, 2006). Significantly, what this study adds inthis respect is that whereas Kövecses’s (2003) speculation about this possibility mainly arisesthrough the examination of grammatical forms of the expressions (passivization, objects asagents), the present examples use vocabulary (miracle, unearthly) more straightforwardly toexpress the notion of fatalism. The remarkable tendency for this domain to be more important inthe game analysis sections than in the general descriptions of chess events may indicate a differ-ence in the perceived audience. Interestingly, the suggestion is that chess players themselves seethe game as more “mystical” than the general public. As to the domain of confining action, anexplanation for its role in the American data may be sought in the importance of space in Americanculture. Of course, language typology also must have its influence—American English likes toput manner of motion into verbs, which might be reflected in this domain. It should be notedhere that an investigation with pre-selected source domains would probably have landed “para-lyze” in the health domain, and “suffocate” in the death domain. However, the emergent domainof confining action, and the fact that the ability of the pieces to move freely in chess is of utter-most importance, motivated the change to this classification [compare to Charteris-Black &Musolff’s (2003, p. 161) argument for assigning expressions to certain domains]. At thismoment, the spatial relations domain in Hungarian remains explained simply by language typol-ogy—the verb prefixes give an excellent opportunity to visually express configuration in space.These last two points already take us to the issue of the potential value of focusing on theexpressions and their possible source domains rather than on conceptual metaphors when work-ing within the framework of conceptual metaphor theory.

Not just yet aiming at conceptual metaphors but remaining at the domain level has proveduseful in several instances. First, keeping war and violence apart (two domains that are oftensubsumed under one another or under a more general term; see Boers and Demecheleer, 1997;Segrave, 1997) helped shed light on the interesting difference between the usage of violencemetaphors in the two text types for the two populations. Also, a lot of the war metaphor expres-sions are in fact not violent at all but more strategic (“truce,” “defense,” “outpost”). So, simplysaying CHESS IS WAR/COMBAT may oversimplify the case, even if we know that not allfeatures of the source are mapped on the target. It is up to further investigation to show how thediscussed details may influence conceptualization.

Another area that seems to have benefitted from this open investigation is the domains whichhave expressions related to the conceptualization of good and bad. As was discussed, most ofthe expressions in the spatial relations domain in the Hungarian data appear to be realizations ofthe conceptual metaphor GOOD IS UP/BAD IS DOWN. At the same time, the movementdomain has expressions where it is not the vertical, but the horizontal axis along which good andbad is expressed (elorelép–forward step [“advance”] is good, botlik–“stumble” [and thus stay atthe same spot] is bad). Another difference in the two sets of expressions is that whereas those inthe movement domain involve the legs, expressions in the spatial relations domain refer insteadto the whole body. Simply glossing over these facts and saying that GOOD IS (MOVEMENT)UP/FORWARD/BAD IS (MOVEMENT) DOWN/BACKWARD would probably have led to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 57

ignoring these exciting details. The conceptual metaphor BAD/PASSIVE IS DOWN is alsowidely exemplified in the American data: “go down for the count” (from the other sportsdomain), “tie somebody down” (confining action), and “land somebody in trouble” (movement)are some examples. Again, it is argued that the insights gained through discussing these examplesin their respective source domains outweigh the importance of pointing out that the conceptualmetaphor seems to hold for yet another target domain. The same can be said about discussingthe expression “hungry grandmaster” within the domain of physical properties, rather than simplystating that it is an example of the conceptual metaphor DESIRE IS HUNGER.

CONCLUSION

This study is a first step in the process of exploring cross-cultural metaphors of chess. The exam-ination of two Hungarian and two American media sources with respect to the metaphoricalexpressions they use to describe a chess event and a game of chess has revealed that in bothcases there is an overlap in source domain usage. However, the domains do not have the sameimportance in the two languages; moreover, even when the two languages use the same domain,what gets mapped is sometimes different. On the other hand, there are domains that are presentonly in one of the languages. It has been suggested that the results should be interpreted consid-ering the possible influences of embodiment, culture, subculture, and language typology.

I hope to have shown that within the framework of conceptual metaphor theory, an investiga-tion that focuses more on source domains and stays short of conceptual metaphors may disclosedetails necessary to our understanding of the metaphorical representation of certain targets.Conceptual metaphors are often realized through expressions from different source domains.A closer examination of the importance of these domains and the expressions themselves can beespecially informative in cross-linguistic studies, as paying more attention to the linguisticforms of the expressions within certain source domains may reveal fascinating aspects. In thepresent data, we have seen examples of this with the source domains providing expressions thatbelong to the metaphorical representations of good and bad.

The study has also provided some insights to our understanding of embodiment. I haveargued that, once we work with naturally occurring data, and consequently, with real life people,it may become very hard to pin down absolute bodily experiences. This supports Lakoff andJohnson’s (1980) speculations about the possible existence of dissimilarities in conceptual meta-phors between groups of people whose values show a pronounced difference (e.g., betweenTrappists and people in the “mainstream” American culture, or between people of different cul-tures). My stance also resonates with Kövecses’s (2005) final conclusion about the inseparableand simultaneous effects of embodiment, culture, and social context on our conceptualization,though I would even more firmly state the impossibility of talking about a non-mediatedconceptualization of bodily experience. Adding the fact that, as Kövecses (2005) argues, someconceptualizations of bodily experience do not necessarily materialize in linguistic metaphorsbut may be expressed through channels other than language puts constrains on possible claimsabout embodiment and culture based on linguistic evidence only.

The limitations of this study give ample room for further research. First of all, the data exam-ined is skewed by the fact that the Leko-Kramnik title match involved a Hungarian player—oneof the languages of the study. In this respect, it would be interesting to go back in time and look

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

58 SIMÓ

at articles reporting on the Fischer-Spassky 1972 world championship title match. This matchnot only involved an American, but was played in an era when political relations between theUnited States and the USSR were rather cold. This kind of investigation may reveal the extent ofbias in the present data. Another limitation is that chess has turned out to be a vast topic, involving atleast events, players, and games. It is a necessary next step to separately investigate metaphoricalexpressions used in connection to these entities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work came into being during my studies at Oklahoma State University. I am greatlyindebted to Carol Moder for her encouragement and invaluable insights. Any flaws remain myresponsibility.

REFERENCES

Banczerowski, J. (2005). A pozitív érzelmek konceptualizalásának néhány kérdése (Some issues of the conceptualizationof positive emotions). Magyar Nyelvor, 129(1), 71–77.

Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (Western) economic discourse. In W. Liebert,G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics. (pp. 115–129). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Cameron, L. (1999). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.),Researching and applying metaphor. (pp. 105–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Charteris-Black, J., & Musolff, A. (2003). ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’? A comparative study of metaphors foreuro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153–176.

Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Emanatian, M. (1995). Metaphor and the expression of emotion: The value of cross-cultural perspectives. Metaphor and

Symbolic Activity, 10, 163–182.Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.Hearst, E., & Wierzbicki, M. (1979). Battle royal: Psychology and the chessplayer. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed). Sports,

games, and play. Social and psychological viewpoints. (pp. 29–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Jansen, S. C., & Sabo, D. (1994). The sport/war metaphor: Hegemonic masculinity, the Persian Gulf War, and the new

world order. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 1–17.Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kövecses, Z. (2003). Language, figurative thought, and cross-cultural comparison. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 311–320.Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, culture, and mind: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Nadelhaft, M. (1993). Metawar: Sports and the Persian gulf war. Journal of American Culture, 16(4), 25–33.Novak, M. (1976). The joy of sports: End zones, bases, baskets, balls, and the consecration of the American spirit.

New York: Basic Books.Price, J. L. (1991). The final four as final judgment: The cultural significance of the NCAA basketball championship.

Journal of Popular Culture, 2(4), 49–58.Ritchie, D. (2003). “Argument is war”—or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit

metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 125–146.Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds), The Oxford handbook of

cognitive linguistics (pp. 25–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rosengren, J. (2004). Let us play. U.S. Catholic, 69(1), 12–15.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

CHESS METAPHORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN 59

Ross, M. (1971, January–february). Football red and baseball green. Chicago Review, 30–40.Segrave, J. O. (1997). A matter of life and death: Some thoughts on the language of sport. Journal of Sport and Social

Issues, 21, 211–220.Semino, E. (2002). A sturdy baby or a derailing train? Metaphorical representations of the euro in British and Italian

newspapers. Text, 22, 107–139.Tannenbaum, P., & Noah, J. (1959). Sportuguese: A study of sports page communication. Journalism Quarterly, 36,

163–170.Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity

10, 59–92.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

20:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014