Introduction
In July 2025, I was generously invited by editors of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics to contribute to the 2026 issue on Interdisciplinarity in Applied Linguistics, and to specifically write about my work at the intersection of sports and applied linguistics. Several formats were offered by the editors: position paper, empirical piece, review and synthesis, and research report. I selected a position paper, written in a personal, autobiographical style. What follows is my story of working within the bourgeoning field of sports linguistics: key events, research outputs, community building, and the associated successes and inevitable challenges. The article often points to key literature in this field. However, it is not a systematic review, nor a meta-analysis of the field. The paper also draws on key theoretical lenses to contextualize and interpret my accounts. However, it is not an empirical study, nor a research report. It is a nontraditional academic paper: a personal recount of my experiences over the past 20 years, as a linguist, applying linguistics to sport.
At the same time, this paper is more than a personal account of events. It is a position paper on interdisciplinarity in applied linguistics, in my case, linguistics vis-à-vis sport. As such, I interpret and evaluate my story through a reflective, analytical, and theorized lens. The ultimate purpose of this personalized position paper is to provide those working in applied linguistics with a critical reading of the key issues and challenges I encountered in this endeavor, as well as the moments of success, and the strategies (conscious or not) that led to that success. As such, the scope of this paper goes beyond the application of linguistics to sport, and my story thereof. While its primary readership will no doubt be those interested in sports linguistics, this paper is also intended as a story for all applied linguists seeking to connect, collaborate, and consolidate with those applying linguistics to a shared field of application. Moreover, it is a story of interdisciplinarity. It is a story of blurring and sharpening disciplinary boundaries within linguistics, sport, and the academy more generally. It is also a story of interdisciplinary identities, and my attempts at bringing together a community of (often) disparate linguists, through a shared field of application.
Background
In 2026, the Bloomsbury Handbook of Language and Sport will be published (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). Comprising more than 30 chapters, from linguists across the world, engaging with a range of socially-oriented theories and methods of linguistics, and applied to a diversity of sporting contexts, this edited volume is a significant achievement. From the introduction to the volume:
The chapters in this volume illustrate how scholars are putting this premise [language as an active force in how sport is lived, structured and contested] into practice across a wide range of sporting sites, communicative practices and methodological traditions. From on-field interaction and coaching discourse, to commentary, social media posts, fan protest and institutional policy, each contribution illustrates how language provides a valuable entry point for analysing the social worlds of sport. Methodologically, the volume spans interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography, corpus linguistics, critical discourse analysis and narrative inquiry, among others (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
For those of us involved in this publication, it marks a clear and public attempt to establish the application of linguistics to the field of sport. At the same time, the volume presents an opportunity to acknowledge, examine, and celebrate all of the work that has preceded this publication. Applying linguistics to sport is not new: see for example, Ferguson’s (Reference Ferguson1983) study of sports announcer talk in live sports commentary; Ghadessy’s (Reference Ghadessy and Ghadessy1988) seminal register work on the language of written sports commentary; Kuiper’s (Reference Kuiper and Cheshire1991) influential study into solidarity in same-sex masculine talk in recreational volleyball and rugby changerooms; Beard’s (Reference Beard1998) interactive textbook that explores a range of sports talk; and Lavric et al.’s (Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008) ambitious volume – The Linguistics of Football – dealing with, among many themes, multilingualism in European football (soccer). There are, of course, many more contributions to add to this list, and I would encourage readers to explore the handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) to become familiar with the canon.
What is new, however, or at least emerging, is a greater sense of collaboration and consolidation among scholars applying linguistics to sport (hereafter, sports linguistics). And it is precisely this act of community building that is the focus of this paper; a personal, reflective, and critical account of my attempts at helping to build a scholarly community of linguists choosing to (or having chosen to) analyze sports discourse.
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what I mean by a field of application in applied linguistics. In their introduction to the handbook, File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) devote an entire section to this exact topic, titled: “So, is language and sport a field?” They argue, as outlined in the extract below, that a field of application is a place where shared scholarly questions and scholarly priorities are pursued, even if there is not yet an institutional foundation (such as a journal), and even if the disciplinary boundaries are blurred (an issue addressed later in this paper).
In formal terms, a field typically implies shared research questions, theoretical frameworks and methodological commitments. It may also include institutional infrastructure such as dedicated journals, conferences and teaching programs, and recognisable pathways of expertise. By these standards, the study of language and sport may not yet be fully institutionalized. It does not commonly appear in academic curricula as a stand-alone topic, and there is no singular international association governing its development. However, in a broader and increasingly accepted sense, fields can also emerge as areas of inquiry defined by coherent questions, intersecting conversations and shared analytical priorities, even when they span or sit between established disciplines. We argue that language and sport is one such space (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
As noted above, critical to this sense of coherence, intersection, and shared priorities of researchers operating in this space is sport. In other words, sport, as the field (site, domain, register, etc.) of the language application, is clearly foundational to the building of this scholarly community. On the one hand, this may seem like a rather obvious point to make. On the other hand, readers might immediately want to critique this premise; scholarly communities are not so simply defined by their object of inquiry, but by the questions they seek to answer, the theory and method through which they seek to answer those questions, and the implications that apply to those involved in the field. I do not wish to suggest otherwise. Indeed, later in this paper, I will outline, particularly with reference to File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press), some of these collective questions, priorities, and methods of sports linguistics. However, it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge the site of the linguistic analysis – sport – as the defining feature constituting this field of application in applied linguistics.
Before exploring some of the key issues and ongoing tensions arising from my experiences, it is important to make clear the main actions I took to help establish sport as a field of application in applied linguistics. And of course, to be very clear: I was not alone, as evidenced by the many names cited throughout this paper. In short, there were two main ways in which I helped contribute to sports linguistics: publications (especially collaborative publications in the form of edited volumes and special issue journals) (e.g., Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2020; Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016a; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025)Footnote 1; and the establishment of a research network (ReN) through the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), titled Applied Linguistics in Sport (2016–2019, convened by Antje Wilton and David Caldwell; 2020–2024, convened by David Caldwell, Marcus Callies, and Eva-Maira Graf).
The role of coediting, coauthoring, and collaboration in collected volumes and special issue journals has been integral to this endeavor. Aside from adding to the growing body of research in the field, the production of these joint publications afforded an opportunity to meet, engage, argue, and ultimately collaborate with peers, from novice to expert, from across the world. Similarly, the establishment of the AILA ReN – Applied Linguistics in Sport – cannot be understated in terms of facilitating connection and collaboration. In practical terms, having a presence on the AILA website (including the contact details of the convenors), meant there was a designated space for interested linguists to turn to. Indeed, from 2016 to 2024, membership increased from 25 members to almost 100 members at the present count. In addition, the ReN resulted in two AILA conference symposiums (see below), and, on two occasions, the articulation of a statement outlining the scope of the ReN. Below is the 2020–2024 statement in full for the Applied Linguistics in Sport ReN:
The scope of this ReN—Applied Linguistics in Sport—broadly covers research involving the application of linguistics to the field of sport. In response to Meân’s “call to arms,” the ReN aims at bringing together a burgeoning body of sports and language research into the one research network. As its starting point, the ReN draws on recent collaborative publications (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016a; Callies & Levin, Reference Callies and Levin2019; Callies et al., in preparation; Lavric et al., Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008), workshops (e.g., International Workshop on Sports Communication, Siegen, 2017; AILA symposium “Sports Discourse and Digital Technology: Innovations, Applications and Implications in Data and Method,” 2021; IPRA workshop “The language and discourses of football—Pragmatic perspectives,” 2021) and colloquia (British Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, University of Warwick, UK, 2014; European Systemic Functional Linguistic Conference, Salzburg, 2016, Salamanca, 2017) between international scholars with a common interest in sport and linguistics. The ReN is also open to a range of linguistic methods, theories, and traditions (e.g., sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, systemic functional linguistics, interactional linguistics, critical discourse studies, multimodal social semiotics), a range of sporting contexts (e.g., different types of sports, sports media, coaching, on-field language, sports analytics), and cross-disciplinary research more generally (e.g., sports communication, sports psychology, sports science, and e-sports). The ReN includes established and emerging researchers from more than fifteen countries. The ReN also aims to engage with a growing number of students working on sport-related topics and courses in their university qualifications. In these terms, the network provides a platform for information, support, and scholarship for both scholars and students with an interest in the application of linguistics to sport (AILA ReN, n.d.).
In addition to outlining the achievements of the ReN in terms of research outputs – publications (e.g., File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025) and symposiums (e.g., Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Graf and Callies2024; Wilton & Caldwell, Reference Wilton and Caldwell2021) – the statement outlines the research focus and scope of the network. What is clear in this statement is the expansiveness (open, inclusive, etc.) of the ReN: the network is “open to a range of” methods and theories of linguistics applied to sport, as well as “a range of” sporting contexts. Similarly, the statement invites both scholars and students (“established and emerging”), from around the world (“more than fifteen countries”). Of course, as explored in this paper, such an expansive, open, and inclusive agenda does not come without its challenges.
Drawing a line: Sports linguistics and sports communication
In 2016, I conducted a short literature review of sports linguistics for the introduction to the edited volume The Discourse of Sport (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b). In that process, it became very clear that linguistics had been applied to sport. This, of course, was a positive development; it was motivating and legitimizing to discover that theories and methods of linguistics could be productively applied to sport. I even discovered an online bibliography, produced by the same colleagues who published the aforementioned The Linguistics of Football (Lavric et al., Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008), titled Innsbruck Football and Language Bibliography (Giorgianni & Lavric, Reference Giorgianni and Lavric2013).
What I was not expecting was the volume of research in communication studies applied to sport. Simply put, the canon of sports communication studies was prolific when compared with sports linguistics. This was best illustrated by two key publication outputs: a Routledge handbook that was published in 2013, the Routledge Handbook of Sport Communication (Pedersen, Reference Pedersen2013), and the Q1 journal: Communication and Sport. There was simply not an equivalent research presence, and certainly not a designated journal of the same status, for linguistics and sport.
Despite my expansive ambitions for sports linguistics, I chose not to include work in sports communication as part of the field-building for sports linguistics (at least for the research output I was involved in). This position was clearly articulated in the introduction to the edited volume Discourse of Sport:
While these volumes mention “communication”, neither mentions “language,” or the discipline of linguistics. The effort of this book is, therefore, to offer an alternative, close linguistic analysis, framed within a “Discourse” view of the social context of language use in sport (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b, p. 6).
Moreover, in the introduction to that volume, I drew on Gee’s (Reference Gee1990, Reference Gee2014) distinction between big D and little d discourse to not only clarify what was meant by discourse in the title to that volume, but mainly, to emphasize the role of language and linguistics (little d discourse) as integral to the studies in the volume, and in turn, to distinguish my work, our collective work in the volume, and “our contribution to the field,” from research in sports communication studies (big D discourse). For us, little d discourse neatly captured a theorized, principled, and close language analysis; the work of linguists analyzing language-in-use. Whereas big D discourse, following Gee (Reference Gee1990), captured language plus – social practices, ways of being, and identity construction – much more aligned with the approaches to sports discourse in communication studies. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive perspectives on discourse; it is always a matter of emphasis, as noted in our volume:
We need to be very clear that we conceptualise these D/discourses as complementary and not mutually exclusive. If we are to do our job effectively as social linguists in describing, analysing, and bringing to consciousness the “little d” discourse of sport, then we will invariably have something to say about the “big D” Discourse of sport. As linguists, however, our emphasis is predominately on language. And as will be discussed in the following section, it is precisely this emphasis on language-in-use in sport, a close analysis of the “little d” discourse in sport, that we see as our contribution to the field (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b, p. 2).
Since that time, I have re-articulated this position in other publications, such as Walsh et al. (Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024): “our focus is specific to linguistics rather than the broader theories and methods of communication studies” (p. 9). And while the recent handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) nods to communication studies (alongside a range of language analysis traditions, including discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics), a very clear emphasis in that handbook is on language and linguistics, or, as we note, “the analytical power of language-focused approaches” (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). Indeed, File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) refer to language as empirical data on several occasions in their introduction chapter, in order to distinguish ourselves and our methods of analysis from communication studies. The following extract makes this position abundantly clear:
Despite this ubiquity, the role of language in sport has often been overlooked or treated as secondary. Where it has been acknowledged, it has typically been folded into broader discussions of team dynamics, media coverage, and psychological preparation. In many cases, language and communicative practices have been acknowledged but rarely analysed as central organizing forces in their own right. In other words, language is referenced but not studied or deeply interrogated. This handbook begins from a different premise: that sport cannot be fully understood without sustained attention to language. Language does not merely accompany sport; it is constitutive of it (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
From my experience, at least, there has been no dialogue between me and those working in sports communication studies. I write this with no judgment of either party. Perhaps, in time, dialogue will emerge. Or not. What is clear, is that this disciplinary delineation is a critical part of my story; that despite an overt openness to methods of linguistic analysis, and interdisciplinarity more generally, a metaphorical line was drawn, at least by me, between linguistics and communication studies on the grounds that language needs to be the object of inquiry, and that the methods of language analysis need to be theorized, principled, and close.
Linguistics for sport; sport for linguistics
I was recently invited by students from an English Language Studies program at the University of Santo Tomas (Philippines) to speak on the topic of sports linguistics, titled: Unravelling Issues and Perspectives in Sports Linguistics. In producing this seminar, I took the opportunity to chronicle my own research in sports linguistics, beginning with my honors thesis on footballers in their post-match interview (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2009), to my most recent paper examining the voice quality of the in-game, language-in-action of sports people (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026). As I examined my small contribution, I was particularly struck by personal questions of motivation, purpose, and audience: what have I been trying to achieve in bringing together these two worlds, linguistics and sport, sport and linguistics? Or, in Bakhtin (Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981) terms, who was my imagined audience or audiences? What became clear in reviewing my work is that I have been writing to three distinct audiences: the sports industry, the academy, and linguists.
At certain times, and for different projects, I have been focused on revealing to those in the sports industry how language works. And in particular, how a close analysis of language through linguistic theories and methods might help those professions solve problems in sport. In terms of writing to the sports industry, this has tended to be in the form of nontraditional research outputs, such as industry resources (e.g., Cominos et al., Reference Cominos, Caldwell and Gloede2016), industry reports (e.g., Caldwell & MacGill, Reference Caldwell and MacGill2016), and media (e.g., Caldwell & Walsh, Reference Caldwell and Walsh2019). I have also, on occasions, made a point of concluding my scholarly publications with explicit reference to the sports industry, especially those working in high-performance (at the elite/professional level of sport), hoping to flag the importance of a close language analysis in sport for the purpose of enhancing sporting performance, and ultimately winning sporting competition. The extract below, for example, is taken from the aforementioned most recent publication, examining voice quality in language-in-action in sport:
… the field (and industry) of high performance in sport might consider the physiological implications of these findings—what is the physical impact and implications of such loud, fast, tense vocalizations? Or, are some types of vocalizations more effective (or otherwise) than others in terms of their intended outcome? Is there an optimal number of lexical repetitions? Is naming more effective in calling for the ball than prepositions of location? (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026, p. 90)
At the same time, I have spent a lot of work engaging with and attempting to convince the academy more broadly about the merits of linguistics and a close language analysis of sports discourse. Indeed, many of my publications acknowledge related fields in sports studies, such as sports sociology, sports media studies, and sports psychology. However, I have never presented this in an adversarial way, that is, linguistic studies in sport are better than sociology, media studies, etc. Rather, I have always presented my work in sports linguistics as an opportunity for greater collaboration and interdisciplinary research; that close language analysis will complement and add to other fields, and vice versa. For example, several of my studies draw on language data from sports media. In turn, I have encouraged greater collaboration with those experts: “It is clear, as intimated by Caldwell (Reference Caldwell2020), that linguistics seeking to examine mediatised sports discourse need to seek support from their teammates in media studies, and vice versa” (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, p. 137). Similarly, the aforementioned publication (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026, p. 90) notes in its concluding remarks: “Of relevance to this study would be research into sport, especially the fields of sports sociology and sports psychology, no doubt generating insights into why these players make the meanings that they do.”
A similar, albeit slightly different rhetorical position was taken in a book-length publication I coauthored: Evaluative Language in Sport (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024). Here, rather than a call for arms in terms of greater collaboration between linguists and other disciplines, the book instead overtly engages with the contributions made by other scholarship (especially in the social sciences and humanities) and connects that to the linguistic analyses presented in the book:
To be clear, we are not sociologists or social theorists. We are linguists working with a social theory of language. And as such, throughout this book, we draw on the expertise of social theorists working in sports to guide our language findings and often to motivate our particular language analysis. For example, in Chapter 2 we draw on the work of sociologist Giulianotti (Reference Giulianotti2002) and his taxonomy of spectator types in soccer. In this case, we use our discourse analysis tools to elaborate on, critique and help inform Giulianotti’s (Reference Giulianotti2002) theorising of spectator types. At the same time, Giulianotti (Reference Giulianotti2002) informs (and inspired) our close text analysis, providing us with insight into the “big D” Discourses that exist in the culture of fan participation in soccer (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024, p. 11).
Finally, throughout all these studies, my focus (imagined audience) has always been talking back to language through sport; telling linguists more about language and how it works vis-à-vis the analysis of sports discourse. My motivation here is not the sports industry as an end user of my research, nor is my aim to legitimize and integrate linguistics within the interdisciplinary academy, but instead, to reveal to my fellow linguists how language in sport works, and what a close analysis of language in sport might tell us about our theories and understandings of language more generally. Working predominately but not exclusively with systemic functional linguistics (SFL) (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, Reference Halliday and Hasan1985), I have had much to say about language and how it works in sport. Although, unlike the rhetorical call to arms cited above (intended for the industry and the academy), this intended audience cannot so easily be captured in a few quotes. If I were to try to summarize my work in sports linguistics, and my contribution to understanding how language works, I would classify it into three main areas: interpersonal language in sport, mediatized language in sport, and language-in-action in sport. In this venture, I find myself not only talking to theories and theorists in SFL, but also to sociolinguistics, discourse analysts, interactional linguistics, and so on. This is probably best illustrated by my very first study in sports discourse, where I examined the language of Australian Rules footballers in their post-match interviews (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2009). In short, this study found that both journalists and sports people deployed particular linguistic strategies to maintain neutrality in terms of evaluating (positively or negatively) the performance of the interviewed player. In other words, the journalists and sports people were neither overly positive nor overly negative (they remained neutral) in their appraisal of the player, their teammates, the opposition, and so on, irrespective of the result of the preceding game (and the performance of the player being interviewed). Here I drew on neutralism from conversation analysis (CA) (e.g., Greatbatch, Reference Greatbatch, Bell and Garrett1998) and appraisal from SFL (Martin & White, Reference Martin and White2005), contributing back to both descriptions and theories of language – adding evaluative lexis to CA’s neutralism, and integrating turn-taking principles with appraisal.
As this brief recount reveals, any binary of sport and linguistics, or linguists and sport, is misleading. I have and continue to be motivated by applied linguistics for sport (e.g., close language analysis for high performance), applied linguistics for sports research (e.g., close language analysis for sports sociologists), and sport for applied linguistics (e.g., close language analysis for theories and methods of linguistics). In Bakhtinian terms (Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981), my voice is particularly heteroglossic in this endeavor. I acknowledge and engage with multiple, distinct audiences. And as explored in the section below, these audiences often have quite distinct ways of knowing their respective fields.
Another productive way of thinking about my experience here is through Halliday’s (Reference Halliday and Webster2008) appliable linguistics and his dialectic of theory-practice, practice-theory. In simple terms, my application of linguistics to engage with problems (issues, topics, etc.) in sport, in turn, pushes and shapes the linguistic theories and methods I work with. Or put another way, I use my linguistic analyses of sport to talk back to language, to innovate language description, and contribute to linguistic theory. For example, my recent work, and that of my colleagues (e.g., Caldwell, Reference Caldwell, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, Reference Caldwell2026; Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell and Ross2021), draws on and contributes to the theoretical architecture of SFL, revealing, through the concepts of stratification and rank, that the closer language gets to action, the more the meanings from the higher stratum of lexicogrammar move to the lower stratum of phonology. In terms of rank, “this breaks down clause structures to rely heavily on group/phrase and word choices and flattens phonological patterns of intonation, rhythm and syllable structures to rely more on voice quality and timing” (Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell and Ross2021, p. 274). At the same time, my linguistic analyses of sport are grounded in an intention to innovate practice and solve problems in sport. Drawing again on those studies of language-in-action in sport cited above, this means supporting best practice in effective on-field communication (language-in-action) for sports people; helping to solve the common problem of on-field miscommunication in sport. In this case, to tell those working in the field (players, coaches, spectators) that it is not only what is said, but how it sounds, that is critical to effective on-field communication in physical, fast-paced, high-intensity, sporting contexts.
Softening boundaries
With the exception of communication studies (a point I return to below), my sports linguistics story thus far can be very much characterized as a blurring of categories (or weak classification) in Bernstein’s (Reference Bernstein2000) terms.Footnote 2 For example, the ReN statement for Applied Linguistics and Sport, which I coauthored, is unequivocally open to any type of linguistics, so long as it is applied to sport. And the handbook I coauthored has a similar weak classification of categories of linguistics: “Methodologically, the volume spans interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography, corpus linguistics, critical discourse analysis and narrative inquiry, among others” (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). As noted above, my own scholarship in sports linguistics is especially heteroglossic (Bakhtin, Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981); it explicitly talks to multiple audiences (the industry, the academy, and linguistics). And although I mostly work with the theory and methods of SFL, I often draw on other theories and theorists from linguistics; again, a relatively weak classification of what constitutes linguistic theory and methodology. As noted above, I also openly encourage and practice interdisciplinarity, drawing on scholarship from outside of linguistics, again, blurring the boundaries in Bernstein’s terms. This interdisciplinary mission is reflected in the following quote from the handbook:
The concept of a “field in formation” is particularly useful here. As interdisciplinary scholarship becomes more fluid, the boundaries of research areas often form through shared questions and collaborative practices rather than disciplinary borders. Scholars such as Klein (Reference Klein2021) have described these emerging zones as “transaction spaces,” where researchers from diverse traditions engage with common concerns, even if they do not share the same theoretical language or methodological commitments. Similarly, Qi et al. (Reference Qi, Zhou, Sun, Huang and Zhang2024) highlights the value of labeled boundary-crossing activities, where there are deliberate efforts to build dialogue across fields while acknowledging the distinct contributions of the constituent parts. It is perhaps this openness that gives the field its energy, relevance, and momentum. Again, to be clear, we use the term “field” to signal this growing coherence without fixing boundaries. The contributions in this volume demonstrate that language and sport research is more than a collection of case studies or a thematic overlap. It is a space animated by shared interests, conceptual innovation, and methodological experimentation. It draws from sociolinguistics, sport studies, anthropology, education, media studies, and beyond. It brings together scholars with diverse training and professional identities who are nonetheless invested in understanding how communication organizes the social life of sport. Rather than prescribing a definitive scope or vision, we see this handbook as part of a broader process of field building. It offers a foundation for ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and expansion. We hope to affirm not only the legitimacy of this area of study, but also its potential to support interdisciplinary inquiry, to inform practice, and to offer new perspectives on both sport and language as central domains of human life (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
I have hinted at the benefits of a weak classification in terms of community building. And I will do so again in the conclusion to this paper. However, it is equally important to consider the potential negative implications of an interdisciplinary focus such as this. To be clear, what follows is not what has happened, at least to my mind and certainly not what is produced in recent scholarship, including the handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). However, given my weakly-classified positions cited above – where linguistic theories and methods of analysis are equally valid, and all disciplines outside of linguistics are valid, and have the potential to contribute to knowledge building in sports linguistics – one must be cautious not to fall into what Maton (Reference Maton2014) refers to as a relativist code; where many kinds of knowledge claims are equally valid, and there is little emphasis on who is a legitimate knower. The ultimate concern here is a knowledge blindness in sports linguistics, where knowledge is treated as “everything and nothing” (Maton, Reference Maton2014, p. 1).
Personally, I do not envisage a relativist future for sports linguistics, where anything goes, and what constitutes knowledge about sports discourse is essentially diluted and can never accumulate. I say this because of two critical points of strong classification (Bernstein, Reference Bernstein2000) articulated in this endeavor: the field of application – sport – and the clear demarcation made between linguistics and communication studies. The knowledge produced in sports linguistics, as I see it, is clear and evolving by virtue of these two strong boundaries: the field of sport, coupled with a theorized, principled, close language analysis. Of course, a constant awareness (and critical caution) needs to be maintained, resisting a relativist code (Maton, Reference Maton2014), and continuing to contribute to the evolution of knowledge(s) for sports linguistics.
At this point, I would again point readers to the handbook, and the introductory section titled: Core questions and emerging directions in the field of language and sport (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). While the 14 questions listed are broad in scope, they do direct those working in this field of application, and those seeking to work in this field of application, to specific kinds of knowledge production, for example, “How do linguistic features (e.g., syntax, modality, lexis) vary across sport-specific genres such as coach talk, commentary, and interviews?” And: “How do media and institutional discourses shape what is seen as legitimate, desirable, or transgressive in sport?” And: “How can research in this space inform pedagogy, coach education, policy, or inclusion strategies in sport organizations?” Indeed, as the quote below from the handbook demonstrates, any weak classification is invariably tightened by our explicit focus on language and sport.
They [core questions characterizing sports linguistics to date] invite researchers to think across levels of analysis, methodological boundaries, and disciplinary traditions in the search for knowledge about language, sport, and interconnections between the two. The study of language in sport should attend to the interplay between the micro and the macro, the descriptive and the critical, the analytic and the applied (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
Concluding remarks
I am extremely grateful for the invitation to write this position paper. It has provided me with an opportunity to pause and to critically reflect on my contributions thus far to developments in applied linguistics in sport. Through the writing of this paper, I am now more conscious of the reasons underpinning the decisions I have made in the past, and in turn, those decisions I will make in the future vis-à-vis sports linguistics. And while I have not developed a set of findings or guidelines for those seeking to undertake similar field building in applied linguistics, I hope this paper provides readers with insights into my reading of my experience(s) of building a community around a specific field of application in applied linguistics. To that end, I finish with three additional (and personal) insights which I hope are instructive to readers.
First, while the variable of power is always at play (in my case, for example, professional ambition, publication outputs), I think it is fair to say that my two key actions – coauthored publications and the establishment of the ReN – are ultimately guided by solidarity. In other words, if one is seeking to establish a specific field of application in applied linguistics, then this must be done through collaboration with peers, as well as consolidating (acknowledging) what has come before. Of course, as noted in the section above, it is important to reflect on what might then get compromised through such collaboration and consolidation. Regardless, the point I want to make here is that research endeavors that foreground collaboration (e.g., edited volumes, special issue journals, seminars, symposiums), especially with a range of applied linguists (from different theories, methods, and traditions of language analysis), are vital. Not only does such dialogue have the potential to complement and energize scholarship; it also signals to all linguists that they are welcome.
Second, many of my colleagues working in sports linguistics are indeed themselves fans of sport. This point was explicitly made in my publication with Walsh and Jureidini, where we literally introduced the book with the question – why sports discourse? – responded as follows:
We are fans. We play, watch and argue about sport. As linguists and social scientists, we want to better understand our relationship to sport, and in particular the ways in which we communicate in, through, and about sport (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024, p. 1).
Of course, as noted throughout this paper, our motivation to explore the language of sport is more than simply our connection to that field of application. At the same time, it feels disingenuous not to acknowledge that this is a powerful motivating factor in terms of community building. All of the colleagues I have met thus far in sports linguistics, to varying degrees, of course, are fans of sport. And in many cases, their fandom is extreme. They are especially close to sport, as spectators, consumers, participants, and so on. The point I am making here is that it is okay to acknowledge, and perhaps even leverage, the bonding that occurs over the respective field of application. I would presume, for example, that those linguists working in specific fields of application, such as food and wine, clothing, or aviation, have interests in those respective areas. Similarly, those in more established fields of application in applied linguistics, such as language and law, medicine, or the classroom, presumably have some kind of affiliation and connection with the field of their linguistic inquiry. Again, from my experience, that certainly appears to be the case with those working in sports linguistics, where we often banter and bond through sport, alongside the language of sport.
Third and finally, I want to echo the sentiments expressed by Doran et al. (Reference Doran, Caldwell, Ross, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025) in the extract below; to caution that affection for (bonding through) a field is only part of the picture, but mainly to remind myself, and readers, that we (in sports linguistics) are, relatively speaking (cf. language and law, language and medicine) in the very early stages of collaborating and consolidating. As such, if nothing else, I hope this position paper has helped make sports linguistics more visible and accessible to those wishing to apply linguistics to sport:
…those engaging in sports linguistics do not just do so for the love and interest of sport and language, but to be able to contribute back to sport itself. This may be as an extension to educational linguistic efforts in relation to coaching pedagogy; it may be in relation to supporting sports psychology and the social development of players; or it may be in relation to supporting high performance in sport itself. As a field, we are only just beginning to contribute to these areas; but give it time, effort and discussion, and sports linguistics can move toward having a significant role in supporting sport and the people involved in it, whatever that may be (Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell, Ross, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, pp. 233–234).
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re- use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
You have
Access
Open access
Introduction
In July 2025, I was generously invited by editors of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics to contribute to the 2026 issue on Interdisciplinarity in Applied Linguistics, and to specifically write about my work at the intersection of sports and applied linguistics. Several formats were offered by the editors: position paper, empirical piece, review and synthesis, and research report. I selected a position paper, written in a personal, autobiographical style. What follows is my story of working within the bourgeoning field of sports linguistics: key events, research outputs, community building, and the associated successes and inevitable challenges. The article often points to key literature in this field. However, it is not a systematic review, nor a meta-analysis of the field. The paper also draws on key theoretical lenses to contextualize and interpret my accounts. However, it is not an empirical study, nor a research report. It is a nontraditional academic paper: a personal recount of my experiences over the past 20 years, as a linguist, applying linguistics to sport.
At the same time, this paper is more than a personal account of events. It is a position paper on interdisciplinarity in applied linguistics, in my case, linguistics vis-à-vis sport. As such, I interpret and evaluate my story through a reflective, analytical, and theorized lens. The ultimate purpose of this personalized position paper is to provide those working in applied linguistics with a critical reading of the key issues and challenges I encountered in this endeavor, as well as the moments of success, and the strategies (conscious or not) that led to that success. As such, the scope of this paper goes beyond the application of linguistics to sport, and my story thereof. While its primary readership will no doubt be those interested in sports linguistics, this paper is also intended as a story for all applied linguists seeking to connect, collaborate, and consolidate with those applying linguistics to a shared field of application. Moreover, it is a story of interdisciplinarity. It is a story of blurring and sharpening disciplinary boundaries within linguistics, sport, and the academy more generally. It is also a story of interdisciplinary identities, and my attempts at bringing together a community of (often) disparate linguists, through a shared field of application.
Background
In 2026, the Bloomsbury Handbook of Language and Sport will be published (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). Comprising more than 30 chapters, from linguists across the world, engaging with a range of socially-oriented theories and methods of linguistics, and applied to a diversity of sporting contexts, this edited volume is a significant achievement. From the introduction to the volume:
The chapters in this volume illustrate how scholars are putting this premise [language as an active force in how sport is lived, structured and contested] into practice across a wide range of sporting sites, communicative practices and methodological traditions. From on-field interaction and coaching discourse, to commentary, social media posts, fan protest and institutional policy, each contribution illustrates how language provides a valuable entry point for analysing the social worlds of sport. Methodologically, the volume spans interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography, corpus linguistics, critical discourse analysis and narrative inquiry, among others (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
For those of us involved in this publication, it marks a clear and public attempt to establish the application of linguistics to the field of sport. At the same time, the volume presents an opportunity to acknowledge, examine, and celebrate all of the work that has preceded this publication. Applying linguistics to sport is not new: see for example, Ferguson’s (Reference Ferguson1983) study of sports announcer talk in live sports commentary; Ghadessy’s (Reference Ghadessy and Ghadessy1988) seminal register work on the language of written sports commentary; Kuiper’s (Reference Kuiper and Cheshire1991) influential study into solidarity in same-sex masculine talk in recreational volleyball and rugby changerooms; Beard’s (Reference Beard1998) interactive textbook that explores a range of sports talk; and Lavric et al.’s (Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008) ambitious volume – The Linguistics of Football – dealing with, among many themes, multilingualism in European football (soccer). There are, of course, many more contributions to add to this list, and I would encourage readers to explore the handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) to become familiar with the canon.
What is new, however, or at least emerging, is a greater sense of collaboration and consolidation among scholars applying linguistics to sport (hereafter, sports linguistics). And it is precisely this act of community building that is the focus of this paper; a personal, reflective, and critical account of my attempts at helping to build a scholarly community of linguists choosing to (or having chosen to) analyze sports discourse.
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what I mean by a field of application in applied linguistics. In their introduction to the handbook, File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) devote an entire section to this exact topic, titled: “So, is language and sport a field?” They argue, as outlined in the extract below, that a field of application is a place where shared scholarly questions and scholarly priorities are pursued, even if there is not yet an institutional foundation (such as a journal), and even if the disciplinary boundaries are blurred (an issue addressed later in this paper).
In formal terms, a field typically implies shared research questions, theoretical frameworks and methodological commitments. It may also include institutional infrastructure such as dedicated journals, conferences and teaching programs, and recognisable pathways of expertise. By these standards, the study of language and sport may not yet be fully institutionalized. It does not commonly appear in academic curricula as a stand-alone topic, and there is no singular international association governing its development. However, in a broader and increasingly accepted sense, fields can also emerge as areas of inquiry defined by coherent questions, intersecting conversations and shared analytical priorities, even when they span or sit between established disciplines. We argue that language and sport is one such space (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
As noted above, critical to this sense of coherence, intersection, and shared priorities of researchers operating in this space is sport. In other words, sport, as the field (site, domain, register, etc.) of the language application, is clearly foundational to the building of this scholarly community. On the one hand, this may seem like a rather obvious point to make. On the other hand, readers might immediately want to critique this premise; scholarly communities are not so simply defined by their object of inquiry, but by the questions they seek to answer, the theory and method through which they seek to answer those questions, and the implications that apply to those involved in the field. I do not wish to suggest otherwise. Indeed, later in this paper, I will outline, particularly with reference to File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press), some of these collective questions, priorities, and methods of sports linguistics. However, it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge the site of the linguistic analysis – sport – as the defining feature constituting this field of application in applied linguistics.
Before exploring some of the key issues and ongoing tensions arising from my experiences, it is important to make clear the main actions I took to help establish sport as a field of application in applied linguistics. And of course, to be very clear: I was not alone, as evidenced by the many names cited throughout this paper. In short, there were two main ways in which I helped contribute to sports linguistics: publications (especially collaborative publications in the form of edited volumes and special issue journals) (e.g., Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2020; Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016a; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025)Footnote 1; and the establishment of a research network (ReN) through the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), titled Applied Linguistics in Sport (2016–2019, convened by Antje Wilton and David Caldwell; 2020–2024, convened by David Caldwell, Marcus Callies, and Eva-Maira Graf).
The role of coediting, coauthoring, and collaboration in collected volumes and special issue journals has been integral to this endeavor. Aside from adding to the growing body of research in the field, the production of these joint publications afforded an opportunity to meet, engage, argue, and ultimately collaborate with peers, from novice to expert, from across the world. Similarly, the establishment of the AILA ReN – Applied Linguistics in Sport – cannot be understated in terms of facilitating connection and collaboration. In practical terms, having a presence on the AILA website (including the contact details of the convenors), meant there was a designated space for interested linguists to turn to. Indeed, from 2016 to 2024, membership increased from 25 members to almost 100 members at the present count. In addition, the ReN resulted in two AILA conference symposiums (see below), and, on two occasions, the articulation of a statement outlining the scope of the ReN. Below is the 2020–2024 statement in full for the Applied Linguistics in Sport ReN:
The scope of this ReN—Applied Linguistics in Sport—broadly covers research involving the application of linguistics to the field of sport. In response to Meân’s “call to arms,” the ReN aims at bringing together a burgeoning body of sports and language research into the one research network. As its starting point, the ReN draws on recent collaborative publications (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016a; Callies & Levin, Reference Callies and Levin2019; Callies et al., in preparation; Lavric et al., Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008), workshops (e.g., International Workshop on Sports Communication, Siegen, 2017; AILA symposium “Sports Discourse and Digital Technology: Innovations, Applications and Implications in Data and Method,” 2021; IPRA workshop “The language and discourses of football—Pragmatic perspectives,” 2021) and colloquia (British Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, University of Warwick, UK, 2014; European Systemic Functional Linguistic Conference, Salzburg, 2016, Salamanca, 2017) between international scholars with a common interest in sport and linguistics. The ReN is also open to a range of linguistic methods, theories, and traditions (e.g., sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, systemic functional linguistics, interactional linguistics, critical discourse studies, multimodal social semiotics), a range of sporting contexts (e.g., different types of sports, sports media, coaching, on-field language, sports analytics), and cross-disciplinary research more generally (e.g., sports communication, sports psychology, sports science, and e-sports). The ReN includes established and emerging researchers from more than fifteen countries. The ReN also aims to engage with a growing number of students working on sport-related topics and courses in their university qualifications. In these terms, the network provides a platform for information, support, and scholarship for both scholars and students with an interest in the application of linguistics to sport (AILA ReN, n.d.).
In addition to outlining the achievements of the ReN in terms of research outputs – publications (e.g., File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025) and symposiums (e.g., Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Graf and Callies2024; Wilton & Caldwell, Reference Wilton and Caldwell2021) – the statement outlines the research focus and scope of the network. What is clear in this statement is the expansiveness (open, inclusive, etc.) of the ReN: the network is “open to a range of” methods and theories of linguistics applied to sport, as well as “a range of” sporting contexts. Similarly, the statement invites both scholars and students (“established and emerging”), from around the world (“more than fifteen countries”). Of course, as explored in this paper, such an expansive, open, and inclusive agenda does not come without its challenges.
Drawing a line: Sports linguistics and sports communication
In 2016, I conducted a short literature review of sports linguistics for the introduction to the edited volume The Discourse of Sport (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b). In that process, it became very clear that linguistics had been applied to sport. This, of course, was a positive development; it was motivating and legitimizing to discover that theories and methods of linguistics could be productively applied to sport. I even discovered an online bibliography, produced by the same colleagues who published the aforementioned The Linguistics of Football (Lavric et al., Reference Lavric, Pisek, Skinner and Stadler2008), titled Innsbruck Football and Language Bibliography (Giorgianni & Lavric, Reference Giorgianni and Lavric2013).
What I was not expecting was the volume of research in communication studies applied to sport. Simply put, the canon of sports communication studies was prolific when compared with sports linguistics. This was best illustrated by two key publication outputs: a Routledge handbook that was published in 2013, the Routledge Handbook of Sport Communication (Pedersen, Reference Pedersen2013), and the Q1 journal: Communication and Sport. There was simply not an equivalent research presence, and certainly not a designated journal of the same status, for linguistics and sport.
Despite my expansive ambitions for sports linguistics, I chose not to include work in sports communication as part of the field-building for sports linguistics (at least for the research output I was involved in). This position was clearly articulated in the introduction to the edited volume Discourse of Sport:
While these volumes mention “communication”, neither mentions “language,” or the discipline of linguistics. The effort of this book is, therefore, to offer an alternative, close linguistic analysis, framed within a “Discourse” view of the social context of language use in sport (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b, p. 6).
Moreover, in the introduction to that volume, I drew on Gee’s (Reference Gee1990, Reference Gee2014) distinction between big D and little d discourse to not only clarify what was meant by discourse in the title to that volume, but mainly, to emphasize the role of language and linguistics (little d discourse) as integral to the studies in the volume, and in turn, to distinguish my work, our collective work in the volume, and “our contribution to the field,” from research in sports communication studies (big D discourse). For us, little d discourse neatly captured a theorized, principled, and close language analysis; the work of linguists analyzing language-in-use. Whereas big D discourse, following Gee (Reference Gee1990), captured language plus – social practices, ways of being, and identity construction – much more aligned with the approaches to sports discourse in communication studies. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive perspectives on discourse; it is always a matter of emphasis, as noted in our volume:
We need to be very clear that we conceptualise these D/discourses as complementary and not mutually exclusive. If we are to do our job effectively as social linguists in describing, analysing, and bringing to consciousness the “little d” discourse of sport, then we will invariably have something to say about the “big D” Discourse of sport. As linguists, however, our emphasis is predominately on language. And as will be discussed in the following section, it is precisely this emphasis on language-in-use in sport, a close analysis of the “little d” discourse in sport, that we see as our contribution to the field (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Walsh, Vine, Jureidini, Caldwell, Walsh, Vine and Jureidini2016b, p. 2).
Since that time, I have re-articulated this position in other publications, such as Walsh et al. (Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024): “our focus is specific to linguistics rather than the broader theories and methods of communication studies” (p. 9). And while the recent handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) nods to communication studies (alongside a range of language analysis traditions, including discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics), a very clear emphasis in that handbook is on language and linguistics, or, as we note, “the analytical power of language-focused approaches” (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). Indeed, File et al. (Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press) refer to language as empirical data on several occasions in their introduction chapter, in order to distinguish ourselves and our methods of analysis from communication studies. The following extract makes this position abundantly clear:
Despite this ubiquity, the role of language in sport has often been overlooked or treated as secondary. Where it has been acknowledged, it has typically been folded into broader discussions of team dynamics, media coverage, and psychological preparation. In many cases, language and communicative practices have been acknowledged but rarely analysed as central organizing forces in their own right. In other words, language is referenced but not studied or deeply interrogated. This handbook begins from a different premise: that sport cannot be fully understood without sustained attention to language. Language does not merely accompany sport; it is constitutive of it (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
From my experience, at least, there has been no dialogue between me and those working in sports communication studies. I write this with no judgment of either party. Perhaps, in time, dialogue will emerge. Or not. What is clear, is that this disciplinary delineation is a critical part of my story; that despite an overt openness to methods of linguistic analysis, and interdisciplinarity more generally, a metaphorical line was drawn, at least by me, between linguistics and communication studies on the grounds that language needs to be the object of inquiry, and that the methods of language analysis need to be theorized, principled, and close.
Linguistics for sport; sport for linguistics
I was recently invited by students from an English Language Studies program at the University of Santo Tomas (Philippines) to speak on the topic of sports linguistics, titled: Unravelling Issues and Perspectives in Sports Linguistics. In producing this seminar, I took the opportunity to chronicle my own research in sports linguistics, beginning with my honors thesis on footballers in their post-match interview (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2009), to my most recent paper examining the voice quality of the in-game, language-in-action of sports people (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026). As I examined my small contribution, I was particularly struck by personal questions of motivation, purpose, and audience: what have I been trying to achieve in bringing together these two worlds, linguistics and sport, sport and linguistics? Or, in Bakhtin (Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981) terms, who was my imagined audience or audiences? What became clear in reviewing my work is that I have been writing to three distinct audiences: the sports industry, the academy, and linguists.
At certain times, and for different projects, I have been focused on revealing to those in the sports industry how language works. And in particular, how a close analysis of language through linguistic theories and methods might help those professions solve problems in sport. In terms of writing to the sports industry, this has tended to be in the form of nontraditional research outputs, such as industry resources (e.g., Cominos et al., Reference Cominos, Caldwell and Gloede2016), industry reports (e.g., Caldwell & MacGill, Reference Caldwell and MacGill2016), and media (e.g., Caldwell & Walsh, Reference Caldwell and Walsh2019). I have also, on occasions, made a point of concluding my scholarly publications with explicit reference to the sports industry, especially those working in high-performance (at the elite/professional level of sport), hoping to flag the importance of a close language analysis in sport for the purpose of enhancing sporting performance, and ultimately winning sporting competition. The extract below, for example, is taken from the aforementioned most recent publication, examining voice quality in language-in-action in sport:
… the field (and industry) of high performance in sport might consider the physiological implications of these findings—what is the physical impact and implications of such loud, fast, tense vocalizations? Or, are some types of vocalizations more effective (or otherwise) than others in terms of their intended outcome? Is there an optimal number of lexical repetitions? Is naming more effective in calling for the ball than prepositions of location? (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026, p. 90)
At the same time, I have spent a lot of work engaging with and attempting to convince the academy more broadly about the merits of linguistics and a close language analysis of sports discourse. Indeed, many of my publications acknowledge related fields in sports studies, such as sports sociology, sports media studies, and sports psychology. However, I have never presented this in an adversarial way, that is, linguistic studies in sport are better than sociology, media studies, etc. Rather, I have always presented my work in sports linguistics as an opportunity for greater collaboration and interdisciplinary research; that close language analysis will complement and add to other fields, and vice versa. For example, several of my studies draw on language data from sports media. In turn, I have encouraged greater collaboration with those experts: “It is clear, as intimated by Caldwell (Reference Caldwell2020), that linguistics seeking to examine mediatised sports discourse need to seek support from their teammates in media studies, and vice versa” (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, p. 137). Similarly, the aforementioned publication (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2026, p. 90) notes in its concluding remarks: “Of relevance to this study would be research into sport, especially the fields of sports sociology and sports psychology, no doubt generating insights into why these players make the meanings that they do.”
A similar, albeit slightly different rhetorical position was taken in a book-length publication I coauthored: Evaluative Language in Sport (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024). Here, rather than a call for arms in terms of greater collaboration between linguists and other disciplines, the book instead overtly engages with the contributions made by other scholarship (especially in the social sciences and humanities) and connects that to the linguistic analyses presented in the book:
To be clear, we are not sociologists or social theorists. We are linguists working with a social theory of language. And as such, throughout this book, we draw on the expertise of social theorists working in sports to guide our language findings and often to motivate our particular language analysis. For example, in Chapter 2 we draw on the work of sociologist Giulianotti (Reference Giulianotti2002) and his taxonomy of spectator types in soccer. In this case, we use our discourse analysis tools to elaborate on, critique and help inform Giulianotti’s (Reference Giulianotti2002) theorising of spectator types. At the same time, Giulianotti (Reference Giulianotti2002) informs (and inspired) our close text analysis, providing us with insight into the “big D” Discourses that exist in the culture of fan participation in soccer (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024, p. 11).
Finally, throughout all these studies, my focus (imagined audience) has always been talking back to language through sport; telling linguists more about language and how it works vis-à-vis the analysis of sports discourse. My motivation here is not the sports industry as an end user of my research, nor is my aim to legitimize and integrate linguistics within the interdisciplinary academy, but instead, to reveal to my fellow linguists how language in sport works, and what a close analysis of language in sport might tell us about our theories and understandings of language more generally. Working predominately but not exclusively with systemic functional linguistics (SFL) (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, Reference Halliday and Hasan1985), I have had much to say about language and how it works in sport. Although, unlike the rhetorical call to arms cited above (intended for the industry and the academy), this intended audience cannot so easily be captured in a few quotes. If I were to try to summarize my work in sports linguistics, and my contribution to understanding how language works, I would classify it into three main areas: interpersonal language in sport, mediatized language in sport, and language-in-action in sport. In this venture, I find myself not only talking to theories and theorists in SFL, but also to sociolinguistics, discourse analysts, interactional linguistics, and so on. This is probably best illustrated by my very first study in sports discourse, where I examined the language of Australian Rules footballers in their post-match interviews (Caldwell, Reference Caldwell2009). In short, this study found that both journalists and sports people deployed particular linguistic strategies to maintain neutrality in terms of evaluating (positively or negatively) the performance of the interviewed player. In other words, the journalists and sports people were neither overly positive nor overly negative (they remained neutral) in their appraisal of the player, their teammates, the opposition, and so on, irrespective of the result of the preceding game (and the performance of the player being interviewed). Here I drew on neutralism from conversation analysis (CA) (e.g., Greatbatch, Reference Greatbatch, Bell and Garrett1998) and appraisal from SFL (Martin & White, Reference Martin and White2005), contributing back to both descriptions and theories of language – adding evaluative lexis to CA’s neutralism, and integrating turn-taking principles with appraisal.
As this brief recount reveals, any binary of sport and linguistics, or linguists and sport, is misleading. I have and continue to be motivated by applied linguistics for sport (e.g., close language analysis for high performance), applied linguistics for sports research (e.g., close language analysis for sports sociologists), and sport for applied linguistics (e.g., close language analysis for theories and methods of linguistics). In Bakhtinian terms (Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981), my voice is particularly heteroglossic in this endeavor. I acknowledge and engage with multiple, distinct audiences. And as explored in the section below, these audiences often have quite distinct ways of knowing their respective fields.
Another productive way of thinking about my experience here is through Halliday’s (Reference Halliday and Webster2008) appliable linguistics and his dialectic of theory-practice, practice-theory. In simple terms, my application of linguistics to engage with problems (issues, topics, etc.) in sport, in turn, pushes and shapes the linguistic theories and methods I work with. Or put another way, I use my linguistic analyses of sport to talk back to language, to innovate language description, and contribute to linguistic theory. For example, my recent work, and that of my colleagues (e.g., Caldwell, Reference Caldwell, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, Reference Caldwell2026; Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell and Ross2021), draws on and contributes to the theoretical architecture of SFL, revealing, through the concepts of stratification and rank, that the closer language gets to action, the more the meanings from the higher stratum of lexicogrammar move to the lower stratum of phonology. In terms of rank, “this breaks down clause structures to rely heavily on group/phrase and word choices and flattens phonological patterns of intonation, rhythm and syllable structures to rely more on voice quality and timing” (Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell and Ross2021, p. 274). At the same time, my linguistic analyses of sport are grounded in an intention to innovate practice and solve problems in sport. Drawing again on those studies of language-in-action in sport cited above, this means supporting best practice in effective on-field communication (language-in-action) for sports people; helping to solve the common problem of on-field miscommunication in sport. In this case, to tell those working in the field (players, coaches, spectators) that it is not only what is said, but how it sounds, that is critical to effective on-field communication in physical, fast-paced, high-intensity, sporting contexts.
Softening boundaries
With the exception of communication studies (a point I return to below), my sports linguistics story thus far can be very much characterized as a blurring of categories (or weak classification) in Bernstein’s (Reference Bernstein2000) terms.Footnote 2 For example, the ReN statement for Applied Linguistics and Sport, which I coauthored, is unequivocally open to any type of linguistics, so long as it is applied to sport. And the handbook I coauthored has a similar weak classification of categories of linguistics: “Methodologically, the volume spans interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography, corpus linguistics, critical discourse analysis and narrative inquiry, among others” (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). As noted above, my own scholarship in sports linguistics is especially heteroglossic (Bakhtin, Reference Bakhtin and Holquist1981); it explicitly talks to multiple audiences (the industry, the academy, and linguistics). And although I mostly work with the theory and methods of SFL, I often draw on other theories and theorists from linguistics; again, a relatively weak classification of what constitutes linguistic theory and methodology. As noted above, I also openly encourage and practice interdisciplinarity, drawing on scholarship from outside of linguistics, again, blurring the boundaries in Bernstein’s terms. This interdisciplinary mission is reflected in the following quote from the handbook:
The concept of a “field in formation” is particularly useful here. As interdisciplinary scholarship becomes more fluid, the boundaries of research areas often form through shared questions and collaborative practices rather than disciplinary borders. Scholars such as Klein (Reference Klein2021) have described these emerging zones as “transaction spaces,” where researchers from diverse traditions engage with common concerns, even if they do not share the same theoretical language or methodological commitments. Similarly, Qi et al. (Reference Qi, Zhou, Sun, Huang and Zhang2024) highlights the value of labeled boundary-crossing activities, where there are deliberate efforts to build dialogue across fields while acknowledging the distinct contributions of the constituent parts. It is perhaps this openness that gives the field its energy, relevance, and momentum. Again, to be clear, we use the term “field” to signal this growing coherence without fixing boundaries. The contributions in this volume demonstrate that language and sport research is more than a collection of case studies or a thematic overlap. It is a space animated by shared interests, conceptual innovation, and methodological experimentation. It draws from sociolinguistics, sport studies, anthropology, education, media studies, and beyond. It brings together scholars with diverse training and professional identities who are nonetheless invested in understanding how communication organizes the social life of sport. Rather than prescribing a definitive scope or vision, we see this handbook as part of a broader process of field building. It offers a foundation for ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and expansion. We hope to affirm not only the legitimacy of this area of study, but also its potential to support interdisciplinary inquiry, to inform practice, and to offer new perspectives on both sport and language as central domains of human life (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
I have hinted at the benefits of a weak classification in terms of community building. And I will do so again in the conclusion to this paper. However, it is equally important to consider the potential negative implications of an interdisciplinary focus such as this. To be clear, what follows is not what has happened, at least to my mind and certainly not what is produced in recent scholarship, including the handbook (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). However, given my weakly-classified positions cited above – where linguistic theories and methods of analysis are equally valid, and all disciplines outside of linguistics are valid, and have the potential to contribute to knowledge building in sports linguistics – one must be cautious not to fall into what Maton (Reference Maton2014) refers to as a relativist code; where many kinds of knowledge claims are equally valid, and there is little emphasis on who is a legitimate knower. The ultimate concern here is a knowledge blindness in sports linguistics, where knowledge is treated as “everything and nothing” (Maton, Reference Maton2014, p. 1).
Personally, I do not envisage a relativist future for sports linguistics, where anything goes, and what constitutes knowledge about sports discourse is essentially diluted and can never accumulate. I say this because of two critical points of strong classification (Bernstein, Reference Bernstein2000) articulated in this endeavor: the field of application – sport – and the clear demarcation made between linguistics and communication studies. The knowledge produced in sports linguistics, as I see it, is clear and evolving by virtue of these two strong boundaries: the field of sport, coupled with a theorized, principled, close language analysis. Of course, a constant awareness (and critical caution) needs to be maintained, resisting a relativist code (Maton, Reference Maton2014), and continuing to contribute to the evolution of knowledge(s) for sports linguistics.
At this point, I would again point readers to the handbook, and the introductory section titled: Core questions and emerging directions in the field of language and sport (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press). While the 14 questions listed are broad in scope, they do direct those working in this field of application, and those seeking to work in this field of application, to specific kinds of knowledge production, for example, “How do linguistic features (e.g., syntax, modality, lexis) vary across sport-specific genres such as coach talk, commentary, and interviews?” And: “How do media and institutional discourses shape what is seen as legitimate, desirable, or transgressive in sport?” And: “How can research in this space inform pedagogy, coach education, policy, or inclusion strategies in sport organizations?” Indeed, as the quote below from the handbook demonstrates, any weak classification is invariably tightened by our explicit focus on language and sport.
They [core questions characterizing sports linguistics to date] invite researchers to think across levels of analysis, methodological boundaries, and disciplinary traditions in the search for knowledge about language, sport, and interconnections between the two. The study of language in sport should attend to the interplay between the micro and the macro, the descriptive and the critical, the analytic and the applied (File et al., Reference File, Caldwell and Meânin press).
Concluding remarks
I am extremely grateful for the invitation to write this position paper. It has provided me with an opportunity to pause and to critically reflect on my contributions thus far to developments in applied linguistics in sport. Through the writing of this paper, I am now more conscious of the reasons underpinning the decisions I have made in the past, and in turn, those decisions I will make in the future vis-à-vis sports linguistics. And while I have not developed a set of findings or guidelines for those seeking to undertake similar field building in applied linguistics, I hope this paper provides readers with insights into my reading of my experience(s) of building a community around a specific field of application in applied linguistics. To that end, I finish with three additional (and personal) insights which I hope are instructive to readers.
First, while the variable of power is always at play (in my case, for example, professional ambition, publication outputs), I think it is fair to say that my two key actions – coauthored publications and the establishment of the ReN – are ultimately guided by solidarity. In other words, if one is seeking to establish a specific field of application in applied linguistics, then this must be done through collaboration with peers, as well as consolidating (acknowledging) what has come before. Of course, as noted in the section above, it is important to reflect on what might then get compromised through such collaboration and consolidation. Regardless, the point I want to make here is that research endeavors that foreground collaboration (e.g., edited volumes, special issue journals, seminars, symposiums), especially with a range of applied linguists (from different theories, methods, and traditions of language analysis), are vital. Not only does such dialogue have the potential to complement and energize scholarship; it also signals to all linguists that they are welcome.
Second, many of my colleagues working in sports linguistics are indeed themselves fans of sport. This point was explicitly made in my publication with Walsh and Jureidini, where we literally introduced the book with the question – why sports discourse? – responded as follows:
We are fans. We play, watch and argue about sport. As linguists and social scientists, we want to better understand our relationship to sport, and in particular the ways in which we communicate in, through, and about sport (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Caldwell and Jureidini2024, p. 1).
Of course, as noted throughout this paper, our motivation to explore the language of sport is more than simply our connection to that field of application. At the same time, it feels disingenuous not to acknowledge that this is a powerful motivating factor in terms of community building. All of the colleagues I have met thus far in sports linguistics, to varying degrees, of course, are fans of sport. And in many cases, their fandom is extreme. They are especially close to sport, as spectators, consumers, participants, and so on. The point I am making here is that it is okay to acknowledge, and perhaps even leverage, the bonding that occurs over the respective field of application. I would presume, for example, that those linguists working in specific fields of application, such as food and wine, clothing, or aviation, have interests in those respective areas. Similarly, those in more established fields of application in applied linguistics, such as language and law, medicine, or the classroom, presumably have some kind of affiliation and connection with the field of their linguistic inquiry. Again, from my experience, that certainly appears to be the case with those working in sports linguistics, where we often banter and bond through sport, alongside the language of sport.
Third and finally, I want to echo the sentiments expressed by Doran et al. (Reference Doran, Caldwell, Ross, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025) in the extract below; to caution that affection for (bonding through) a field is only part of the picture, but mainly to remind myself, and readers, that we (in sports linguistics) are, relatively speaking (cf. language and law, language and medicine) in the very early stages of collaborating and consolidating. As such, if nothing else, I hope this position paper has helped make sports linguistics more visible and accessible to those wishing to apply linguistics to sport:
…those engaging in sports linguistics do not just do so for the love and interest of sport and language, but to be able to contribute back to sport itself. This may be as an extension to educational linguistic efforts in relation to coaching pedagogy; it may be in relation to supporting sports psychology and the social development of players; or it may be in relation to supporting high performance in sport itself. As a field, we are only just beginning to contribute to these areas; but give it time, effort and discussion, and sports linguistics can move toward having a significant role in supporting sport and the people involved in it, whatever that may be (Doran et al., Reference Doran, Caldwell, Ross, Ross, Caldwell and Doran2025, pp. 233–234).