An HL Example Of Headline Writing

1 Lara Burazer, Vestnik , letnik 2002/2003
Mag. Lara BURAZER
Filozofska fakulteta
Oddelek za prevajalstvo
A human linguistic approach to analyzing written communication – an example
of headline writing
Abstract
A human linguistic approach to analyzing written communication – an example of headline
writing
A human linguistic approach to analyzing written communication offers a new insight into how
readers as linkage participants can understand the writer’s point, in this case in a word play.
According to the human linguistic theory, as outlined by V.H. Yngve (1996), instances of human
communication can be analyzed in terms of HL concepts of groups of communicating individuals
that participate in various linkages (sometimes overlapping) where their functions are realized
through their participant role parts. The activities of linkages and the behavior of the participants are
dealt with in terms of task procedures in a hierarchy of tasks and subtasks. The newspaper is
analyzed as a prop. It is an important part of the assemblage and thus contributes to the ‘context of
situation’. It also influences the readers’ expectations. The author gives an analysis of the
participants’ expectations as defined in human linguistics. These are dealt with in terms of
expectation procedures designed to represent a pulse from an expected event. The author concludes
with a brief outline of how the proposed data can be scientifically tested.
Povzetek
Pristop k analizi pisne komunikacije po modelu V.H.Yngveja (‘human linguistics’) – primer
pisanja naslovnih vrst
Pristop k analizi pisne komunikacije po modelu V.H.Yngveja (‘human linguistics’; v nadaljevanju
HL) ponuja nov pogled na to, kako je bralec kot udeleženec v komunikacijskem sestavu (linkage
participant) zmožen razbrati pisčev namen; v našem primeru gre za besedno igro. V skladu s teorijo
V.H.Yngveja (1996) lahko primere človeške komunikacije analiziramo kot HL koncepte skupin
posameznikov, ki sodelujejo v različnih komunikacijskih sestavih (ti se včasih tudi prekrivajo), kjer
se njihove funkcije realizirajo v obliki udeleženskih vlog (participant role part). Dejavnost sestavov
in njihovih udeležencev je obravnavana z vidika hierarhije nalog (tasks) in podnalog (subtasks),
izražene v obliki delovnih postopkov (task procedures). Časopis je analiziran kot rekvizit (prop), ki
predstavlja pomemben del komunikacijskega zbira (assemblage), prispeva k 'situacijski sovisnosti'
in vpliva na bralčeva pričakovanja (expectations). Avtorica podaja tudi HL obravnavo pričakovanj
udeležencev, in sicer v obliki pričakovalnih postopkov (expectation procedures), ki predstavljajo
pulz pričakovanega dogodka. V zaključku avtorica poda še kratek oris možnosti znanstvenega
preizkusa navedenih podatkov.
1. INTRODUCTION
'Harrison had love-Haight relationship with S.F.' (a newspaper headline)
This front page headline, published in San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday, December 2nd
2001,
appeared shortly after the death of George Harrison, former Beatle. The headline does not reveal the

exact contents of the article, but rather subtly hints at it. In order to find out the exact meaning of the
headline, reading the article is required of the reader.
Upon reading the article, the reader discovers that it talks about Harrison’s feelings towards San
Francisco, CA, based on his experience with the city in the 60s. In a nutshell, the writer states that
Harrison was not particularly impressed by the hippies, who were hanging around the Haight area
and the Golden Gate Park. He did, however, donate funds to the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, which
kept it afloat.
What is interesting about this headline is that the author, Don Lattin, uses the expression ‘love-
Haight relationship’ to appeal, on one hand, to the readers’ knowledge of the concept of ‘love-hate
relationship’ (originally a term used in psychology), and, on the other hand, to the readers’
geographical knowledge (Haight is the name of the street in Haight-Ashbury, an area in the city of
San Francisco, CA).
There are several factors to be considered in reference to understanding this wordplay.
1. The first is geographical. San Francisco Chronicle is a local newspaper therefore its readers are
expected to be familiar with Haight. They would, for the most part, be able to work out the double
meaning in the wordplay. However, this particular headline could only be successfully used in a
certain area, with a geographically limited target reader group. The author could not expect the
readers who do not live in the area, or who have not visited it, to untangle the wordplay in the
headline without additional information, possibly obtained upon reading the article.
2. Related to the geographical factor is the linguistic factor. The article is written in English
therefore the readers are expected to be familiar with the English language. The linguistic factor in
written communication is closely related to the factor of literacy. The target reader group is thus
further limited by these factors, literacy and English speaker, since they do not only have to be able
to read the headline, they also have to be able to untangle the spelling in the wordplay (capital letter
in Haight, and –aight instead of –ate, although with same pronunciation).
3. With each individual reader, the important factor is their life experience and their memory of the
notions featured in the headline.
4. And there is also the time factor to be considered in understanding the wordplay. In this example
we could say that the time factor is realized in several ways:
- time lapse between the writer writing the headline and the reader reading it;
- current circumstances, i.e. the recent death of George Harrison, which means more media
coverage, exposure, the past tense form of the verb have;
- age of the target reader group: adults, possibly hippies or roughly belonging to that
generation.
In the following paragraphs, we first apply V.H. Yngve’s human linguistic model of relevant
linkages and look at narrowing down these factors to relevant set of linkage, participant and prop
properties which account for the understanding of the message. The second part of the paper deals
with linkage tasks and subtasks which reflect the relevant linkage activity.

2. APPLYING HL THEORY TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEADLINE
A piece of written human communication can be analyzed from a number of angles. Since we are
dealing with the physical domain, written messages, like other pieces of communicative activities,
are dealt with in terms of real people and real objects involved in the communication process. These
are analyzed at various levels.
One of the top levels in HL consists of the analysis of the network of linkages, as a linguistic
representation of society, which consists of a number of linkage hierarchies. The next level is
represented by individual linkages, which are directly or indirectly coupled with each other. The
linkage level of analysis reveals linkage constituents and their role parts. At the next level, the
participant level, the analysis is focused on identifying the relevant linguistic properties, as well as
the relevant tasks and subtasks.
We shall first generally outline the linkage community and the linkage hierarchy in which the
relevant coupled linkages occur. Next, we will focus on the particular linkage in which the headline
is a participant. In the following step, the analysis at the linkage participant level will deal with
participants’ properties, tasks and subtasks.
2.1. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO THE HL THEORY
As the first step, we identified the relevant linkages, their constituents - i.e. the participants and the
representations of the other real objects making up an assemblage - and their role parts in the chosen
communicative activity.
Linkages:
writerreader
realized through the two messenger type linkages:
headline writer
headline reader
Participants:
writer
reader
Other identified objects in the assemblages:
[Newspaper]
Vision channel
Technological channel
The technological channel linkages:
editorprinter
printerdistributor
distributorvendor

vendorbuyer
Participants in the channel:
[editor]
printer
distributor
vendor
buyer
The latter set of linkages is not subject to a detailed analysis at this level of observation.
Role parts:
The role parts coincide with the participants in the linkages. In the case of the role parts reader and
buyer, which are connected to the participant reader and participant buyer, respectively, on a
higher level of observation, we find that they stem from the same communicating individual.
2.2. LINKAGE DIAGRAM
The identified linkages represent a community. In HL, the concept of community serves to analyze a
number of directly or indirectly coupled component linkages. In this particular case of headline
writing we are dealing with component linkages with overlapping participants.1
The identified linkages, editorprinter, printerdistributor, distributorvendor,
[vendorbuyer], are in our analysis, as pointed out above, viewed as part of the channel, the
physical energy flow that carries the message.2
2.3. LINKAGE HIERARCHIES
In HL, linkage hierarchies serve as a representation of participant interaction with organized
groups3
. In our example of a headline we analyze the path from writer to reader in terms of linkage
hierarchies. Participant writer communicates with his readership through his participation in the
linkage newsroom. Participant writer participates directly with participant editor in the
subordinate linkage newspaper. Participant editor has to clear his/her decisions with his
superiors, who are a part of a separate subordinate linkage hierarchy management, consisting of
participant editor-in-chief and a subordinate linkage top management. The latter, top
management, links directors to shareholders.
1
These are ‘coupled through an intermediate linkage to which they are both directly coupled, or through a
chain of intermediate linkages each directly coupled to the next.’ (Yngve 1996, p.231)
2
In HL, the channel is primarily defined as ‘a representation in linguistic theory of the physical means of
energy flow and the energy flow itself in an assemblage that includes just those properties that are required
to account for the communicatively relevant energy flow in the assemblage.’ (Yngve 1996:128).
3
… through interaction with one member of the group, the person – communicating individual - is in effect
interacting with the whole group (such as in case of inviting a family to visit, making an appointment at a
clinic…)’. (Yngve 1996, p.237)

In addition to participant editor and the linkage management, the linkage newspaper links
another two lower level linkages, printing and distribution. Linkage printing links employees in
the printing establishment, and linkage distribution links the participant(s) manager(s) in the
establishment with the linkage driving. And, finally, the linkage driving links the participant
driver to the linkage newsstand, which ultimately links the participant vendor to the participant
buyer.
The participant buyer and the participant reader in the chosen example are a part of the same
communicating individual. They represent the point in which the linkage network comes full circle.
Exempt are the cases where the participant reader is not also the participant buyer. This could
occur as a result of co-presence of a number of participants readers, whereby the prop newspaper
would be passed from one to the other. Not all of the participants readers would thus have to take
on the role part of the participant buyer in the linkage vendorbuyer. Another such instance
would occur in the case when the communicating individual asks another communicating individual
to buy the prop newspaper on their behalf. In this case, the participant buyer and the participant
reader would not belong to the same communicating individual.
All the above linkages ultimately form a linkage network of linkage hierarchies where individual
linkages play link part, mediating between the super-ordinate linkage and the link participant.
In an ideal world, the participant writer and the participant reader would be coupled through the
participant writer’s receiving feedback on his writing from participant(s) reader(s). This is
sometimes the case, but it does not, however, apply in this case, where the nature of the article is
that of ‘non-interaction with the readership’.
2.3.1. BROADCAST TYPE OF DIRECT COUPLING
In the case of headline writing, there are at least two possible HL analyses. The first is that we are
dealing with the so called broadcast type of direct coupling, where the writer is looked upon as the
source, and his readers as individually forming separate linkages with the writer, the contact
between these linkages being in the writer in the center (Ygnve 1996, 222).
In the framework of the broadcast type of direct coupling, the linkages editorprinter,
printerdistributor, distributorvendor, [vendorbuyer] are considered the technological
channel through which the message is transmitted from writer to reader, ‘generally without co-
presence between more than small groups of the audience, and allowing no feedback or discussion’,
(ibid. 223-24).
2.3.2. MESSENGER TYPE OF DIRECT COUPLING
The second possible HL analysis of instances of written communication is in terms of the messenger
type of direct coupling, where the coupling consists of two interacting linkages directly coupled
through their contact in the messenger, who is a participant in both linkages. In the case of writing,

the messenger is represented by the written record, in our case the headline on the front page of the
newspaper.
It follows that the path from writer to reader can be viewed as a messenger type of direct coupling,
consisting of two separate linkages, headline writer and headline reader.
Figure 1: Messenger type of direct coupling
The first one, headline writer, has as constituents the participant writer and the prop newspaper.
‘Communicative activity in this linkage results in changes in the properties of some of the props
constituting the written message’ (ibid.228).
The second one, headline reader, has as constituents the prop newspaper and the participant
reader. ‘Communicative activity in this linkage results in the reader understanding the message’
(ibid. 228).
The messenger is represented by the headline, which is in HL analysis viewed as one of the
properties of the prop newspaper, i.e. ink on paper. Only in the plex of the participating individuals
is the headline associated with other relevant properties relating to its message.
2.4. NEWSPAPER AS A PROP
The newspaper is the main prop in the linkages headline writer and headline reader. Because of
the possibilities of wide distribution offered by the modern technology the readership is
undeterminable; an infinite number of readers is possible, especially due to ‘delay characteristics’,
‘possibility of storage’ (ibid.) and disappearing geographical constraints.4
4
‘’The invention of printing has made possible the production of many copies of the prop that can be widely
distributed geographically. If printing is analyzed as part of the channel, the result is multiple linkages with
the broadcast type of direct coupling through contact in the author.’’ (Yngve 1996, p.229)
Headline
writer
Headline
reader
RP reader
PP newspaper
RP writer
Particip.
writer
Prop
newspaper
Particip.
reader

The analysis of the newspaper as a prop in the linkages is also important from the point of view of
the newspaper being a part of the assemblage. Firstly, it contributes to the ‘context of situation’.
Secondly, it is linked to the readers’ expectations (discussed in the paragraphs below) through its
prop properties related to the general characteristics of the publication: certain types of texts appear
in the newspaper, the headlines need to be attractive, original, etc., in accordance with and reflecting
the newspaper policy.
3. PROPERTIES IN HUMAN LINGUISTICS
In HL, the relevant properties, which contribute to the piece of communication under investigation,
are called linguistic properties of a person (Yngve 1996:123). These are further analyzed in terms of
four types of properties: categorial, conditional, procedural and foundational properties. Categorial,
conditional and procedural properties are also referred to with an ‘umbrella term’ informational
properties. (Ibid. 164)
The relevant linguistic properties in the linkages headline writer and headline reader can thus be
listed as the following:
the linkage 


headline writer



categorial properties of writer:
1. <can speak English>
2. <able to write>
conditional properties of writer:
1. <creative writing skills>
2. <employed by the newspaper>
3. <assigned to the article on Harrison>
4. <given adequate time span>
the linkage 


headline reader



categorial properties of reader:
1. <eyesight>
2. <literacy in Latin alphabet>
3. <can speak English>
conditional properties of reader:
1. <reader of the newspaper>
2. <has the newspaper>
3. <curiosity and interest in reading the headline>
4. <has time to read the headline>
In the case of written records there is always the importance of the prop properties to be considered,
in addition to the linkage and the participant properties. The prop in both linkages, headline writer

and headline reader, is the prop newspaper, associated with the following properties by the
communicating individuals:
categorial prop properties of newspaper:
1. <printed in Latin alphabet>
2. <featuring attractive headlines>
conditional prop properties of newspaper:
1. <available to readers>
2. <featuring the news article on Harrison>
3. <featuring the headline relevant to the story>
relating to the headline:
1. <short and concise>
2. <no in/definite articles>
3. <abbreviations where possible>
4. <witty>
5. <shocking>
6. <unusual>
7. <attractive names>
8. <involves a pun>
There are a number of other properties of the linkages and the communicating individuals, which are
not analyzed here for the reason of their being ‘below the level of the verisimilitude of the model of
theory we are dealing with at the moment’ (ibid.172). In HL these are referred to as the foundational
properties.
In the example of the headline analysis, some of the foundational properties are:
<the reader is a member of the human race>
<the reader is alive>
<blood circulation>
etc.
We could continue with this rather long list of foundational participant and linkage properties all the
way to the atomic structure. Such an investigation would lead to a disciplinary boundary below
which the nature of the evidence and the types of theories are appropriate to anatomy, physiology,
and the neurosciences. (Yngve 1996:173)5
3.1. PARTICIPANT PROPERTIES
At this point, the analysis at the participant level can be moved from the macro linguistic level,
involving general linguistic participant properties, to the micro linguistic level of investigation,
which looks into the specific linguistic participant properties. The latter include the participant
properties needed to understand the individual pieces of information in the communicated message.
5
[…] One of the advantages of a human linguistics over the linguistics of language is just the possibility that
some day this gap may be closed. (Yngve 1996:173)

The participant properties can be dealt with on several levels, depending on the desired results of the
tasks <write a headline> and <read the headline>.
In order for the participant [reader] to simply read the headline (first level), only the properties of
being able to recognize the individual letters are needed, <literacy in the Latin alphabet>. In order to
read and understand the units, the ‘words’ (second level), the properties of knowing English are
needed, <being an English speaker>, in addition to <literacy in the Latin alphabet>. In order to
create the meaning in the participant reader (third level), a complex set of properties based on the
participant reader’s life experience is needed, e.g. <know Harrison>, <know Haight>, <know love-
hate>, etc., in addition to <literacy in the Latin alphabet> and <can speak English>.
The participant reader’s reading of the headline occurs in the linkage headline reader. The
identified persons and objects of this linkage are the participant [reader] and the prop [newspaper].
There is only one role part in the linkage, the role part reader. The other relevant part of the
assemblage is the newspaper, which is in the linkage realized through its prop part newspaper.
The communicative activity in this linkage is the result of the participant reader’s carrying out the
linkage tasks and subtasks. The main task in this linkage is <read the headline>, with its subtasks:
<read Harrison>
<read had>
<read love>
<read hyphen>
<read Haight>
<read relationship>
<read with>
<read S>
<read dot>
<read F>
<read dot>
Each of these subtasks further breaks down into a series of parallel subtasks, which involve
accessing the properties related to the subtask. In accordance with this, the subtask <read Harrison>
triggers the subtasks of accessing the properties:
<Harrison sounds like /------/>
<Harrison is a family name>
These properties of the participant reader are the minimum required amount needed to understand
the message part Harrison. The following are optional:
<with Harrison the author is referring to George Harrison>
<George Harrison is male>
<George Harrison is associated with the Beatles>
<The Beatles were a music group>
<George Harrison has recently died>

The more properties in the plex of the individual are accessed, the deeper the level of understanding
on the part of the participant reader. But these reach outside the boundaries of the participant
reader in the linkage [headline reader].
With analogy to the above task hierarchy for the task of <read Harrison>, the task hierarchies for the
other parts of the message can be identified.
In the case of the word play ‘love-Haight relationship’, a set of tasks is involved in order for the
participant [reader] to register the ink on paper. These then trigger the set of subtasks by which the
four units blend into one unit. These subtasks involve activating the properties:
<love sounds like /---/>
<love is a positive emotion>
to account for the meaning of love.
<hyphen signifies a two word unit>
to account for the meaning of the hyphen.
<Haight sounds like /----/>
<H is a capital letter and signifies a name in Latin Alphabet>
<Haight is the name of a street in S.F.>
to account for the meaning of Haight.
<hate sounds like Haight>
<hate is a negative emotion>
to account for the meaning of hate.
<hate and Haight both sound like /heit/>
<love-Haight is a unit>
<love and hate are emotions opposite in meaning>
<relationship sounds like /---------/>
<the concept of relationship>
to account for the word play.
In order for the participant [reader] to comprehend the rest of the headline, had and with S.F., the
following properties need to be activated (not necessarily expressed with the proposed vocabulary):
<had sounds like /---/>
<had is referring to past possession>
<had is followed by another unit>
<with S.F. modifies love-Haight relationship>

<with sounds like /----/)
<S.F. is abbreviation for San Francisco>
<San Francisco sounds like /------------/>
<San Francisco is a city in the US>
The above represent the minimum set of properties of the participant reader needed to understand
the author’s headline, merely hinting at what the article is about. In order for the participant reader
to fully untangle its meaning, more detailed information can be obtained by reading the article.
In communicating individuals, activating properties is triggered by the relevant stimulus and is
automatic. The process of identifying the properties relating to the message probably doesn’t stop at
the minimum set of properties required for the understanding of the message, but rather continues to
activate other properties in the individual’s memory, in some way related to the message. Selection
of these is highly dependent on the individual’s properties involving their life experience and
memory selection processes triggered by the message.
4. LINKAGE TASKS AND SUBTASKS
Of the identified linkages, each one has a principle task: <accomplish writing assignment> is the
principle task in the linkage writereditor, <print article> is the principle task in the linkage
editorprinter, <distribute newspaper> is the principal task in the linkage printerdistributor,
<deliver newspaper> is the principal task in the linkage distributorvendor, and <buy
newspaper> is the principal task in the linkage vendorreader.
The tasks of <write a headline> and <read the headline> are principle tasks in the messenger type
linkages headline writer and headline reader, respectively. The linkage headline writer involves
the participant writer and the prop newspaper. The linkage headline reader involves the
participant reader and the prop newspaper.
4.1. THE TASKS <write a headline> and <read the headline>
The task <write a headline> is the main task in the messenger type linkage headline writer,
featuring the participant writer and the prop newspaper. It accomplishes through a series of
creative thought processes. There are a number of tasks and subtasks that can be identified in
relation to these processes.
One of the top-level tasks is conditioned by the conditional properties of the prop newspaper.
These are featured higher up in the linkage hierarchy, possibly in the linkages management and
editors, where they are set forth by the relevant participants, probably managers and editors,
depending on the internal organization of the newspaper establishment. These could involve
observation of proposed newspaper policies and rules concerning front page headlines, observing
the deadlines, etc.
The participant writer’s parallel processing, and thus simultaneous involvement in different
linkages, would in this case involve the participant writer’s properties associated with the prop

newspaper and with the participant reader as a member of the identified target group, as well as
the participant writer’s categorial and conditional properties relevant to the identified linkage.
The task <read the headline> is the principal task in the messenger type linkage [headline reader],
featuring the participant [reader] and the prop [newspaper]. The execution of this task triggers a
number of subtasks in the plex of the reader, simultaneously accessing properties generally and
specifically relating to the message, the relevant participant [reader]’s categorial and conditional
properties.
In the case of written communication, the participant writer only connects with other
participant(s), reader(s), after a time lapse. At the stage of the actual writing process, participant
writer’s connection to participant reader(s) is through expectations, as they are defined in HL.6
The participants never (necessarily) physically encounter each other, or in any other way
communicate with each other, apart from participating in each other’s expectation procedures (cf.
5.1.1.).
4.2. TASK PROCEDURES and CONTROL PROCEDURES
The following are the task hierarchies resulting from the main tasks in the relevant linkages
triggered by the activity in the linkages.
In writer in the linkage [headline writer]:
1. Task <write a headline>
1.1. subtask <refer to the article on Harrison>
1.1.2. subtask <include the name Harrison>
1.1.2.1. subtask <begin with Harrison>
1.2. subtask <make the headline attractive>
1.2.1. subtask <include a pun>
1.2.1.1. subtask <refer to opposite emotions>
1.2.1.1.1. subtask <refer to love>
1.2.1.1.2. subtask <refer to hate by including Haight>
1.2.1.1.3. subtask <connect love and Haight with a hyphen>
The following control procedure is set as a result of the subtasks of <refer to opposite
emotions>:
<concept of love> x <concept of hate> x <concept of hyphen connecting two related concepts> x
<concept of opposite emotions> x <concept of spelling rules> : <write love-hate>
6
In human linguistics, expectation procedures are designed to represent a pulse from an expected event. In
diagramming an expectation procedure, we use a ‘setting procedure (cf. Yngve 1996, p.164) and two control
procedures (cf. Yngve 1996, p.249-253) that produce a pulse marking a fall of a level’. (…) The
expectation/-expectation category is set to true by the set pulse. In the true condition the expectation
procedure expects event to become true, and when it does, the condition becomes false (that is, it changes to
–expectation) thus canceling the expectation (Yngve 1996, p. 263-264).

The following control procedure is set as a result of the parallel tasks of <refer to
Harrison’s relationship with S.F.>, <include attractive names> and <include the name
‘Haight’>:
<concept of Haight Street in S.F.> x <concept of small capitals> x <concept of big capitals to name
an entity> x <Haight sounds like hate> : <write the pun love-Haight>
1.2.2. subtask < refer to the city of S.F.>
1.2.2.1. subtask <refer to Harrison’s relationship with S.F.>
1.2.3. subtask <include attractive names>
1.2.3.1.subtask <include the name ‘Haight’>
The properties featured in the control procedures constitute the communicating individual’s pre-
context. The connotations that are initially brought into the communicating activity by these
properties are the ones ‘permanently associated [with them] in the categorial and procedural
properties’ (Yngve 1996, 289). They represent the communicating individual’s domain of control.
The concept of Haight brings in temporary association with the above stated properties involving
love, hate, etc. through conditional properties ‘as a result of previous communicative or non-
communicative activity or factors from the environment’. (289)
Both concepts, hate and Haight, are a part of relatively narrowly defined referential fields. In order
to understand the pun, a search-and-match procedure will be triggered in the communicating
individual upon registering the entity. The search-and-match procedure for ‘love-hate’ might turn up
matches from the standard referential fields like <opposite emotions>, <psychological term
denoting…>, depending on the individual’s memory properties at the time of communicating
activity.
A search-and-match procedure for ‘Haight’ might turn up matches from the standard referential
fields like <name of street in S.F.>, <hippies>, <the sixties>, etc., again depending on individual’s
memory properties.
In the case of reading the pun, ‘love-Haight’, the possible matches in its referential fields (both the
above mentioned possible matches) represent the pre-context of the communicative activity. In order
for the pun to be understood, ‘a new context and a recognition of a relationship of similarity
between the two has to be introduced’, (ibid. 292). A relationship of similarity in this case is in the
pronunciation: ‘hate’ and ‘Haight’ are pronounced the same, are homophones.
It follows that sames and differences in a pun involving spelling and pronunciation can successfully
be used only in written communication. In spoken communication, communicating individual would
have to explicitly explain these properties of the message to other communicating individuals.
In reader in the linkage [headline reader]:
1. Task <read the headline> requires the following task procedures in order for the control procedure
to be executed:
1.1. subtask <read Harrison>
1.2. subtask <read had>

1.3. subtask <read love>
1.3.1. subtask <read ‘l’>
1.3.2. subtask <read ‘o’>
1.3.3. subtask <read ‘v’>
1.3.4. subtask <read ‘e’>
1.3.5. subtask <read unit as /lov’/>
<concept of love> : <understand love>
1.4. subtask <read ‘hyphen’>
<concept of hyphen connecting two related entities> : <understand hyphen>
1.5. subtask <read Haight>
1.5.1. subtask <read ‘H’>
1.5.2. subtask <read ‘a’>
1.5.3. subtask <read ‘i’>
1.5.4. subtask <read ‘g’>
1.5.5. subtask <read ‘h’>
1.5.6. subtask <read ‘t’>
1.5.7. subtask <read unit as /heit/>
<concept of big capitals to name an entity> x <concept of Haight being a street in
S.F.> : <understand Haight>
<Haight sounds like /----/> x <Haight sounds like hate> x <know love and
hate are opposites> : <understand the pun>
1.6. subtask <read relationship>
1.7. subtask <read with>
1.8. subtask <read S>
1.9. subtask <read ‘dot’>
1.10. subtask <read F.>
1.11. subtask <read ‘dot’>
5.1. ACTIVITIES IN THE PLEX OF THE PARTICIPANT [WRITER] IN THE LINKAGE
[HEADLINE WRITER]
Because the article focuses on Harrison’s relationship with Haight, the writer’s initial subtasks of
<write a headline> are possibly <browse through memory>, <repeat the sound of Haight>, <find
properties similar to Haight>, <find properties including Haight>, < find properties relating to
Haight>, and the like.
The search-and-match procedure for <find properties relating to Haight> turns up a match in
<Haight sounds like hate>. This brings the entity HATE in wait in the temporary storage.

Now the search-and-match procedure is set for entities including Haight or hate. One match is
<love-hate relationship>, based on the property <Haight sounds like hate>, which is now an entity in
wait. The next search-and-match procedure is set for properties simultaneously relevant to love-hate
relationship, Haight and Harrison, which might turn up a number of properties ranging from closely
to loosely related to these entities. (Some of) The results of the search-and-match procedure might
be:
<Harrison didn’t like Haight>, <Harrison didn’t like the hippies>, <Harrison helped Haight
financially>, <Harrison visited Haight>, <Haight is a poor area>, <Haight needed financial
support>, <love-hate deals with opposite emotions>.
A selection among these properties is then made in order to incorporate the ones relevant to the task
of <include a pun>, relating to the super-ordinate task of <write a headline>, relating to the super-
ordinate task of <write an article on George Harrison>.
The next task in the writer is <write the pun>, which requires incorporating the following properties:
<short and concise>, <no in/definite articles>, <abbreviations where possible>, <witty>,
<shocking>, <unusual>, <attractive names>
in accordance with the newspaper policies and rules on space and redundant elements.
The writer includes <Harrison> to satisfy the headline criteria of using <attractive names>, <love-
hate relationship> to make the headline <shocking>, and <love-Haight relationship> to make the
headline <attractive>, <witty>, <shocking>, <unusual>, and most of all <short and concise>.
The <search> and <selection> tasks might have been accompanied by the simultaneous task of
<graphical representation> of these entities, involving the subtasks of <write down> x <spell out>.
The final selection among the possible headlines is a result of all the above stated tasks and subtasks,
and incorporates all the relevant properties to satisfy the newspaper policies and rules.
5.1.1. EXPECTATIONS IN HL
In the linkage [headline writer], one of the relevant tasks of the participant writer is <involve a
pun>, which after the participant [writer]’s selection process narrows down to the subtasks <refer to
‘love-hate relationship’> and <refer to ‘Haight’> simultaneously. By completing these tasks the
participant writer sets up an expectation procedure. The expectation is that the newspaper headline
containing the expression ‘love-Haight relationship’ will trigger certain tasks and subtasks in the
participant reader’s plex in the linkage headline reader, in case the event of reading occurs.
By incorporating the pun love-Haight relationship in the headline, the writer is setting up the
expectation that the reader will <recognize the pun>. On the lower level of observation the reader is
expected to carry out at least the following subtasks of the task <read the headline>:

<read the pun as love-hate>, <remember love-hate>, <remember Haight>, <remember opposite
emotions>.
The writer’s expectation is also that his reader will have and access in his plex the properties
relevant to these tasks, such as:
<reader of the newspaper>, <literate in Latin alphabet>, <can speak English>, <familiar with the
SFBA>, <love-hate are opposite emotions>, <Haight is a street in S.F.>
The other properties relating to complete understanding of the headline can be obtained upon
reading the article and are not among the relevant properties in completion of the task <read the
headline>.
Participant writer provides the message triggering the input pulse in the reader, the pun <love-
Haight relationship>. The results of the activities in the plex of the participant reader provide the
post-context triggering the output pulse, the pun refers to <love-hate relationship x Haight>’
(following an undeterminable time delay t), in which case the expectation procedure has been
executed successfully.
The writer’s expectation in relation to the reader can only be satisfied, set to –expectation, by means
of feed back from the reader after having read the headline. Another indicator are the ratings and the
newspaper sales. Otherwise the writer’s expectation remains at the expectation value.
5.2. ACTIVITIES IN THE PLEX OF THE PARTICIPANT [READER] IN THE LINKAGE
[HEADLINE READER]
Upon buying the newspaper and taking the time to read the headlines, the reader has satisfied the
expectations of the newspaper personnel – the editors, the writers, the managers, etc. The
expectation in wait of the reader is that the headlines will include (at least some of) the following
properties:
<English language>, <Latin alphabet>, <involve a pun>, <short and concise>, <no in/definite
articles>, <abbreviations where possible>, <witty>, <shocking>, <unusual>, <attractive names>.
Upon reading the headline on Harrison, in the reader’s plex a number of expectations are set to
expectation. An informed reader who is familiar with the expression love-hate relationship would
expect after reading LOVE and the hyphen that the following item would have to be HATE. In this
case, the properties of the participant [reader] <familiar with English spelling rules>, <familiar with
English pronunciation rules>, <familiar with Haight> are not relevant.
It follows that there are a number of ways for the reader to read Haight the same as hate:
1. the reader is familiar with the pronunciation and spelling rules of English and therefore realizes
that Haight sounds like hate
2. the reader is familiar with Haight, has heard of it before

3. the reader guesses at the pronunciation of Haight without knowing the specifics of spelling and
pronunciation rules of English, as well as without having heard of Haight before. The guess is
made on the basis of familiarity with the expression love-hate.
In the latter case the expectation procedure is set in the reader that the following element in the
headline, HAIGHT, is pronounced like HATE.
At this point, parallel expectations in wait in the reader are:
- the element following LOVE- is pronounced HATE
- love-Haight is a pun
- the writer is referring to love-hate relationship towards Haight
- Harrison had a love-hate relationship with Haight and S.F.
After reading LOVE and the hyphen, the expectation is set up in the reader that the following
element in the expression will be HATE. The value of the expectation procedure remains at
expectation for the duration of the reader’s search-and-match procedure for the element HAIGHT.
When the activity in the plex of the reader is successful in matching the HAIGHT element with the
property of <HAIGHT sounds like HATE>, the expectation turns to –expectation.
The visual channel provides the additional property of <mid-sentence capital letter in Haight
indicates a name>. It follows that the expression love-Haight means both, hate and Haight, which
suggests a word play, a pun.
The expectation procedure of <involves a pun> is satisfied and thus set to –expectation, along with
the simultaneous expectations of LOVE- is followed by /heit/ and love-Haight is a pun.
The pun expectation is satisfied in the reader because the item love-Haight does not refer to anything
in the referential field of the pre-context (love-Haight is not a well known or wide spread
expression). For it to have a position of property in the reader, it has to be interpreted by the reader,
made sense of. So, it’s either nonsense, or it is a pun.
The expectation procedure referring to Harrison having had a love-hate relationship with the city of
S.F., in particular with the Haight area is set to –expectation in case the reader’s search-and-match
procedure turns up the properties of:
<Harrison had a relationship with Haight>, <Harrison didn’t like Haight>, <Harrison helped
Haight>.
These results can be reached in various ways:
- by searching through the properties on Harrison and Haight stored in the reader’s memory and
selecting the ones relevant to the pun;
- by making an assumption that the writer had indeed based the coined expression on these
properties;
- by reading the article and thus activating the relevant properties in the plex of the reader.
The initially seemingly nonsensical expression of love-Haight, having the property of <not referring
to anything in the referential field> is thus added new properties:

<a pun>, <referring to love-hate>, <referring to Harrison’s relationship with Haight>.
In the case of this headline, the pun love-Haight is given new context, a new domain of control
(relates to Harrison and his relationship with S.F.). The property <Haight sounds like hate> is given
prominence over other familiar properties of <love-hate refers to a person having strong but mixed
feelings toward an entity>, <Haight is a name of a street>, <hippies are related to Haight>, and
many others.
Love-hate relationship is recycled through HATE being a homophone of HAIGHT. Since both, hate
and Haight, are relevant to the subject of the article, the parallel activities in the plex of the
participant [writer] make a selection, blend the two items together, thus producing a pun and at the
same time saving some valuable front-page space.
The task of the reader is to detect the new context and the prominent properties in it. Some readers
may fail at doing that, but the writer’s selections are based on expectations that his readers are
mostly residents of S.F., familiar with the 60s, the Beatles, the hippies, etc. But primarily on his
expectations that the readers are English speakers, literate, familiar with the Latin alphabet and
know how to pronounce Haight, based on their experience (have heard it before) or theoretical
knowledge (‘ai’ is in English usually pronounced /ei/). The writer also expects their experience with
newspaper headlines to be that they often involve puns. It may represent a good challenge to the
reader. Feedback on this subject would have a valuable position of setting the writer’s outstanding
expectations to –expectation.
6. THE TIME FACTOR IN WRITTEN COMUNICATION
It may just as well happen that the record of written communication never reaches its end,
participant reader, and therefore the tasks of the linkage headline reader never get realized. On
the other hand, there is the advantage of the written word which also accounts for its power.
Namely, the tasks which do not get realized in case of not reaching participant reader in a certain
t have the power of being executed at any other point in time, with a different t. In the latter case,
the properties of the linkage, the participants, and other linkage constituents may have changed,
which may result in a different post-context at the execution of the tasks. Time is an essential factor
in all recorded communication, written and spoken, since it is a rather unpredictable variable.
In the case of the headline, we only need the written record for a few seconds, just enough for the
reader to read it. Once the task <read the headline> has been executed and the properties in the
participant [reader] have been changed, the newspaper is no longer needed. But effects of the
completed reading task, the changed properties, last longer. The length of the lasting effects depends
on the reader’s memory and the related activities in his plex.
7. IN CONCLUSION: TESTABILITY OF THE PROPOSED THEORETICAL DATA
The proposed data are based on the author’s intuitive guess from introspection (ibid. 285). The
reader part of the analysis can be justified by the fact that the author is a member of the writer’s
audience, and is thus a suitable informant. The writer part is a plausible hypothesis based on the

author’s general experience with writing. In order to obtain scientific confirmation of the results of
the analysis, experimental testing would have to be performed.
A way of obtaining evidence for understanding the pun would be to show subjects the first part of
the headline up to LOVE followed by the hyphen and ask them to guess at the following element.
The second part of the experiment would involve showing the subjects the complete headline and
asking them to read it out loud. The third phase would involve testing what question words would be
appropriate for questioning various parts of the message.
The last part of the experiment would involve reaffirming the compiled data by checking back with
a writer. If as a result of this the value of his expectations was set to –expectation, the task of
obtaining the data for the understanding of the headline would be marked successful. A reasonable
amount of differences is expected to occur in identified task hierarchies, expectation procedures, and
related properties due to the idiosyncratic nature of individuals’ plexes.
Reference:
Yngve, Victor H. 1996. ‘From Grammar to Science – New foundations for general linguistics’.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

An HL Example Of Headline Writing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An HL Example Of Headline Writing

Similar to An HL Example Of Headline Writing (20)

More from Deja Lewis

More from Deja Lewis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An HL Example Of Headline Writing