Short take: "smiley face" - OED WOTD

Mon May 10 19:01:19 UTC 2010

The combination of "Have a Nice Day!" with Al's face might send a different
message.

To some.

JL

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Short take: "smiley face" - OED WOTD
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Wasn't the first smiley face Alfred E, Neuman?  Just remove his 2nd
> most distinctive feature, the jug handles.
>
> Joel
>
> At 5/10/2010 02:00 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >My guess is that any "smiley face" in 1957 must have been inspired by what
> >young children draw atop stick figures.  Twenty years later, the yellow
> Ball
> >design had completely usurped that semantic space.
> >
> >As Victor says, the Ball face has certainly come to symbolize "banality"
> >also.
> >
> >The Ball design differs from even the most perfect child's smiley face in
> >much the same way as one of Roy Lichtenstein's revised pop-art cartoon
> >panels differs from the original. Few kids could have drawn the Ball
> face's
> >dimply mouth with such adeptness, and few would have eschewed big dots for
> >eyes in favor of Ball's small, upright oblongs.
> >
> >Too bad you didn't trademark the fanged smiley, Victor. You'd be worth
> >millions.
> >
> >
> >JL
> >
> >On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> > > Subject:      Re: Short take: "smiley face" - OED WOTD
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > No one has ever accused me of stopping digging too soon, so I'll give
> it
> > > another crack.
> > >
> > > What Jon Lighter calls "connotation of laudably sunny optimism" cum
> > > "cheerful conformity", we used to identify as a symbol of invasive,
> > > pestilent banality, which is exactly the use made of it in Zippy and in
> > > a number of films (although I can't cite any specific ones at the
> > > moment). But, I suspect, Jon is more correct than he thinks when he
> > > mentions its description as "Happy Face" rather than "Smiley Face". I
> > > would suggest, however, that the reason is precisely the opposite of
> > > what might be expected--"smiley face" was so ubiquitous in its
> > > description of the hand-drawn variety that "Happy Face" might have
> > > seemed more appropriate for the deconstructed black-on-yellow image. A
> > > smiley face had two elements--an inverted arc or a squiggle, the smile,
> > > and two dots, the eyes. A Happy Face was a complete, albeit
> > > deconstructed, face, so other elements (complete circle, color,
> > > geometric precision) were required.
> > >
> > > For reasons that should be obvious, by now, I grew up without ever
> > > having seen a Ball design before I was 16. However, I've seen smileys
> on
> > > student papers--made by both teachers and students--earlier than that.
> > > My first association of the Ball design was with "Have a nice day!",
> > > which was a rather standard pairing in the early 1980s (my frame of
> > > reference) and, in some ways, still is. WalMart's usurpation of the
> > > symbol for its ad campaign has only made the association with banality
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > I suppose, as an expression of resentment, I've always drawn my Smiley
> > > Faces with fangs--and by Smiley Faces, this time, I mean the
> full-circle
> > > design rather than the two-element drawing. In 1985, a friend and I put
> > > two 3D fanged smileys (one sticking a long tongue out at the other) in
> > > the MIT Residence Guide under the description of one of the dorms--one
> > > that Wiki describes as "long known for its alternative culture",
> > > although a better phrase might have been "resistance to conformity"
> (not
> > > even goths were welcome *as a group*--current housemasters refer to it
> > > as "reputation for eccentricity"). The caption under the image was
> "Have
> > > a Day". At the time, the image drew objections from the Dean's Office,
> > > but it was retained because no official pretext for striking it was
> ever
> > > found. There are certainly plenty of fanged--as well as
> > > cross-eyed--versions of the Ball design today as there likely have been
> > > some before ours.
> > >
> > > The real question is, did "smiley face" have an association in the
> 1960s
> > > with the simplistic two-element drawing or with the full Ball design.
> If
> > > it was the former, that the 1957 appearance is, as I said earlier, of a
> > > piece. If not, then it is coincidental. Although there is a full figure
> > > in the design in the 1957 article, the "smiley face" only refers to
> what
> > > appears on the paper plate, which AFAICT is the two-element drawing.
> > >
> > > I did put a caveat on the pre-1963 citations and I remain of the
> opinion
> > > that they are distinct but related and special uses. But I will defer
> to
> > > resident lexicographers.
> > >
> > >     VS-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/10/2010 9:49 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > > > The issue seems to be whether a "smiley face" must be a "Smiley
> Face,"
> > > i.e.
> > > > either Ball design or something very close to it.
> > > > Even if the 1957 face was virtually indistinguishable from the Ball
> > > design,
> > > > it would not, IMO, be a "Smiley Face."  Why?  Because the ubiquity of
> the
> > > > yellow Ball design in (IIRC) the late 1970s (some years after its
> > > creation)
> > > > has essentially monopolized the semantic content of the phrase since
> > > then.
> > > >
> > > > For the past thirty-odd years, when someone has said "smiley face,"
> the
> > > > yellow Ball design has been taken as the norm. (Assuming others think
> as
> > > I
> > > > do.)
> > > >
> > > > While it may be splitting hairs from a lexicographical perspective,
> given
> > > > the similarity of the 1957 face to the 1970s face, "smiley face" in
> 1957
> > > > could not have had the connotations of laudably sunny optimism (or
> > > > kitschy, cheerful conformity - take your pick),  that it acquired
> some
> > > > twenty years later. I'd argue. perhaps paradoxically, that "smiley
> face"
> > > > became a "special compound" in the 1970s even if that's precisely how
> the
> > > > 1957 writer would have characterized a time-traveling Ball smiley in
> > > 1957.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, since the '70s when I first conceptualized the image based on
> the
> > > Ball
> > > > design, I've usually called it a "happy face."  "Smiley face" was
> > > somebody
> > > > else's locution.
> > > >
> > > > Ten or fifteen years ago I obtained a yellow smiley pin with a
> > > straight-line
> > > > mouth and perfectly round eyes. It is meant to suggest, "Have an
> Ordinary
> > > > Day!"  It was also available in gray. Shortly afterward more bitter
> > > variants
> > > > appeared, including a happy smiley with a bleeding bullet wound
> between
> > > the
> > > > eyes.
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org