It was brought to my attention recently, that the connotation surrounding the term "Linguistic Word" was not readily understood. Thus, I decided to catenate this post for your learning pleasure.

First I will break it down so that there is better knowledge of each word, then I will put them together for the full understanding.

“Linguistic”

Main Entry: linguistic
Pronunciation: li[ng]-'gwis-tik
Variant(s): also linguistical /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
: of or relating to language or linguistics
1. of language: relating to language or languages
2. of linguistics: relating to linguistics

Consulting a thesaurus you would receive these words: language, verbal, philological, dialectal, etymological, phonological, morphological, semantic, grammatical, syntactical.


“Word”

Main Entry: 1word
Pronunciation: 'w&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German wort word, Latin verbum, Greek eirein to say, speak, Hittite weriya- to call, name
1 a : something that is said b plural (1) : TALK, DISCOURSE <putting one's feelings into words> (2) : the text of a vocal musical composition c : a brief remark or conversation <would like to have a word with you>
2 a (1) : a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use (2) : the entire set of linguistic forms produced by combining a single base with various inflectional elements without change in the part of speech elements b (1) : a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word <the number of words to a line> -- sometimes used with the first letter of a real or pretended taboo word prefixed as an often humorous euphemism <the first man to utter the f word on British TV -- Time> <we were not afraid to use the d word and talk about death -- Erma Bombeck> (2) : any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark c : a number of bytes processed as a unit and conveying a quantum of information in communication and computer work
3 : ORDER, COMMAND <don't move till I give the word>
4 :often capitalized a : LOGOS b : GOSPEL 1a c : the expressed or manifested mind and will of God
5 :divine reason: in Christian theology, the divine rational principle as epitomized by Jesus Christ
6. Word or Word of God Christian holy scriptures: in Christianity, the Bible or Scriptures, considered as revealing divine truth
7 a : NEWS, INFORMATION <sent word that he would be late> b : RUMOR
8 : the act of speaking or of making verbal communication
9 : SAYING, PROVERB
10 : PROMISE, DECLARATION <kept her word>
11 : a quarrelsome utterance or conversation -- usually used in plural <they had words and parted>
12 : a verbal signal : PASSWORD
Consulting a thesaurus you would receive these words plus a myriad of other ones associated with it: account, adage, advice, announcement, behest, bidding, countersign, chat, chitchat, colloquy, confab, identification.

From the definitions given, it is readily apparent that there are a few meanings which could be construed from a person’s first glance. It is in my experience though that this is the case with many of the forms for which we place words. The placement within a sentence structure can change the meaning of a word just as the topographical location can change how a word is received by its people.

Normally when I choose to employ the term, I use the definition of “Linguistic” 1. of language: relating to language or languages in conjunction with “Word” 2 b (1): a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word.

It is my hope that this catechization offers a better understanding of what I mean when I employ the use of the term “Linguistic Word.”



Rev. Alimae

If I may say so, the expression seems to be something of a pleonasm. Are there any non-linguistic words?

Bingley

Could you give an example of a non-linguistic word?

Yes. As Bingley said (love that word, mate), it's a bit tautological, although it's not actually a tautology. But I repeat myself ...

Non-Lingistic words are normally known as Interjections for they are both words AND parts of speech. Parts of speech are simply CLASSIFICATORY labels applied to words; for ex. words are either nouns, adjectives, verbs, prepositions, etc. So by definition, all words necessarily belong to a given part of speech. Interjections are probably the most "non linguistic" words since they usually have very little grammatical structure and very little true "semantic" meaning, the way nouns, adjectives, verbs or adverbs have. That is why linguists have not been very interested in them, since they can only be "listed".
Interjections are traditionally counted as one of the parts of speech, just like nouns and verbs. However, every word of English is considered a member of some part of speech, so that calling an interjection a word is also correct. The simplest way to classify them is by using the process of exclusion; when you have determined that a word is not one of any of the other parts of speech, it must be an interjection. There is of course the problem of drawing the line between an interjection and a _noise_. That is, when someone says "Ouch!" we recognize that as a word and classify it as an interjection; but there are many sounds a person might make in response to sudden pain that aren't recognized as words at all --- for example, there might be a sudden hiss caused by drawing the breath in sharply through closed teeth after someone had accidentally touched a hot stove. That hiss would not be either a word or an interjection. English adult speakers usually make the distinction along the following lines:
When he touched the hot stove he said, "Ouch!"
When he touched the hot stove he went "Sssssssssssssssss!"

More examples of non-linguistic words are:
tsk tsk
hee hee
ummmm
etc.
Usually the classification is semantic, ie, by what meaning they convey usually (eg, surprise, awe, pain, (dis)agreement, etc.)

I hope this answers your question.

Rev. Alimae

Ah, but it is not a pleonasm or tautological, which ever way you choose to call it. For there are non-linguistic words that we use each and every day. Normally they are a vocalized sound or an interjection. I have explained this in answer to jheem’s post and I would suggest that you read it.
It is my hope that it will further explain my reasoning for starting this post.

Rev. Alimae

It's a strange definition, but now I'll understand what you're writing about I suppose.

Interjections (and sometimes particles) cause trouble for folks but they don't usually get excluded from language on those grounds. Words like tsk-tsk (actually two avleolar clicks) have meaning and can be used inappropriately. If I utter ha ha when somebody burns himself, I should probably be prepared for a bit of trouble. Same if I say ouch when somebody tells me they've just named their baby "Jane". To me that's semantics and pragmatics.

The whole parts of speech concept is problematic, but the word "word" has a certain meaning vis-a-vis language, and I don't think we should exclude words like hmmm or d'oh from the language just because they don't fit into our linguistic framework. Linguists have traditionally had problems with the left over bits that don't fit into their current theory du jour. A great book that discusses this problem is Jean-Jacques LeCercle's The Violence of Language and to a lesser extent his Philosophy of Nonsense: The Intuitions of Victorian Nonsense Literature. OTOH, some linguists are interested in these left-over bits. Glossolalia is one interesting phenomenon where semantics and words part ways.

One interesting thing about interjections is that new pronunciations have come about because of their spellings, e.g., tsk-tsk being pronounced by some as tisk-tisk.

Very interesting googling on "non-linguistic word" and "non-linguistic words". I hadn't realized that your post consisted of two unattributed quotations from two different linguists: Robert A. Papen, I've never run across before. Suzette Haden Elgin is also a science fiction author. She wrote Native Tongues.

http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg07678.html

http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg07670.html

I hadn't notice the scare quotes around Professor Papen's use of the term non-linguistic words in his answer on the Ask-a-Linguist part of the Linguist List. I've never run across the term before, but here are two linguists using it. The other uses seem to refer to nonsense syllables being generated in psychological tests having to do with memorization and recognition of "non-word" words. Anyway, it's not a term that I'd use, as its meaning seems to be a one-off coined by one (or two) linguists.

Another interesting bit is the questioning woman's email address. It's two-letter, top-level domain, country code indicates origin in Micronesia (i.e., fm), but the site is a Polish language free email service. Protection against spam or just plain anonymity. She does sign herself "Rachel Green". Hmm, rather than tsk-tsk.

Linguists have traditionally had problems with the left over bits that don't fit into their current theory du jour.

Y'all should just take a page from the humantitarian grammarians' theory de siècle and simply dismiss them as being wrong.

There are two spectres haunting grammar: the Stiff-upper-lipped Guardians of Language and the Deseussical Paronomastic Neologists, neither of whom is right or wrong. I don't have a problem with prescriptive grammarians because they trying to prop up the exquisite linguistic corpse and guard it against the incoming verbal huns of hugger-mugger. Grammatical correctness is a laudable state to be in. What I object to is their ad hoc arguments, sleight of handwaving, and shrill appeals to "logic". Having said that: everybody is wrong, i.e., the linguist trendy wannabes and the aged humument curmudgeons.

Thank you so much for posting the links, they were supposed to have shown up at the bottom of my reply, I think I did something wrong for looking at it they are not there. Oh-well I am still learning the ins and outs of this system.
I chose this to give a better example. In the future I will double check to make sure everything posts, as well as make it a rule to not post anything after I have been awake for almost twenty-four hours. (I have been dealing with an asthmatic two year-old who has the croup.) Please accept my apologias, and as stated, thank you for correcting my oversight.

Rev. Alimae

Not a problem. The software on this site is a bit antiquated. I cannot edit any of my posts without the HTML pseudo-markup becoming HTML text. Strange. Hope your child gets well soon.

everybody is wrong, i.e., the linguist trendy wannabes and the aged humument curmudgeons.


I believe I understand what you are saying, I have just one question, for I have never run across this word before, what is "humument"?

Rev. Alimae

I hope he recovers quickly as well, he is on some very potent steroids as well as breathing treatments at the moment. Thank you for the warm wishes.

Rev. Alimae

A Humument is a treated Victorian novel created by Tom Phillips. The book that got treated was originally published as A Human Document in the 19th century. More info at the link below:

http://www.rosacordis.com/humument/

jheem, what are scare quotes, please? I looked at the site but didn't see anything unusual, except for the symbols in parts of his Montreal listing. Unless you meant that "non linguistic", "semantic", and "listed" are somehow scary?

Jackie-- Scare quotes are quotation marks bracketing a word that calls attention to the word's being used in some rhetorical manner. Related to "air quotes", where the speakers crooks her/his fingers in the air while saying the word. Earlier examples, are "quote", "unquote", being used to wrap the word, phrase, or sentence.

You're not really quoting anybody when you type: My good "friend" Joe Bodaracco came to see me yesterday. Compare that with the un-scare-quoted version. Nice writeup here thanks to Google:

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/local/doc/punctuation/node31.html

Just thought of another example of this kind of rhetorical device that is geekly in origin: using "^H" to indicate backspace. E.g., The movie I saw last night suc^H^H^H stinks. The "^H" digraph comes from the representation of Control-H, which maps to the backspace or delete keys under some OSes. It's in pretty common usage since Usenet days.

Whoa, cool--you learn something every day, for sure! Thanks! I've been doing this for years (probably far too much) but never knew it had a particular name. From your link:
Quotation marks used in this way are informally called scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason. Possibly you regard it as too colloquial for formal writing; possibly you think it's unfamiliar or mysterious; possibly you consider it to be inaccurate or misleading; possibly you believe it's just plain wrong. Quite often scare quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm

Are they called scare quotes because the writer is supposedly scared of associating him/herself with what is in the quotation marks?

Woops--just read the article to the end: Quotation marks are not properly used merely in order to draw attention to words...I can't really approve of scare quotes used in this way. If you think a word is appropriate, then use it, without any quotes; if you think it's not appropriate, then don't use it, unless you specifically want to be ironic. Simultaneously using a word and showing that you don't approve of it will only make you sound like an antiquated fuddy-duddy. Ah well, if the shoe fits, Jackie...

The movie I saw last night suc^H^H^H stinks.
Thank you for saying where the digraph can be keyed. I have never seen this before. Why is backspace considered insulting? Does suc^H^H^H have a pronunciation, and if so, what, please? And why are there 3 of them--to cancel out the s, u, and c? Is it a way to avoid plainly putting sucks? If so, again why 3 of them? [totally lost e]

D'oh!

The intent is that the poster had strarted to type in 'sucks' and, after getting to the 'c' decided to delete. taking three strokes to do so. It's a geeky version of saying, "The movie I saw last night suc …uh, I mean, stinks"

Subbing for ron

I guess the older, preferred trick is the use of sic (Latin 'thus') to indicate the a word was misspelled or is being used improperly.

As for the pronunciation of '^H', I just hear the sound of the backspace key being hit.

For the record, I first heard the term used back in my college days in a philosophy class. BTW, Derrida has a great little monograph on using quotation marks, quoting, citing, etc. I think it's in ABC, Limited, Inc., his hilarious sendup of Searle on Austin.

As for the pronunciation of '^H', I just hear the sound of the backspace key being hit.

Yah. On a badly-mapped keyboard. Usually a PC connected to a Unix box or mainframe, but with a crap terminal emulator!

the older, preferred trick is the use of sic (Latin 'thus') "to indicate the a word was misspelled or is being used improperly"
Or the very nobby version of soi disent from French and loosely translated as so-called.
His soi disent friend interupted us.
I have usually seen sic to mean "I recognize that this word is not correct but I can't change it because I am quoting someone and I just wanted to point out that it is their mistake and not mine."
Used in moderation I don't have a problem with scare-quotes. They merely indicate visually what in conversation the tone of voice would do audibly.

Used in moderation I don't have a problem with scare-quotes. They merely indicate visually what in conversation the tone of voice would do audibly. [heartfelt thanks e]

take a page from the humantitarian grammarians' theory de siècle and simply dismiss them as being wrong

Classic faldage.

In reply to:

---

Thank you so much for posting the links, they were supposed to have shown up at the bottom of my reply, I think I did something wrong for looking at it they are not there. Oh-well I am still learning the ins and outs of this system.

---

Don't worry AlimaeHP, even those of us who have been here for years get tripped up by the system. For example, I know I responded to your explanation of the term non-linguistic words yesterday afternoon. I distinctly remember typing out the reply. And it's gone. Completely disappeared into the void. Oh well.

What I thought I'd said was that the use of these interjections varies from language to language and so must be linguistic. For example, Indonesian speakers don't say 'ouch' they say 'aduh' or 'ayiii'.

Bingley

theory de siècle

Also known as "pop siecle".

As for the pronunciation of '^H', I just hear the sound of the backspace key being hit.
I use "^H" sometimes, and the related "^W", but I admit that for me it's doubly geeky, as I myself never actually had to hit "control-H" to backspace, but learned the usage from other posters on Usenet. But it can be handy, I think.

ABC, Limited, Inc., his hilarious sendup of Searle on Austin.

I've had the privilege of attending a lecture by Searle, and have also endured a lecture by Derrida. My memory of the monograph you refer to, is of thinking that a supposedly great thinker like JD should do better than cheap shots like making puns on someone's name.