[Lexicog] Bad Form, Good Function

[Hayim Sheynin]

Very good, Scott. I however replied to different noises
like ts... ts... or tse... tse...

Hayim

bolstar1 <bolstar1 at yahoo.com> wrote:                                         This post will address a type of utterance that has only 
 descriptive references -- not a general tag-type, and certainly not a 
 category in the pantheon of recognized grammatical categories (eight 
 or nine). That is the "non-verbal noise." 
       Hayim, you were correct in stating that this type of utterance 
 is not verbal. However, it does function so, if noises made by the 
 mouth could be considered communicating a purpose, not simply as a 
 reactive impulse. It simply happens to happen with noises – uttered 
 through the mouth, nose, or tongue --  not the eyes (e.g. "bat one's 
 eyes at"); not the nose (thumb one's nose at; wrinkle one's nose at); 
 not the eyebrows (with furrowed brows); not the fingers (flip someone 
 the finger/bird); not the arms (with arms crossed); not the derriere 
 (moon someone). These all have their own category – simply nonverbal 
 communication. I'm referring to "verbalizing" – though not "verbal" 
 in the strict sense. 
      I asked Michael Adams about these utterances, and he directed me 
 to his and McMillan's papers on "infixing" and "interposing." In 
 Adam's paper "Meaningful Infixing: a Nonexpletive Form", he refers to 
 McMillan's wording about infixing – "According to James B. McMillan 
 (1980, 163), infixing generates a lexeme with "a polysyllabic word as 
 the matrix and an emotional intensifier (an expletive or a euphemism) 
 as the insert," such as guaranfuckingtee or unfuckingbelievable. 
 Infixes are "emotive stress amplifier[s]," and inserts are usually 
 semantically neutral." 
      Adams goes on to say, "where an infixing or interposing is not 
 an "emotional stress amplifier," we observe tmesis or diacope, 
 instead. The OED says of tmesis,.. – 1678 (Phillips) "a figure of 
 Prosody, wherein a compounded word is, as it were, cut asunder, and 
 divided into two parts by some other word which is interposed, as 
 Septem Subjecta Trioni, for Subjecta Septemtrioni." The OED says 
 of "diacope" – "a division of a word compound into two parts, as, 
 What might be so ever..for, whatsoever might be" 
      But I'm talking here about autonomous vocal utterances per se, 
 not infixing or interposing (which according to the comments in the 
 previously-mentioned papers, generally have no independent semantic 
 meat. Perhaps a telling distinction between those types and the 
 following are  1) mouthed interjections have semantic meat 
 (communicating a distinct agreement/disagreement/; imperative mood to 
 stop someone's actions, or calling someone's attention to 
 inappropriateness of action (implied imperative mood);  2) 
 emphatic/intensive/emotive & intellectual reaction. Examples here are 
 exemplitive (technically "exemplificative of"-- not comprehensive of, 
 the kind I'm referring to.
 
 a gag sign (finger pointing into the recess of the throat) 
 hissing/hooting /jeering/
 Bronx cheer (flapping one's lips-enwrapped tongue by blowing through 
 mouth – i.e. "Go 
          back to the bench!)
 Ahem!! || clearing one's throat (Hey, what the heck are you doing! || 
 Stop that!!) 
 heavy breathing/mouth breathing (obscene telephone noise intended to 
 woo, or at least  
      communicate one-way one's one-sided intentions) 
 wolf-whistling (construction-worker reaction to a pretty girl)
 smacking one's lips dogs and mankind are so connected) 
 Tsk-tsk! || Tut-tut! (see "Ahem!!)
 sticking out one's tongue at someone (so self-explanatory – does any 
 culture take this as 
        a sign of honor?; I'm reminded of Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) 
 being snotted on by  
        African tribal chief -- as a sign of honored welcome to the 
 tribe)  
 
 The problem of course lies in frequency of usage. If a form 
 has a fixed number of tokens in a language, say, 100, would that be a 
 reasonable threshold beyond which a category (a sort of pantheon 
 category/pantheon type) would be created, or enough for a sub-
 category (with a demonstrable distinction that sets if off from other 
 subsets), or would it still be considered simply a designation/a 
 tag/a rhetorical type – such as "infixing" or "antistrophe" or "tag 
 question"?  
        I think of these listed types as being subsets 
 of "interjection." Though in a sense, this is a misnomer, in that it 
 has distinct implied and understood purpose (i.e. to communicate an 
 idea, or purpose, to a listener) enough semantic stuff to lift it 
 above a simple infix, a simple interpose, an appositive addendum, or 
 a simple emotive uttered reaction (which is basically what an 
 interjection is). "Guffaws," chuckles," "friggin'-blah, blah, blah-
 type" infixes, diacopes (Dos anyone really know what time it is, or 
 what a "diacope" is?) would be excluded here. 
 
 Scott N.
 
 
     
                       

       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070705/1c9800cf/attachment.htm>