Re: A challenge to the definition of metadiscourse

[Ben Kovitz <apteryx -at- CHISP -dot- NET>]

Caroline Small replied:

>You didn't invent the word "metatext."  You borrowed it from philosophy,
>as did Mr. Williams (originally cited as using metadiscourse).

Actually, I did invent it.  No doubt others before me have combined the
same word elements to mean different things, just as Joseph Williams
combined different elements to mean the same thing.  If others have used
the word to mean something in philosophy, that's great.  I didn't know
that.  But I and the other participants were talking about a common,
tempting bad practice in technical writing that also has some legitimate
uses.

Redundancy is not the same thing.  Some metatext is redundant and some is
not; some redundancy is metatext and some is not; some redundancy is bad
and much is not; and few people believe they should be redundant, though
many believe they should write lots of metatext.  If you were to interpret
the discussion as pertaining to redundancy in general, you would not
understand what we were referring to.  Also, the concept of redundancy
doesn't shed much light on the distinction between metatext and
introductory content, which I am saying is very valuable to know.

>> If you can come up with a better word for what we're calling
>> "metadiscourse" or "metatext", I'm certainly open to suggestions.  One very
>> common meaning of "meta", though, particularly among computerites, is that
>> "meta-X" means "X about X". "Metadata", for example, means computer data
>> that describes computer data (i.e. data about formats, how different data
>> sets map to each other, etc.)..  So when most people see "metadiscourse" or
>> "metatext", especially when accompanied by both a definition and an
>> example, the meaning clicks pretty fast.  It wouldn't surprise me if the
>> people who wrote the American Heritage dictionary didn't know about this
>> sense of "meta".
>
>First of all, this "definition" of "meta" is simply a truncated version of
>the full definition, hence the "limited sense" in which it applies.
>Secondly, although I borrowed the etymological meaning from the American
>Heritage Dictionary, the bulk of the definition I used for "metaX" came
>from the online computer encyclopedia I referred you to in the first
>paragraph of my original message.  Here's the text from that website:
>
>"Meta is a prefix that in most information technology usages means "an
>underlying definition or description." Thus, metadata is a definition or
>description of data and metalanguage is a definition or description of
>language. Meta (pronounced MEH-tah in the U.S. and MEE-tah in the U.K.)
>derives from Greek, meaning "among, with, after, change."  Whereas in some
>English words the prefix indicates "change" (for example, metamorphosis),
>in others, including those related to data and information, the prefix
>carries the meaning of "more comprehensive or fundamental." "
>
>I choose to emphasize the adjective in this definition of "meta," the
>"underlying" quality of metaX.  It is for this reason that I think the
>terms metadiscursive, metalinguistic, metatextual (I prefer the adjectival
>forms) refer to a mode of speaking or a functionality of language rather
>than to a type of content.

No doubt some people use those words to refer to a mode of speaking or a,
er, "functionality" of language (let's not debate that word again!), but in
the computer world, regardless of what it says on that web site, most
people mean "meta" in the sense I described.

No offense, but the above is not a good way to read dictionaries.  The
sense in common use is not a subset or truncation of the one in the
American Heritage dictionary.  It's a very specific, different, even though
related, concept.  Metadata is not "more comprehensive" or "more
fundamental" than other data.  It's data *about* other data--a computer
model of data formats and data mappings rather than a computer model of
other sorts of things.  The distinction has to do with the content, i.e.
what the data represents, not a mode of speaking or level of
comprehensiveness.  If you try to interpret the many writings on metadata
as making a distinction according to level of fundamentality rather than
content, you will misunderstand.  No doubt people chose to use this prefix
for this meaning because the prefix has a long history of use for similar
meanings.  But similar ain't identical, and other meanings are just
that--other meanings, other stuff that other people talk about at other
times.

Contrary to the common wisdom, I think there's much value in arguing about
definitions.  I think concepts and definitions embody some of our most
profound knowledge.  But it's one thing to challenge a definition by
proposing a deeper or more precise definition of the same concept.  It's
another to challenge it by defining something else.  It rankles.

--
Ben Kovitz <apteryx -at- chisp -dot- net>
Boulder, Colorado


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=