A challenge to the definition of metadiscourse

Subject: A challenge to the definition of metadiscourse
From: Caroline Small <caroline -at- WOLFRAM -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:21:49 -0500

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Ben Kovitz wrote:

> Doug Nickerson wrote, about learning from other people's documentation:
>
> >One area piques my interst: how an
> >author handles what Joseph M. Williams [1] calls "metadiscourse" (writing
> >about the writing).
> >
> >For example, "In this section, I talk about this, then I discuss that."
>
> Funny that you should bring this up. I call it "metatext" and
> it's one of my pet peeves.

First, an amazing web page for the definition of "meta-" is:
http://whatis.com/meta.htm The examples are from computer science, but
they're very illustrative and the etymology is excellent. I partially
disagree with the last sentence, where the author of the page implies that
the grammar and lexicon form the whole of meta-English, but it's a helpful
blurb.

Now, here's my cent and a half:

Recognizing that "metatext" and "metadiscourse" are jargony terms that can
pretty much mean what the community who uses them wants them to mean, I
personally don't think this "saying what you're doing" really counts as
metatext in any but the most limited sense. My American Heritage
Dictionary defines "meta" as "beyond, transcendent, more comprehensive, at
a higher state of development." If my students only write "in this
paragraph I do..." when I ask for metatext, I don't think they're
transcending very much.

Meta-language, as I understand it, isn't really writing about the
"writing." Although its meaning varies subtly in those fields which use
the term in an etymologically self-conscious way, "metalanguage" usually
refers to the underlying definitions, descriptions and parameters that
structure and describe--in fact, create the possibility of--the language
to which "metalanguage" is "meta."

For text or language or discourse to be "meta," it needs to be extremely
self-conscious about text, language, or discourse, and it needs to be
completely implicit. This is clear from the examples of markup languages
(see web page cited above). Once it becomes explicit, it is no longer
functioning as a meta-language. It is plain language about metalanguage.
We all know HTML doesn't really make sense unless it's "concealed" by
viewing the document in a web browser (or translated in the designer's
head).

So, after much babbling, I finally get to my point:

The organization of a document and the thesis concepts which drive the
paragraphs should be thoroughly obvious or explicit; any text that
outlines or elucidates them can't therefore be transcendent or underlying.
If it appears to be so, then the problem is with the thesis of the
paragraph and the clarity of the content, not with the introductory
material.

Mr. Kovitz wrote:
>Have to say, writing introductory content requires a lot more skill than
>writing metatext. There are a lot more options available, and generally
>they aren't obvious. It also requires more familiarity with the subject
>and, perhaps, with the audience.

I disagree with this, since metatext is actually impossible to write
and--for sophisticated living languages-- requires extraordinary
intellectual endeavor to even perceive. We need to be careful not to
reduce the concept of meta-level inquiry by conflating it with an author's
awareness of what Hayden White calls, "the content of the form." If we do,
we merge a philosophical act with a creative one--a merger which I believe
diminishes the quality of both.


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



Previous by Author: Re: Fed up with Eric's Rules
Next by Author: Re: A challenge to the definition of metadiscourse
Previous by Thread: Vancouver TWs Coffee Meeting
Next by Thread: Re: A challenge to the definition of metadiscourse


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads