Brief Lesson in MetaLinguistics

[Bholanath]

Brief Lesson in MetaLinguistics

Generally speaking, when a person receives a message, he/she only receives the gist of the message. By this, I mean, the person receiving the message only considers some abstract of the intended message, as distorted by noise. By noise, it should be understood, that I mean not just literally disruptive unwanted sounds, but absolutely anything distract the receiver from receiving the intended message. This may include personal prejudices or rumbling stomachs. This is basic communication theory and discussed at length elsewhere.

However, when a sender sends a message, the sender is actually making much more information available than is usually received or even intended. Indeed, the message given is just the tip of an iceberg.

At the most obvious level, we should examine the words of the message. What does every word mean; not just to you in your normal vernacular, but to the sender. Don’t take it for granted that the sender uses words in the same way that you do. Look for context clues that might suggest a more general or more specific meaning against every word in use. Then consider again whether the sender may be intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or unconsciously, choosing words which support or suggest a more narrow or more broad meaning than you might have first thought. Is there a disparity between the message and the words used to deliver it? Might this ambiguity be conscious and intentional?

Then there is the medium used to deliver the message. Is the medium the most obvious choice for delivering the message? Is it the most pragmatic or convenient choice? Is there something counter-intuitive about the choice? Who is the target audience and how does it compare with the actual audience? What might this suggest about how the sender perceives both the messenger and the audience?

Are there patterns to the information communicated within a single communiqué or which present themselves over a series of communications?

But if you only look at what is present in the message, you’re still missing more than half of the available information. A message is a mere symbol to a greater universe of information.

Is the sender sending all the relevant information he/she could within his/her message? Or is he/she leaving general or specific information out? Does the sender possess this information? Is this information that the sender reasonably or unreasonably believes the intended or target audience should or could possess already? Does he/she allude to the missing information or carefully remain circumspect?

What questions has the sender asked? Not necessarily literally nor presently within the communication, even uttering a pure statement suggest that the sender has sought the answer to some question. Blatant questions can remain red herrings, but when information can’t be trusted – and in a world which contains unknown unknowns, can it ever be? – divining the questions the sender asked can be much more useful as these will indicate true motivations, even when the sender is sorely misguided in his/her motivations or the questions he/she as asked in pursuit of the outcome..


By learning to recognize and interpret a greater range of information within communications, you can gain a greater understanding of those that might communicate with you and the messages that they send and you can learn to be more deliberate in your own communications. Even when metainformation is not intended by the sender and the receiver has no conscious understanding of the metainformation he/she is receiving, some unconscious reception and interpretation may be taking place which can influence perceptions and future relations.