Metalanguage

Broadly, any metalanguage is language or symbols used when language itself is being discussed or examined.^[1] In logic and linguistics, a metalanguage is a language used to make statements about statements in another language (the object language). Expressions in a metalanguage are often distinguished from those in an object language by the use of italics, quotation marks, or writing on a separate line.

Types of metalanguage

There is a variety of recognized metalanguages, including embedded, ordered, and nested (or, hierarchical).

Embedded metalanguage

An embedded metalanguage is a language formally, naturally and firmly fixed in an object language. This idea is found in Douglas Hofstadter's book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, in a discussion of the relationship between formal languages and number theory: "... it is in the nature of any formalization of number theory that its metalanguage is embedded within it."^[2] It occurs in natural, or informal, languages, as well—such as in English, where words such as noun, verb, or even word describe features and concepts pertaining to the English language itself.

Embedded visual metalanguage

An embedded visual metalanguage is a language of images based on common human visual associations. In its turn the various languages belongs to the metalanguage superstructure and are necessary only for image description. According to the sensual theory [Komogorov, 2015] it is through the feeling a person gets all the basic information about the objective world. Feeling - a sensual image of individual aspects, processes, phenomena of the objective world. Due to the vigorous activity of the human mind the feeling images, coming into the human brain, undergo an active handling and transformed into images of perception, giving a prerequisite for granting the meanings of these images. That is why the images can be common platform for explanation in any language.The best example of embedded visual metalanguage is In-form - the full fledged embedded visual metalanguage.^[3]

Ordered metalanguage

An ordered metalanguage is analogous to ordered logic. An example of an ordered metalanguage is the construction of one metalanguage to discuss an object language, followed by the creation of another metalanguage to discuss the first, etc.

Nested metalanguage

A nested (or, hierarchical) metalanguage is similar to an ordered metalanguage in that each level represents a greater degree of abstraction. However, a nested metalanguage differs from an ordered one in that each level includes the one below. The paradigmatic example of a nested metalanguage comes from the Linnean taxonomic system in biology. Each level in the system incorporates the one below it. The language used to discuss genus is also used to discuss species; the one used to discuss orders is also used to discuss genera, etc., up to kingdoms.

Metalanguages in natural language

Natural language combines nested and ordered metalanguages. In a natural language there is an infinite regress of metalanguages, each with more specialized vocabulary and simpler syntax. Designating the language now as L₀, the grammar of the language is a discourse in the metalanguage L₁, which is a sublanguage^[4] nested within L₀. The grammar of L₁, which has the form of a factual description, is a discourse in the metametalanguage L₂, which is also a sublanguage of L₀. The grammar of L₂, which has the form of a theory describing the syntactic structure of such factual descriptions, is stated in the metametametalanguage L₃, which likewise is a sublanguage of L₀. The grammar of L₃ has the form of a metatheory describing the syntactic structure of theories stated in L₂. L₄ and succeeding metalanguages have the same grammar as L₃, differing only in reference. Since all of these metalanguages are sublanguages of L₀, L₁ is a nested metalanguage, but L₂ and sequel are ordered metalanguages.^[5] Since all these metalanguages are sublanguages of L₀ they are all embedded languages with respect to the language as a whole.

Metalanguages of formal systems all resolve ultimately to natural language, the 'common parlance' in which mathematicians and logicians converse to define their terms and operations and 'read out' their formulae.^[6]

Types of expressions in a metalanguage

There are several entities commonly expressed in a metalanguage. In logic usually the object language that the metalanguage is discussing is a formal language, and very often the metalanguage as well.

Deductive systems

A deductive system (or, deductive apparatus of a formal system) consists of the axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference that can be used to derive the theorems of the system.^[7]

Metavariables

A metavariable (or, metalinguistic variable) is a symbol or set of symbols in a metalanguage which stands for a symbol or set of symbols in some object language. For instance, in the sentence:

Let A and B be arbitrary formula of a formal language $\mathcal{L}$.

The symbols A and B are not symbols of the object language $\mathcal{L}$, they are metavariables in the metalanguage (in this case, English) that is discussing the object language $\mathcal{L}$.

Metatheories and metatheorems

A metatheory is a theory whose subject matter is some other theory (a theory about a theory). Statements made in the metatheory about the theory are called metatheorems. A metatheorem is a true statement about a formal system expressed in a metalanguage. Unlike theorems proved within a given formal system, a metatheorem is proved within a metatheory, and may reference concepts that are present in the metatheory but not the object theory.^[8]

Interpretations

An interpretation is an assignment of meanings to the symbols and words of a language.

Role in metaphor

Michael J. Reddy (1979) discovered and has demonstrated that much of the language we use to talk about language is conceptualized and structured by what he refers to as the conduit metaphor.^[9] This paradigm operates through two distinct, related frameworks.

The major framework views language as a sealed pipeline between people:
1. Language transfers people's thoughts and feelings (mental content) to others

  ex: Try to get your thoughts across better.

2. Speakers and writers insert their mental content into words

  ex: You have to put each concept into words more carefully.

3. Words are containers

  ex: That sentence was filled with emotion.

4. Listeners and writers extract mental content from words

  ex: Let me know if you find any new sensations in the poem.

The minor framework views language as an open pipe spilling mental content into the void:
1. Speakers and writers eject mental content into an external space

  ex: Get those ideas out where they can do some good.

2. Mental content is reified (viewed as concrete) in this space

  ex: That concept has been floating around for decades.

3. Listeners and writers extract mental content from this space

  ex: Let me know if you find any good concepts in the essay.

Metaprogramming

Computers follow programs, sets of instructions in a formal language. The development of a programming language involves the use of a metalanguage. The act of working with metalanguages in programming is known as metaprogramming. Backus–Naur Form, developed in the 1960s by John Backus and Peter Naur, is one of the earliest metalanguages used in computing. Examples of modern-day programming languages which commonly find use in metaprogramming include Lisp, m4, and Yacc.

See also

• Category theory
• Conduit metaphor
• Jakobson's functions of language
• Language-oriented programming
• Metaethics
• Meta-communication
• Metafiction
• Metagraphy
• Metalinguistic abstraction
• Metalocutionary act
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaprogramming
• Natural semantic metalanguage
• Paralanguage
• Self-reference
• Use–mention distinction

Dictionaries

• Audi, R. 1996. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Baldick, C. 1996. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cuddon, J. A. 1999. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. London: Penguin Books.
• Honderich, T. 1995. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Matthews, P. H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280008-4
• McArthur, T. 1996. The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

1. 2010. Cambridge Advanced Learner‘s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dictionary online. Available from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/metalanguage Internet. Retrieved 20 November 2010
2. Hofstadter, Douglas. 1980. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Vintage Books ISBN 0-14-017997-6
3. Komogorov, Iurii. 2015. In-form. Linguistic constructor. Manual. First edition. Kiev: FOP Gud T.S. print
4. Harris, Zellig S. (1991). A theory of language and information: A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 272–318. ISBN 0-19-824224-7.
5. Ibid. p. 277.
6. Borel, Félix Édouard Justin Émile (1928). Leçons sur la theorie des fonctions (in French) (3 ed.). Paris: Gauthier-Villars & Cie. p. 160.
7. Hunter, Geoffrey. 1971. Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic. Berkeley:University of California Press ISBN 978-0-520-01822-8
8. Ritzer, George. 1991. Metatheorizing in Sociology. New York: Simon Schuster ISBN 0-669-25008-2
9. Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

External links

• Metalanguage, Principia Cybernetica
• Willard McCarty (submitted 2006) Problematic Metaphors, Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 20, No. 92.