Metalanguage

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader. (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article focuses only on one specialized aspect of the subject. Please help improve this article by adding general information and discuss at the talk page. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In logic and linguistics, a metalanguage is a language used to describe another language, often called the object language.^[1] Expressions in a metalanguage are often distinguished from those in the object language by the use of italics, quotation marks, or writing on a separate line.^{[citation needed]} The structure of sentences and phrases in a metalanguage can be described by a metasyntax.^[2] For example, to say that the word "noun" can be used as a noun in a sentence, one could write "noun" is a <noun>.

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

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."^[3]

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.

An ordered metalanguage is analogous to an 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.

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.

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 ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$, the grammar of the language is a discourse in the metalanguage ${\displaystyle L_{1}}$, which is a sublanguage^[4] nested within ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$.

• The grammar of ${\displaystyle L_{1}}$, which has the form of a factual description, is a discourse in the metametalanguage ${\displaystyle L_{2}}$, which is also a sublanguage of ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$.
• The grammar of ${\displaystyle L_{2}}$, which has the form of a theory describing the syntactic structure of such factual descriptions, is stated in the metametametalanguage ${\displaystyle L_{3}}$, which likewise is a sublanguage of ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$.
• The grammar of ${\displaystyle L_{3}}$ has the form of a metatheory describing the syntactic structure of theories stated in ${\displaystyle L_{2}}$.
• ${\displaystyle L_{4}}$ and succeeding metalanguages have the same grammar as ${\displaystyle L_{3}}$, differing only in reference.

Since all of these metalanguages are sublanguages of ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$, ${\displaystyle L_{1}}$ is a nested metalanguage, but ${\displaystyle L_{2}}$ and sequel are ordered metalanguages.^[5] Since all these metalanguages are sublanguages of ${\displaystyle L_{0}}$ 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]

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.

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]

A metavariable (or metalinguistic or metasyntactic 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 formulas of a formal language ${\displaystyle L}$.

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

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]

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

Michael J. Reddy (1979) argues 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:

Major framework

Stage	Description	Example
1	Language transfers people's thoughts and feelings (mental content) to others	Try to get your thoughts across better
2	Speakers and writers insert their mental content into words	You have to put each concept into words more carefully
3	Words are containers	That sentence was filled with emotion
4	Listeners and readers extract mental content from words	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:

Minor framework

Stage	Description	Example
1	Speakers and writers eject mental content into an external space	Get those ideas out where they can do some good
2	Mental content is reified (viewed as concrete) in this space	That concept has been floating around for decades
3	Listeners and readers extract mental content from this space	Let me know if you find any good concepts in the essay

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 ML, Lisp, m4, and Yacc.

• 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.

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