Define "Metatextual"

[moritheil]

I fear that I'm not using the term "metatextual analysis" correctly. If I analyze the existing body of work in a field, and talk about the impact that the perceptions of a subject have on that subject, is that a contextual or metatextual analysis? (Or is there some other term more suited to that situation?)

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm not an English major, but that sounds to me like contextual. That is to say, something external (in this case, to the subject) is having an influence on meaning - that is definition context.

On the other hand, (again, IMO) metatextual refers to self-referential meaning. If I used psychology to analyze psychology, that seems to be more metatextual. You're using the terms to define the terms, of sorts. Alternatively, I think it can be general parlance which defines further conversation about the meaning of the term.

I think it's important to note that meta-textual is not a word, according to Webster. Metafiction is given as an alternative - fiction that refers to writing fiction.

 

[Pbartender]

I fear that I'm not using the term "metatextual analysis" correctly. If I analyze the existing body of work in a field, and talk about the impact that the perceptions of a subject have on that subject, is that a contextual or metatextual analysis? (Or is there some other term more suited to that situation?)

Eh... I probably works, but it seems like a buzz-words that you're using just to sound smart. There's nothing wrong with being explicitly clear. Nobody would be confused by you saying, "I analyzed the existing body of work in this field, and examined the impact that the perceptions of this subject have on the subject," and then later referring to it simply as, "my analysis".

That aside, "meta" in this sort of context typically means, "more comprehensive" or "transcending", and sometimes it is used to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one. In which case, those definitions work fine in regards to what you are using the prefix for, so long as your audience understands what you mean by it.

Alternatively, you could use textual meta-analysis, "meta-analysis" being a term used to define a study that examines the pooled results of several different, but similar, experiments for statical correlations.

In that sense, you are doing a "meta-analysis of the contextual perception of [insert field of study]".

 

[moritheil]

I'm not an English major, but that sounds to me like contextual. That is to say, something external (in this case, to the subject) is having an influence on meaning - that is definition context.

On the other hand, (again, IMO) metatextual refers to self-referential meaning. If I used psychology to analyze psychology, that seems to be more metatextual. You're using the terms to define the terms, of sorts. Alternatively, I think it can be general parlance which defines further conversation about the meaning of the term.

I think it's important to note that meta-textual is not a word, according to Webster. Metafiction is given as an alternative - fiction that refers to writing fiction.

But that's the thing - here I'm talking about the influence of the perception of history on how history actually plays out. In that case, isn't it metatextual? It's not the influence of, say, perceptions of economics on history, in which case it would be the economic context.

I'm aware that metatextual (like most meta- terms) is a neologism. Metafiction is most certainly not what I'm talking about in this case (not that I don't write any ever, just that this report is nonfiction.)

I could say it's a "meta-level analysis" but I still want to know what the term should refer to even if I don't wind up using it.

 

[hong]

Metatextuals have sex with everyone they've met.

Oops, that's metasexuals.

Metatextuals send text messages to everyone they've met.

 

[LightPhoenix]

But that's the thing - here I'm talking about the influence of the perception of history on how history actually plays out. In that case, isn't it metatextual? It's not the influence of, say, perceptions of economics on history, in which case it would be the economic context.

Oh, I somehow missed that in your original post. I was thinking something like the impact of economics on history.

For what you're doing, I'd say it's a pretty safe phrase to use. It could be argued that what you're really looking at is the influence of history on the present, which aren't necessarily the same topics, but it is the influence of history on the creation of history, so I think it would work.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Metatextuals have sex with everyone they've met.

I got hong'd.