Talk:Meta-communication

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article should not be merged with

I agree. In terms of similar concepts, meta-communication in the sense of Bateson & Ruesch is probably better grouped with framing (histories of communication studies often group them as related, anyway). There may be other concepts going under the same name, though; the German article on the subject doesn't seem to be discussing the Bateson & Ruesch version. --Delirium (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but while language and communication might not be the same the differtences between meta-language and meta-communication are not at all clear to me. Russell's type theory seems to me to embrace both and provide overarching meta-framework LookingGlass (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just completed a major overhaul and edit of the article to provide an introduction, historical development of the concept and references. While I "agree" that metalanguage and metacommunication are different I think the overlaps of their foundational concepts are not, unless this is made so by definition, which currently it does not appear to be. For example: while Panini's work may not directly refer to meta-communication the context of it I think does and so can justifiably be seen as a precursor or modern Western studies of the subject. It is not possible I suggest to drive at a universal system of language without being cognisant of the role of context of that language. I have not gone into any great detail of this but have provided a starting point should anyone wish to do so with respect to Indian philosophy. Similarly Russell's work might not be seen as a dealing with metacommunication but it clearly sets out (sic) the logical dependency of meaning on nested sets that create the necessary definitional contexts. LookingGlass (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the introduction with respect to: the communication vs. human language "definitions". Bateson was a cyberneticist, as well as a linguist and semiotician, hence his definition, but on the other hand I could find no solid source for the claims that the term applies to human language in the way stated. Nonetheless I left the paragraph. Perhaps it should be deleted if there is no source (apart from thefreedictionay) to substantiate it? I also clarified the section referring to metalanguage, and referenced with material on Staal in the article. I added the Springer first page that refers. LookingGlass (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that needs to be a separate article rather than a section here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree - I see no reason for a brief article with no references to be separate. Given the lack of references, I'm not even sure how it ever got accepted in the first place!Leeds-hurwitz (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The article about metacommunicative competence may need overhauling or deleting but it does not belong here. This article is a discussion of the idea of metacommunication as an analytical concept. The stub is talking about a subset of practical skills for effective communication - it is simply making use of the term metacommunication to describe those skills. Jethrobrice (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meta-communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018103753/http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Gregory_Bateson.pdf to http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Gregory_Bateson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]