Word Tics & Meta-language

 I know I'd said that I'd proceed to addressing the nonsense of the Bible. However, I decided to follow up the 'Believer's Lexicon' with this section on common, repeated comments by amateur apologists which I have termed 'Word Tics & Meta-language. Knowing these may help in discussions with 'Believers'. 

The following are included because whenever speaking to another, one must be aware of what I’ll call ‘word tics’ and what is, perhaps, more properly termed, ‘meta-language’; that is phrases or words that are repeated in the discourse to keep the conversation going. 

 

Let’s refer to a hypothetical conversation between two people; ‘speaker 1’ and ‘speaker 2’. As speaker 1 utters a thought, speaker 2 will respond verbally without elaborating or expanding the thought offered by ‘speaker 1’. This is what is meant by ‘meta-language’; it is the process by which a conversation is maintained and advanced. ‘Meta-language’ refers to the words and phrases by which ‘speaker 2’ indicates to ‘speaker 1’ that ‘speaker 2’ is listening and engaged in the conversation. An example is the phrase ‘uh-huh’; which imparts no additional information but signals ‘speaker 1’ that ‘speaker 2’ has understood (or at least heard what was said.) It also signals that ‘speaker 2’ is willing to continue the conversation.

 

If used solely as discourse markers, meta-language are vital to conversation; ‘um’, ‘well’ & ‘right’ when used as ‘meta-language’ are innocent enough but if longer phrases – such as those given below - are used in a discussion, They are often used dishonestly. They are not simple ‘meta-language’ used to maintain conversation. They may well be used as a distraction, a deflection or as a stratagem to disarm an argument by faking agreement or eliciting an emotional response from an interlocutor. 

 

*Note that the utterances given below were in response to either direct questions or in response to a comment or counter-argument.

 

“I’m with you 100%...”… used when there is no clear agreement as a way to set ‘speaker 1’ on the back foot mentally.

I absolutely agree with you…” (see above)

“Exactly…” These are used so as to cause the other to falsely assume an agreement with the interlocutor and to de-claw or undermine the gist of the other’s argument.

 

“What I’m saying is”…

“I’m just saying…”

“What I’m trying to say is…”

‘All I’m saying is…’ 
‘I’m not sayin’…’

‘The point I’m trying to get at and I might be phrasing it poorly…”

’These are used frequently to evoke pity or elicit emotion from ‘speaker 1'; ‘poor me, I’m being misunderstood’.

 

 ‘I guess where I’m coming from…’

‘Y’see, that’s the whole thing with me…’a plea for mercy and sympathy; with a side-comment on the intelligence of the listener.

 

’That’s not what I’m saying…’; this is a delaying tactic causing ‘speaker 1’ to mentally replay the prior exchange in memory and review what was said in order to assess the possibility of error in understanding.

 

‘Right. Right. That’s what I’m saying, like…’ a dodge; said as if in agreement but actually prefacing a statement or assertion which contradicts or deflects the statement of the other…

 

Another common variation is: ‘Right, but…
‘I understand what you’re saying…’ ‘Right.’ ‘Right. Right…’

(especially when it’s obvious that speaker 2 doesn’t understand and hasn’t actually listened to the counter-argument at all but has been waiting for an opening in the discourse in order to continue espousing his position without considering the proffered refutation. 

 

‘But that’s the thing…’
‘But here’s the thing…’

‘See. Here’s the deal…’

‘Okay, okay, I do see where you’re coming from…’; meaning, again, that speaker 2 hasn’t been listening, but rather has been formulating a response without regard to what speaker 1 said. 

 

 ‘I guess what I mean is…’deflection and a means of introducing a new topic to muddy the waters.

 

‘I have facts/evidence…’ used to put off the pressure of the question. A Trojan Horse. Facts are rarely or never subsequently offered.

 

“You know how…?”; used to lead the opponent (empathy, sympathy, inferred agreement)

 

“You know…?” used to lead the opponent

 

‘I would just say…’ This bit of subterfuge is used to force the opponent to back off as an act of social ‘mercy’ so as to allow the speaker to pivot – change the goal posts. 

 

 Just let me say…’ a pleading for more discourse time to alter a previously stated position

 

 

‘The thing is…’
‘Here’s the thing…’

‘The question is…’

‘The point is this…’

‘The thing is…’

making a personal appeal for understanding – to avoid consideration of an argument…

 

‘To me, it makes sense..’ personal appeal to courtesy or cordiality in order to avoid argument and falsely infer support of the claim.

 

‘Wait! Wait!’

‘Hold on. Hold on!’

“Just hear me out…” pleading for understanding.

‘You’re missing my point.” ‘Poor me, being misunderstood.’

‘What do you mean? Could you say that again? - age-old dodge to force the other into restating an idea or question in order to give the opponent more time to formulate an answer or introduce a tangential argument. 

 ‘If you‘d just let me finish…’ a claim to victimhood

These discourse markers are used when speaker 2 seeks to pivot and change direction of his rhetoric – in effect back out of the corner he’s painted himself into.

 

“I think that you very clearly seemed to imply…”; followed by a straw-man restatement; very passive-aggressive.

 

‘I’ve got to believe.’ ‘I must believe.’ ‘I have to believe.’ These statements of assertion are meant to be defeaters to any argument which questions those of ‘Faith’. The proper response by 'speaker 1' would be the tried and true query made by all 3-year-olds: ‘Why’? Why must one believe? The answer is this; One doesn’t have to believe. That is the statement of independence and individuality that terrifies the ‘believer’.

 

‘I believe cuz I believe!’