Context in Complex Words

When reading Mitchell's "Metapictures" I wanted to try and make some connections between "metapictures", images commenting on images, and "metalanguage", words commenting on words. It seems, in our analyzation of critical works, we've been employing a fair amount of metalanguage, using difficult to understand words (canon, intention, narratology, structuralism, etc.) to signify our practices. These complex words, I believe, are much like the metapictures Mitchell describes.

Mitchell says that "Las Meninas" is a "comprehensive picture not only of a painterly style, but of an episteme, an entire system of knowledge/power relations" (58). "Las Meninas" represents much more than the physical figures within it. The painting is a comment on the culture surrounding it, self-aware of its place in time and of it being a painting (thus, "metapicture"). And because of this complex representation, "Las Meninas", like all metapictures (one could even make the case for all pictures), can not be completely understood without knowing the context around it. Context is key for comprehending exactly what metapictures mean.

In this same way, complex languages necessitates a surrounding context. That's why we have the Bedford Glossary, to give us a brief overview of the context the word is derived from. Take a complex word we've come to understand like "structuralism" as it is defined in the Glossary. The defintion is over two pages long and includes the words origins, its placements in critical texts, and a very in depth summary of its specific attributes (parole, langue, binary opposition, etc. ). A word like structuralism is complex in the way a word like banana is not (the same way Las Meninas is complex while an image of a banana would not be (unless there was some context)). Simple words (and images) have base meaning, often singular representations, and can only gain more meaning through context, but this context is not necessary. On the contrary, complex words need context; they're birthed through context and can't be described without it.

Think of describing the word "structuralism". You couldn't convey it effectively without delving deep into the context surrounding the word. Strucutralism is not just some of it's physical attributes (which, too, are complex), but necessitates the why, when, and how it came to signify all that it does. One must speak of the critics (Barthes, Saussere) and even their works to fully make "structuralism" understandable. Because complex words can be assigned meaning, or often birthed, through a specific epsiteme or for a specific critical use, their context's are inherent to understanding what they mean. This is why we have the Bedford Glossary and why its defintions are often so long winded. This is also why I'm often so confused...