Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs 2 Syntactic Meaning.docx 2

Derivation of Referential Meaning in Proverbs 2 - Syntactic Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, University of Sebha, Sebha ABSTRACT ABSTRACT

The derivation of meaning in proverbs is a complex tristratal process which involves the derivation of the referential meaning of the proverb; its prototypical meaning , and finally its contextual meaning . In this second article in continuation to the first article on the Derivation of Referential Meaning 1 - Propositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis, an attempt has been made to study the syntactic meaning of parallel patterns and complex sentences i n proverbs from a ka:rmik linguistic perspective. perspective. In a Ka:mik Linguistic perspective, perspective, meaning is an emergent experiential awareness; awareness; it is born out of dispositional understanding mediated through the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) networking of the formal, functional, functional, and cognitive levels levels of the contextual (lingual) (lingual) actional actional reality for the construction construction of dispositional reality. Such a shift in paradigm opens up a new way of deriving meaning of ka:rmik prag matics or proverbs and language as language for individual experience experience ( ka:rmik ka:rmatics) ka:rmatics) instead of language for communication (as semantics) semantics) or language in use for social pragmatics). communication ( pragmatics). Symbols used in the Article I-I-I Network Network Node; Node;

impacts on;

gives rise to by transformation; transformation;

leads to in the direction of the arrow; ∧ Reflected Reflected

on (like an adjunct) ∨ Reflected in (like a quality) quality) ;

intrer-categorially intrer-categorial ly leads to as opposed to a:nushangikally gives rise to;

is analyzed;;

Connecting Node in a Cyclic Network;

●

apparently transforms into; delink; intra-categorially intra-categorial ly leads to through the means of superimposed on;

Heart or Nucleus Nucleus of the Circular/Cyclic Circular/Cyclic Network; Network;

inherently inherently qualified; qualified;

The Individual Consciousness soul or the ji:va);

reversal of order

The Triad of Qualities [ sattva (luminosity or cognitivity) giving knowledge of activity; rajas (activity or analyticity) giving choice and pattern of activity by traits; and tamas (inertia or substantivity) giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s] of Disposition . I. Introduction Derivation of Referential Referential Meaning 1- Propositional Propositional Meaning: Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Linguistic In the Derivation Analysis, an attempt has been made to derive the propositional meaning of literal, restricted (subject specific), and figurative proverbs by examining such figurative proverbs as similaic, hyperbolical, paradoxical, and metaphorical proverbs. In addition, the formation of metaphorical proverbs is motivated from such concepts as the principle of least effort, complexity in prototypicalization, ease in the computation of meaning, and aesthetic appeal. This is with 1|Page

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

Derivation of Syntactic Meaning in Proverbs

2010

reference to their propositional meaning from the perspective of their style. There is another area that is also worth consideration, namely, the syntactic meaning derived from parallelism and complexity in their syntactic structure. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine how parallelism and complex sentence structure contribute to the building up of meaning in proverbs. II. Literature Review A large volume of literature is available on the derivation of meaning in proverbs (see Mieder: 1982, 90, 93 for extensive references). However, their meaning is not derived from a tristratal perspective as in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm. In the general literature on semantics and pragmatics, proverbs as a special topic have not been studied extensively. For example, in Lyons (1979 a, b), Vanderveken (1990, 91), and Searle (1969, 79 a, b) which are seminal works on semantics and pragmatics, no specific chapters are allocated to discuss the meaning proverbs as a genre. Leech (1983) examines and analyses meaning in a Gricean perspective and extends it to his own means-ends model by adapting the Hallidayan metafunctions of language (interpersonal, ideational, and textual). In Bhuvaneswar (2000 a-d), an attempt has been made to study the semantics of proverbs from a formal linguistic perspective and integrate it into the ka:rmik linguistic perspective of considering meaning as dispositional, experiential (ka:rmik) meaning. Such a motivation is further supported by proverbial discourse analysis (Bhuvaneswar 1998, 99, 2010) and general discourse analysis (Schiffrin 1994; Berry 1981 a, b, c). In this paradigm, the meaning of proverbs is derived from their referential, prototypical, and contextual meaning perspectives and integrated into a unified experiential meaning of the proverb used in a context in a cause-means-effect analysis. In such a perspective, meaning is not complete unless and otherwise all the formal, functional, and cognitive planes as well as the cognitive, socioculturalspiritual, and contextual actional realities of the concerned lingual action (proverbial action) are integrated into a unified experiential meaning.

The formal, functional, and cognitive linguistic models are atomic and therefore inadequate to Linguistic perspective, perspective, meaning is an emergent emergent provide such a description. In a Ka:mik Linguistic (w)holistic experiential awareness; it is born out of dispositional understanding mediated through the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) networking of the formal, functional, functional, and semantic levels of the contextual contextual (lingual) actional actional reality for the construction of dispositional reality for its ultimate experience as ka:rmik reality. In such a process, meaning is dispositionally generated, specified, directed, and materialized through its systematic and holorchical mediation through the cognitive and socioculturalspiritual realities in its context of lingual action. In (w)holism , cause-means-effect are all networked as a single homogeneous cognemic unit as opposed to holism wherein only the (formal) whole is considered. Hence, the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm integrates all these planes into a unified framework and therefore it is claimed that it is better suited to derive the meaning in a single framework. Vanderveken (ibid.) is a seminal work that considers language from a general semantics perspective and studies the speech acts from that perspective. In a similar way, Lyons (ibid.) is also an important contribution towards understanding the nature of meaning. However, in both these works, proverbs are not dealt with. Therefore, there is a need to study proverbs from the semantic perspective and see the differences between ordinary language and proverb-language. 2|Page



2010

In this paper, an attempt has been made to initiate discussion from a general semantics ka:rmatic) derivation of meaning in perspective and offer leads towards a ka:rmik pragmatic ( ka:rmatic) proverbs. III.

Syntactic Meaning in Proverbs: Its Derivation

1. Syntactic Meaning of Parallel Patterns A proverb by definition contains the essential characteristic “prototype’ along with the other essential characteristics “cultural confirmation”, and “frozen textuality” in its definition which is given by Bhuvaneswar (2002) as follows: (12) A proverb is a culturally confirmed frozen text of a prototypical practice (or illocution).

In this definition, the concept of frozen textuality textuality is easily determined as a formal feature: a fixed and finite set of words in a syntactic pattern which all proverbs have whether they are the original ones or their variations. Hence, the number of words, their arrangement in an order, and the syntactic pattern in which these words are arranged are fixed for a particular proverb. Any variation in that particular order leads to a variation in the proverb and the original proverb becomes the formal prototype for the rest of the proverbs which are its categories . The core features of the formal-categorial proverbs are largely determined by their semantic features (as indicated in their referential meaning ) and their similarity with that of the prototypical proverb with a variation in the fringe features which are largely determined by lexico-syntactic considerations. Let us take a proverb to illustrate this point. (13) Better late than never.

In this proverb, there are four words: better, late, than, and never and they are arranged in that serial order of words in the elliptical syntactic construction of comparative degree . Its referential meaning is: (14a) (It is) better (to be) late (in doing something) than never (doing it). This proverb is given as the original proverb and four variations in this proverb are listed in ADAP (Mieder 1992: 360-61; 51) as follows: (14.b.1) Better to be late than never, but better never late. (14.b.2) Better late than never, but better never late. (14.b.3) Better late than never, but better still never late. (14.b.4) Better late than never, but better yet, never late. (14.b.5) Better late than not at all.

Any proverb of this type has a typical syntactic pattern: Better X than Y. In the formation of a proverb of this syntactic type, this pattern functions as a prototype and the speaker (dispositionally) creates a proverb with a particular social practice as the content of the proverb. For example, the preference for being late in doing something to not doing a thing at all; the preference preference for choosing something something which is available to choosing something which is not available (e.g., A bird in the hand is better than /worth two in the bush); the preference for 3|Page



2010

buying to borrowing (e.g., Better buy than borrow) ; and so on. Within that syntactic prototype, there may be minor variations which do not affect the basic pattern of comparison. For example, a comparative sentence may be ellipted or slightly changed in the pattern or a new word may be used: (14b) It is better to be late than never Vs Better late than never ( it is … to be ellipted) Vs (14e) Better late than not at all Vs [(14.c.1) Better to be late than never, but better never late Vs (to be … retained but it is … ellipted and an extension to the syntactic pattern is introduced with a conjunction of exception but) Vs (14.c.2) Better late than never, but better never late ( to be … is also ellipted) Vs (14.d.1) Better late than never, but better still never late (an adverb still is added to the extension) Vs (14.d.2) Better late than never, but better yet, never late (a new adverb yet replaces the old one in the extension)]. In the case of (14b) and (14e), the meaning is the same but there is a change in the words: never is replaced by not at all . In the case of ellipsis, there is a tension between clarity and brevity (via aesthetic appeal) and brevity won the case; hence, there is an interrelation-interconnectioninterdependence (I-I-I) of syntax with disposition (as realized in the aesthetic choices); in the case of the extension in the syntactic pattern from Better X than Y to Better X than Y but better not X, there is a tension between the social practice 1 as given in Better X than Y and a change of perception perception (owing to attitudinal or dispositional change) of that social practice given in 2 as Better X than Y but better not X. Here, there is a shift in emphasis from doing a thing late to not doing so. This difference of opinion (owing to attitudes) resulted in the creation of another version which is a category of the first version. Here, there is an I-I-I between the perception of the social practice resulting in a change of meaning and the syntactic pattern. Therefore, disposition (via the choice of perception), semantics, and syntax are interconnected-interrelatedinterdependent (I-I-I): svabha:vam (disposition) decides the choice of meaning of meaning and via meaning decides the choice of syntax of syntax – hence, there is a double choice according to disposition. For example, A bird in the hand is better better than two in the bush and A bird in the the hand is worth two in the bush have different syntactic patterns – one is in the comparative degree and the other in the positive degree with a slight change of meaning ; in the first choice, a bird in the equal to two birds; hand is equal to more than two birds and in the second choice it is simply equal to again, in the first choice, there is alliteration [b…b…b] and in the s econd there is none. In addition, the second has so many propositional content variations: A bird in the cage is worth two in the bush; A bird in the hand is worth a flock in the sagebrush; A bird in the hand is worth a hundred flying; A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush (in comparative degree hand is better better but with a different word ‘worth’) – this – this is synonymous in meaning to A bird in the hand than two in the bush; etc. A similar pattern is observed in the proverb: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and its variation : Prevention is better than cure. What is more, even the syntactic prototype might have been chosen by analogy (by a dispositional choice) to form other proverbs as it happens in the case of many proverbs (e.g., 4|Page



2010

Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched - Don’t count your new cars before they’re built; A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush – A dollar in the bank is worth two in the hand or A camera in the hand is worth two in the alley) . Such a phenomenon is also seen in the synonymy of proverbs having the same prototypical meaning but different images: Distant hills are green Vs Faraway birds have fine feathers or Distant cows have long horns. All these proverbs have a common underlying meaning derived from a dispositional choice of the comparison in the social practice as expressed in the proverb, and it is socioculturalspiritually accepted as a way of perception by the members of the society in which it is used. Here, the meaning is standardized by the individual-collective-contextual consensus of the meaning through dispositional agreement which results in the societal norm of accepting and using the proverb. In some cases, somebody may not accept this perception as a pragmatic choice and ignore the advice – consequently, a new dispositional choice may emerge leading to a new choice of contextual meaning in discourse. For example, two people get a job, which is not well-paid, in their town. Remembering the proverb, one accepts it, not waiting to get a job outside his town which is well-paid and so loses it. On the other hand, the second person rejects the wisdom of the proverb and waits for the well-paid job and gets it. This person derives a different meaning from the proverb: Even though the society thinks that something something available is better than something something more which is not available, the second option is better (Two birds in the bush are better than one in the hand) – a dispositional choice – and so let me choose the second option (the perlocutionary force) – force) – the the second dispositional choice. In this latter case, there is a dispositional implicature (a sort of denegational implicature) that overrules the soicioculturalspiritual implicature owing to dispositional bias: that means the soicioculturalspiritual meaning which is derived by a metaphorical interpretation of the referential meaning is rejected ; and the dispositional meaning is accepted . If this view gains currency, currency, an antiproverb antiproverb emerges: Two birds in the bush are (sometimes) better than a bird in the hand . hand . In the former case, the dispositional implicature accepts the soicioculturalspiritual implicature which is rejected in the latter case – case – that that means in both the cases, disposition is supreme. It is an error in interpretation to say that the meaning is socioculturalspiritually derived instead of saying that it is is not simple social action but socioculturalspiritually standardized, and transmitted – language is not dispositional social action. (1) Disposition

Dispositional Bias

Response Bias

Choice in Meaning

Variation.

B.2. Syntactic Meaning of Complex Sentences in Proverbs In the syntax of proverbs, a number of examples of complex sentences are observed. All of them are not elementary speech acts. Therefore, their meaning may be denegational, conditional, or conjunctional according to their semantic interpretation. An Illocutionary Denegation, according to Vanderveken (1996: 24), is “to make explicit the non-performance by the speaker of an illocutionary illocutionar y act F (P) and is given by the form F (P) ”. permission is an For example, a refusal is an illocutionary denegation of an acceptance ; permission illocutionary denegation of forbidding, etc. Such an illocutionary denegation in proverbs has to be similarly interpreted as a complex speech act. For example, the proverb Better be idle than badly employed is an illocutionary denegation of an act of advising the hearer to be employed.

A few more examples are given below.

5|Page



2010

4 Set.1: Illocutionary Denegation in Proverbs i. Don’t rush the cattle. (simple sentence with a complex speech act; forbidding of rushing the cattle is a denegation ) ii. Don’t cry over spilt milk. (simple sentence with a complex speech act; forbidding of crying over spilled milk is a denegation) iii. Don’t monkey with the bandwagon if you can’t play the horn. (negative conditional illocutionary denegation) iv. You can never tell about women, but if you can, you should not. (positive contrastive conditional illocutionary denegation) v. Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies. (conditional illocutionary denegation by implication) vi. Judge not of men or things at first sight. ( forbidding forbidding of judging men or things at first sight is a denegation)

These types of proverbs have a purpose of making explicit the non-performance of an illocutionary act F(P). The formation of these proverbs also follows a similar process as observed above. In these proverbs, a social practice that is perceived by choice is analyzed and evaluated and then a guideline has been suggested to conduct living for its experience. This guideline is an illocutionary denegation of a generally observed practice – born out of experience: experience informs knowledge and knowledge leads to inclinations and traits . This guideline is chosen to be a proverb and a form has been further chosen to express this proposition as an imperative with a negative marker. For example, crying over milk getting spilled is a social practice in the English society. First, this practice is perceived by choice; second, it is chosen to be the content for a proverb by its denegation; third, a form has been assigned to this illocutionary denegation as an imperative with a negative marker. A Conditional Illocutionary Act, according to Vanderveken (1996: 24), performs an illocutionary act F (Q), not categorially but on the condition that a proposition P is true and is given by the form [P F (Q)]. For example, in the proverb If the beard were all, the goat might preach, the speech act of the preaching of the goat (F (Q)) is conditional on the proposition P that the beard were all is true. In the proverb, Make yourself honey and the flies will devour you, the speech act of the devouring by the flies is conditional on making yourself honey: if you don’t make yourself honey, the flies will not devour you.

A few more examples are given below. The conditions are shown in italics and the speech acts in plain letters. 4.2: Conditional Illocutionary Acts in Proverbs i. Fly your kite when it’s windy. windy. ii. Live your life, do your work, then take your hat . threadbare, it is easy to peck a hole in it. iii. When a man’s coat is threadbare, iv. It’s too late to close the well after the goat has fallen in . v. When in anger , say the alphabet. them, join them. vi. If vi. If you can’t beat them, 6|Page



2010

[The italicized subordinate clauses in i, iii – vi are conditions for performing the actions mentioned in the main clauses; in ii, then is a time relater which shows a time- relationship subsequent to a given time of reference of living (your life) and doing (your work); taking your hat can be done only after fulfilling the condition of living your life, and doing your work.] The formation of these conditional illocutionary proverbs also follows a similar process as observed above in the case illocutionary denegation proverbs. In these proverbs, a social practice that is perceived by choice is analyzed and evaluated and then a guideline has been suggested through these proverbs to conduct living for its experience. This guideline is a conditional illocutionary act of a generally observed practice – born out of experience: experience informs knowledge and knowledge leads to inclinations and traits . This guideline is chosen to be a proverb and a form has been further chosen to express this proposition as an imperative with a condition. For example, flying kites is a social practice in the English society. First, this practice is perceived by choice; second, it is chosen to be the content for a proverb by making it conditional; third, a form has been assigned to this conditional illocutionary act as an imperative with a conditional marker such as when, then, after, and if . In Conjunctions of Illocutionary Acts, according to Vanderveken (1996: 24), two illocutionary acts F₁ (P₁) and F₂ (P₂) are performed and are of the form F ₁ (P₁) & F₂ (P₂). For example, in the proverb You scratch my back; I scratch your back , there is a conjunction of two illocutionary acts You scratch my back (F₁ (P₁)) and I scratch your back (F₂ (P₂)). The first one is an elementary directive and the second one is an assertion. 4.3: Conjunction of Illocutionary Acts in Proverbs i. If anyone If anyone betrays you on ce, it’s his fault; if he betrays you twice, it’s your fault. ii. The early bird catches the worm – worm – but but who wants worms? iii. Throw a stone in the shit and it splashes on your face. iv. Give me liberty or give me death. v. If ignorance is bliss, why be otherwise? vi. The husband is the head of the house, but the wife is the neck - and the neck moves the head. The formation of these proverbs with conjunction of illocutionary acts also follows a similar process as observed above in the case illocutionary denegation/conditional proverbs. In these proverbs, a social practice that is perceived by choice is analyzed and evaluated and then a guideline has been suggested through these proverbs – generally, – generally, in the second proposition: if he betrays you twice, it’s your fault ; but who wants worms?; etc. to conduct living for its experience. This guideline is a conjunctional illocutionary act of a generally observed practice – born out of experience: experience informs knowledge and knowledge leads to inclinations and traits. This guideline is chosen to be a proverb and a form has been further chosen to express this proposition as an imperative with a condition. For example, getting betrayed is a social practice in the English society. First, this practice is perceived by choice; second, it is chosen to be the content for a proverb by making it conjunctional; third, a form has been assigned to this conditional illocutionary act as an imperative with a conditional marker such as when, then, after, and if .

7|Page



2010

Conjunctional illocutionary acts can be homogeneous or heterogeneous . If all the acts in the utterance belong to the same category, they can be called homogeneous; otherwise, they are heterogeneous. For example, in If anyone betrays you once, it’s his fault; if he betrays you twice, it’s your fault, both the first ( If anyone betrays you once, it’s his fault) and the second ( if he betrays you twice, it’s your fault) illocutionary acts are similar conditional illocutionary acts (P₁ F₁ (Q₁)) and (P₂ F₂ (Q₂)) respectively. In the second example, the first: the early bird catches the worm is an elementary assertive speech act (F (P)) and the second: but who wants worms? is a negative rhetorical question. Vanderveken (1990: 149) considers questions as requests (directives) but rhetorical questions are not requests – they – they are positive or negative questions giving negative or positive assertions; so also challenges are not. Hence questions of this type are not considered directives. In the case of the third example, both a directive and an assertive are conjoined. So both the examples ii and iii are heterogeneous conjunctional speech acts. The fourth example is a conjunctional illocutionary speech act with two elementary directives conjoined. In view of the examples i and iv, we get a further division of complex illocutionary acts: 1. Conjunction of Elementary Illocutionary Acts; 2. Conjunction of Complex Illocutionary Acts; and 3. Conjunction of Mixed Illocutionary Acts. Therefore, any proverb whose meaning is to be derived is also dependent on the nature of the speech act it represents as a sentence-in-context. If the speech act representation is not given the appropriate semantic interpretation, there is a danger of the failure of the speech act and hence – an assertion – the proverb. For example, in iii, ‘the splashing of the shit’ – an assertion – will will be true only if the ’ is carried out. In this proverb, ‘Throw a stone in the shit ’ is ’ is directive ‘Throw a stone in the shit ’ is not a condition and therefore it is not a conditional speech act but a conjunctional speech act. As such a failure to interpret it as a conditional speech act leads to a misunderstanding of the proverb. Look at the following hypothetical conversations to understand the misunderstanding of meaning. (16) i.

ii.

A: B: A: B:

I have quarreled with that useless man and he maligned my name. (You) Throw a stone in the shit and it splashes on your face. (Assertion) I want to tell him what nonsense he has been talking about me. (If you) Throw a stone in the shit, (and) it splashes on your face. [Implicature: Advice or warning: Don’t tell him…. because he is bad.]

In the case of Give me liberty or give me death, there is a condition in Give me liberty and not an optional directive (as in Give me coffee or (give me) tea ). propositional Sometimes in a conjunctional illocutionary act, there may be more than one propositional constituent (i.e., more subjects) as in A dog, a woman, and a walnut tree: the more they are beaten, the better they will be. As a sentence-in-a context in a possible world, not all the three – only one may be present as it usually happens in possible constituents may be present together – only the actual world. In such cases, the other constituents become redundant and the meaning flouts Gricean maxims of relevance and quantity. Then, how do we derive the meaning? The only way out is to consider all the atomic propositions as forming a single compound proposition at a higher level abstraction and then apply it: A dog, a woman, and a walnut tree are the categories 8|Page



2010

of a prototypical concept X (stretching across animals, humans, and trees) which have the excellence of X. characteristic of becoming better by being beaten and so become exemplars par excellence Therefore, the prototypical meaning is: X becomes better by beating with X having A, B, and C as its categories. Hence, when this proverb is applied to a context where only B is the focus, and A and C are not present or relevant, there is no flouting of quantity or relevance since A, B, and C separately represent the prototype as its categories and not collectively; they need not be the focus together. Another example is: There are three sides to every story- your side, my side, and the right side. Here, two propositional constituents are always present ( your side, my side) but the third ( the right side ) may be optional because both the sides may be wrong and all may be one. A few examples of such proverbs are given below. 4.4: Compound Propositions in Proverbs i. Feed a cold and starve a fever. (Contrast) ii. Men build houses; women build homes. (Contrast) iii. Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can. (Anticlimax: make, save, give) iv. If you are an anvil, hold still; if you are a hammer, strike hard. (Contrast) v. First love, last love, best love. (Climax) vi. Haste makes waste, waste makes want, want, want makes a poor boy a beggar. (Anticlimax) vii. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost. (Anti-climax) The first example Feed a cold and starve a fever is based on a contrast of feeding and starving and is subject specific with two different specific subjects. So when the prototype has to be constructed we have a problem: what common abstraction can be made out of such sentences? Feed a cold F₁ (P₁) and starve a fever F₂ (P₂) are common only as directives making the conjunction homogeneous. Hence, the prototype should be a directive. However, the senses are different but they should be one. The only way out is to consider cold and fever as sicknesses and have sickness as a proposition in the prototype. Feeding and starving are degrees of eating; so eating becomes another propositional constituent. Combining the two, we get: eat proportionately proportionately to cure your sickness as the prototypical meaning with F ₁ (P₁) and F₂ (P₂) as the two subject specific categories restricting the domain of application only to those two categories. When applied in a context of F ₁ (P₁) or F₂ (P₂), only one category is applicable but both constitute the prototypical meaning. However, the contextual meaning is derived with reference to the category referred to in the context. In the case of climax or anticlimax, all the atomic propositions have to be combined to make the can, save all you can, can, give all you whole. For example, the prototypical meaning of Make all you can, can is derived by joining make + save + give to get an abstract practice of dealing (with money) and linking it with the adverbial clause all you can present in all the three atomic propositions: deal with money according to your ability; so also in the case of For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost, the progressive effect of losing a bigger thing for want of a smaller thing is extended to the biggest thing and the cumulative effect from the smallest to the biggest thing is taken into consideration through the anticlimax for deriving the prototypical meaning: for want of a very small thing, a very big thing is lost. 9|Page



2010

The different types of complex speech acts are shown in the following network (1) for a quick reference. Denegational

Complex Illocutionary Acts

Conditional

Elementary

Conjunctional

Complex Mixed

Network 1: Network of Complex Illocutionary Acts IV. Summary and Conclusion In the above sections, we have discussed two important types of syntactic meaning: 1. Syntactic Meaning in Parallel Structures; 2. Syntactic Meaning in Complex Sentences. These types can be satisfactorily motivated using the ka:rmik linguistic principles and techniques of dispositional cognition and I-I-I networking.

Let us motivate these types in the following paragraphs. A. Syntactic Meaning of Parallel Patterns: Their Motivation in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm In our earlier discussion of the parallel patterns, we have taken the example of the proverb (13) Better late than never . In this proverb, as already pointed out , there are four words: better, late, than, and never and they are arranged in that serial order of words in the elliptical syntactic construction of comparative degree . Its referential meaning is: (14a) (It is) better (to be) late (in doing something) than never (doing it). This proverb is given as the original proverb and four variations in this proverb are listed in ADAP (Mieder 1992: 360-61; 51) as follows: (14.b.1) Better to be late than never, but better never late. (14.b.2) Better late than never, but better never late. (14.b.3) Better late than never, but better still never late. (14.b.4) Better late than never, but better yet, never late. (14.b.5) Better late than not at all.

In Bhuvaneswar (2009), it has been observed that for any proverb to be created, first, the propositional propositional meaning is arrived at by the observation of sociocultural practice of a particular phenomenon – there is an underlying dispositional choice in focusing the attention on that particular phenomenon for the observation to take place. This sociocultural practice is the heart of the proverb as its content. Once this sociocultural practice has been cognized and second, chosen as the content of the proverb (to be evolved in course of time by prototype-categorial instantiation into a culturally frozen text), it is polished and standardized in its use by the individual-contextual-collective conjunction of its application. As it is polished and standardized, third, its form (patterned structure) is decided by collective choice. 10 | P a g e



2010

In each and every stage of the evolution of a proverb, choice always comes into play: first, at the – to observe this meaning by choice; second, at level of observation of the propositional meaning – to the level of choosing this propositional meaning as the content of the proverb; third, at the level of forming the pattern, and structure at all the levels of phonology, syntax, and style of the proverb; and finally, its choice for using in a context in discourse. Since wherever there is a choice, there is a response bias (R.B.) generated from a dispositional bias (D.B.) which is a product of disposition, we can say that these proverbs are dispositionally created by human beings as they live in a context to be dispositionally used for living in the context with that dispositionally intended meaning.

Cause: Karma (Experiential) Potential Ka:rmik Process

Means

Kinetic

Disposition

D. B.

(at the Proverb Level):

Synoptic Effect: Act /Result/Experience /Result/Experience

R.B. Choice

Network II: The Ka:rmik Process Network These choices are made according to an I-I-I networking of the Universal Science of Action with the Universal Science of Living through the Universal Science of Lingual action. In the case of proverbs, since language is already formed, living is conducted by coordinating the coordination of action through proverbs: proverbs are used as a resource for the construction of proverbial dispositional (ka:rmik) reality. The I-I-I network of proverbial action is shown below.

Universal Science of Action



U S of [Lingual

Proverbial] Action

Ka:rmik Process

Universal Science of Living

Network III: The I-I-I Network of U S of [Action

–

Lingual (Proverbial) Action – Living]

Let us capture the choices in the following network. Proposition Content of the Proverb Form Disposition

Function …. Application

Network IV. Dispositional Choices in the Formation of a Proverb

11 | P a g e



2010

All these stages can be graphically captured in the form of the conceptualization graphs in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory as given below in Graphs 1 and 2. (1). Conception of the Parallel Patterns of the Syntactic Meaning: At the first stage, a sociocultural practice will be observed and contentualized. Perception (This and That - Cognition) Classification (So and So - System / Paradigm) Qualification (Such and Such – Structure/Syntagm) Cognition of the Propositional Meaning as Sociocultural Practice (see the conceptual axis graph for a graphic representation of Conception in Bhuvaneswar 2009 b) It has been shown here once again to represent the Objectification-Classification-Qualification process

CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICA TION

P E A M R E CONCEPTUALIZATION CONCEPTUALIZATION A N G Propositional Meaning as Sociocultural Practice D I O G C M SYNTAGM

Disposition QUALIFICATION

Graph 1: The Triaxial Graph of Conceptual Process in Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT) Consciousness is the unchangeable substratum of Pure Awareness (Static Consciousness) and gives rise to Pure Cognition (Static Cognition). When it is charged with Karma [(fruit bearing impressions of past) actions in a non-religious sense], it becomes Karma-QualifiedConsciousness/Awareness/Cognition and gives rise to Disposition. To explain it further, past actions leave their impressions in the living being for their fruition to take place in future and their experience develops likes and dislikes and consequently inclinations to do this and that or not do this and that . These inclinations eventually produce traits. Traits by implication are based on knowledge of action and habits of performing action. These traits impel desires leading to future action for their fruition (fulfillment). Thus karma means fruit bearing impressions of past actions for whose fruition it gives rise to disposition and karma qualified consciousness alone produces activity. Consciousness without karma (and disposition) is just pure consciousness and does not produce any activity. Again, when Consciousness is charged with Disposition, it becomes Disposition-QualifiedConsciousness and gives rise to Disposition-Qualified-Awareness/Cognition. Conception of an Object/State of Being/Action is an apparent transformation of the Karma-Qualified-Cognition (K. Q. Cog.) which is the Ultimate Cause into Dispositional- Qualified-Cognition (D. Q. Cog) which is the Immediate Cause into the cognition of this and that as so and so in such and such a manner as the conception (which is the means) into the experiential cognition (which is the effect). 12 | P a g e



2010

The K. Q. Cog is the invisible cause of D. Q. Cog. which is inferential. D. Q. Cog. remains as it is like light but projects a conception on it by apparently transforming the sides of the triangle of disposition into a star which can have many rays and so twinkles (1…n) depending upon the nature of conception that gives rise to the cogneme (see the star networks in Bhuvaneswar 2000). In the derivation of the meaning of the proverb, a reference to the aetiology of the proverb is very important; without it, the meaning becomes either obscure or distorted or incomplete. The original intentionality has to be culturally learnt and then the meaning derived. To explain it further, the causal attitudes transformed into cultural meanings have to be understood to derive the intended meaning of the proverb. This intended meaning is paraphrased in the prototypical meaning of the proverb and is culturally stored. When a proverb is understood in discourse, it has to be understood via the prototypical meaning of the proverb and then extended to the context to derive the contextual meaning. The entire process of the dispositional cognition of the proverb in the context of its use is shown below in the Triaxial Graph of Contextual Actionality (for more details see Bhuvaneswar 2000) Graph 2: Combined Triaxial Graphs of Cognitive Actionality Quadrants (KLT)

Legend The Individual Consciousness (the Being in the Human Being or the soul or the ji:va) The Triad (sattva giving knowledge of activity; rajas giving choice of activity by traits; and tamas giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s) of Disposition Horizontal Line ; Vertical Line ; Diagonal Line: Horizontal, Vertical, and Diagonal Axes; I, II, III, and IV : the quadrants 1, 2, 3, and 4 gives rise to s 1.inner (pasyanthi ‘cognitive’); 2. medial medial ( madhyama ‘pattern’); ‘pattern’); 3. outer outer (vaikhari ‘form or phonic’) levels of realization of language Spirituality

Ideology

Cogneme Society

Ptcpants

Concept (Participants)

World View Quadrant II Culture

Concept Quadrant III Relation

Outer Circle (Vaikahari)

Guna:s Disposition Quadrant I

Context Context Quadrant IV

Medial Circle (Madhyama)

(Dispositional) Knowledge

Vasanas (Phenomenal) Knowledge

Activity Contextual Actionality

Actionality (lingual)

Inner Circle ( Pasyanti)

B.2. Syntactic Meaning of Complex Sentences in Proverbs: Their Motivation in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm In Graph 1, how the propositional meaning in a proverb is created is shown. A similar analysis can be applied to motivate the formation of complex sentences by appropriately changing the labels under classification, qualification, and conceptualization. For example, for illocutionary denegation proverbs, the paradigm will be illocutionary denegation, the syntagm will be an appropriate structure with a negative marker, and the cogneme will be a simple/complex 13 | P a g e



2010

sentence with illocutionary denegation. The same is the case with conditional and conjunctional illocutionary speech acts where the paradigm will be conditional/conjunctional illocutionary speech act; the syntagm, its appropriate structure; and the cogneme, the concerned type of illocutionary act. Once a proverb is formed, it is used in a context by superimposing its desired function in the context with the culturally established meaning. As the proverb is used in interpersonal communication (IPC) by an individual (I), it spreads and becomes a part of the collective cultural knowledge and then again it is transmitted (IPT) by its use with the individuals in the society. Thus, its intended meaning is preserved and transmitted. Both these processes are discussed below. a. Superimposition of Features in KLT Once the illocutionary act is decided and the proverb is formed, it is standardized and then culturally applied by superimposing the function on it according to the context.

Legend

X C A F Y

Y

A

Act

C

Cogneme

F

Function

X…X X Axis (DC Action) Y… Y Y Axis (SCS) Dispositional Cognitional DC Socioculturalspirituality SCS

X Graph 3. Multiaxial Graph of Superimposition b. Individual-Collective-Contextual Conjunction and Standardization (ICCCS) of Action Any proverb has to go through gradual evolution from its conceptualization stage to its acceptance as a proverb. The process of gradual evolution is linear. First, someone who has observed a social practice has to choose it and use it in discourse to construct categorial reality; second, that social practice has to be prototypicalized to make it a potential proverb by linear as well as parallel application of the proverb in contexts; third, people have to accept it and use it as such a prototype to instantiate categorial reality in a linear, parallel, and cyclic process; and finally, that utterance has to be standardized and accepted as the standardized form by the proverb community in which it is used by I-I-I processing in a ka:rmik process. All these phases are executed by a simple process of the first individual entering into interpersonal communication (IPC) with another (other) individual(s) (I/I IPC) and those persons further triggering a chain reaction with other members of the society to finally spread it at the group (collective) level. Again, from the group level, the individual members trigger the application of the standard form (C/I IPC) and set up a chain reaction of transmitting the standard proverb by interpersonal transmission (C/I IPT) to the individuals. Finally, an interconnected-interrelatedinterdependent network is established and the proverb is evolved, applied, transmitted and preserved in the cultural memory of the proverb community.

14 | P a g e



2010

In the case of complex sentence proverbs, the social practices are complex in their propositional content and demand a complex illocutionary force; consequently, the form of the proverb is patterned, structured, and materialized as such an illocutionarily complex utterance. 3

Material Layer

Context

Contextual - Lingual Action

Temporal Layer Spatial Layer

I/I IPC 2

I

C C/I IPT

a.

I/I IPC

1

4

I-to-C IPC ●

C/I IPT

b. I-I-I Network of ICCCS

Legend:

transmission from ….. to ….. ; I Individual; C Collective; I / I Individual –toIndividual; C/I Collective –to-Individual; IPC Interpersonal Communication; IPT Interpersonal Transmission; I-to-C Individual-to-Collective; 1. Dispositional; 2. Socioculturalspiritual; 3 Cont Contextual extual Actional; 4 Lingual Actional Realities

Network 5. a. Ka:rmik Network for Transmission of Language as a Dispositional Process by ICCCS

Works Cited Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri [1998]. “The English Proverb in I/E I/E Exchange: Systemic Analysis”. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

A Multilayered Multilayered

-----------[1999]. “The English Proverb in I/E Exchange: A Multilayered Systemic Analysis”. A Paper Presented at the First International International Congress On English Grammar. Grammar. Hyderabad: CIEFL ------------[2000]. Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs. Working Paper 5 in Semantics. Part of PhD Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL -----------[2000a]. “Reference, Sense and Denotation in Proverbs”. In Semantics of Proverbs . A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL ________ [2000b]. “Proposition in Proverbs: A Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs . A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL ________ [2000c]. “Synonymy and Antonymy in Proverbs: A Semantic Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs . A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL ----------[2000d]. “Figures of Speech in Proverbs: A Semantic Analysis”. Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs . A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL [2009]. “Linguistics in Paremiology: A Plea for Proverbial --------Linguistics as a Special Branch”. Keynote Address delivered in the Third International Colloquium on Proverbs, Tavira, Portugal 15 | P a g e



2010

Berry, M. (1981a). “Polarity, ellipticity, elicitation and propositional development, their Linguistic Circular, 10, No. 1. relevance to the well-formedness well- formedness of an exchange”. Nottingham Linguistic 36 - 63. ------ (1981b). “Systemic linguistics linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi - layered approach to exchange structure”. In Studies in discourse analysis. (ed.by) Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.120 - 145. ----23-32.

(1981c). “Towards layers of exchange structure structure for directive exchanges”. Network, 2.

Leech, Geoffey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited Lyons, John (1979). Semantics I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ----------- (1979). Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Dictionary of American American Proverbs. Proverbs. New York: Oxford University Mieder, Wolfgang (1992). A Dictionary Press and Speech Acts Acts Vol I. Cambridge: Cambridge Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and University Press

--------University Press

(1991). Meaning and Speech Speech Acts Vol II. II. Cambridge: Cambridge

16 | P a g e

Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs 2 Syntactic Meaning.docx 2

Recommend Documents