365bet娱乐

The concept of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is one of the most important contributions of Indian thinkers to the crucial problem of general linguistics. It was 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈, who brought to light the breadth and depth of this concept beyond its linguistic features in his 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. But, some of the ideas underlying this theory can be found in earlier grammatical and philosophical literature in Sanskrit. It can be stated emphatically that, the whole superstructure of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's language theory is erected on the concept of akha峁囜笉av膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦, which is already described. He used this fundamental concept in the study of language, which was successfully developed by later grammarians. This concept paved new pathways in the language studies in India. As discussed, the concept of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 was no new idea for the predecessors of 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈. But the Idea of sentence-indivisibility, introduced by 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈, has some unique features when compared to the concept of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 in general. Before proceeding into the characteristics of the concept of sentenceindivisibility, 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's perspectives on 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 doctrine has to be discussed.

In the School of Grammar, the word or sentence, when taken as an indivisible meaning-unit, is the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 distinguishes 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and dhvani in 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 as " 蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣� 艣补产诲补岣�, 诲丑惫补苍颈岣� 艣补产诲补驳耻峁嘺岣�" (Vol.1, 1991, p.181). Thus 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is the real 艣补产诲补 (speech or language), while dhvani, the audible part is a quality of speech. Indologists like A B Keith mistakenly treated this as a mysterious entity and overlooked its linguistic significance, probably due to its association with 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's 艣补产诲补brahman (Matilal, 1992, p.84). Later scholars like J Brough, K A S Iyer, Kunjunni Raja etc. mention 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as a linguistic entity. They described it as the languagesymbol or an 'auditory image' of the uttered speech as well as the meaning bearing unit^[1]. Matilal, examining all these views, describes 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as an auditory impression of the meaning (1992, p.85).

叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 begins his discussion about 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 referring to two aspects of language.

dv膩vup膩d膩na艣abde峁�u 艣补产诲补u 艣补产诲补vido vidu岣�
eko 苍颈尘颈迟迟补峁� 艣abd膩n膩m aparo'rthe prayujyate.
  鈥�(痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1.44)

Here, 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 analyses the speech act from the speaker's point of view, which has two dimensions. In the language act, one is the causal root of articulated sounds (苍颈尘颈迟迟补峁� 艣abd膩n膩m) while the other is the manifested or applied, to convey the meaning (arthe prayujyate). From the speaker's point of view, the articulated sounds are produced from the 'wordprinciple' which is present in the intellect (叠耻诲诲丑颈迟丑补艣补产丑补岣�). Thus the causal root of audible sound 狈腻诲补 is the 'Buddhistha艣补产诲补岣�' or the wordprinciple in the intellect (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1.46). 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 calls this Buddhistha艣补产诲补 as 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. This gets transformed into utterance, when a person intends to speak (痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 1.108). Though the uttered language is sequential, its source, the language faculty in the intellect (叠耻诲诲丑颈迟丑补艣补产丑补岣�), is devoid of any sequence or parts. But, the listener grasps the 艣补产诲补 produced by the speaker in a sequential manner, but not as whole. Thus, he may experience the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as having sequence while hearing. 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 solves this problem by differentiating dhvani or the audible sound into 笔谤腻办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈 and 痴补颈办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈^[2]. The 痴补颈办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈 is the actual sound spoken by the speaker and heard by the listener. Hence it includes all the peculiarities and differences in the utterance of the speaker like intonation, tempo etc. (Brough, 1951, p.40) The 笔谤腻办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈, which is indicated by the 痴补颈办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈, is a stage just before the articulated sounds come into existence. It represents the phonological structure or the sound pattern of the form. All the non-linguistic personal variations are absent in this stage. But, the time sequence is still present in this. This actually manifests the internal 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, the integral linguistic symbol. The 笔谤腻办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈 is so close to the integral linguistic symbol 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 that the characteristics of 笔谤腻办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈 is superimposed on 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. Thus we may experience the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as sequential or having parts. Brough discusses these three stages in his "Theories of General Linguistics in Sanskrit Grammar" vividly.

The later grammarians like Bha峁�峁璷jid墨k峁�ita and 狈腻驳别艣补产丑补峁�峁�补 enumerated eight different types of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. This differentiation is based on two fundamental principles, viz. indivisibility and meaningfulness. Thus we get Var峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, Pada蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and V膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦 respectively, when we consider either the letter or the word or the sentence as 惫腻肠补办补 or meaning-bearing unit (艢abdakaustubham, 1933, p.10). These three are again classified into 闯腻迟颈 and Vyakti. If word and sentence are considered as indivisible symbols denoting the meaning of the whole without any reference to the parts, they are known as 础办丑补峁囜笉补pada蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 础办丑补峁囜笉补v膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦. These are the eight types of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 described by later grammarians. Though 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 does not enumerate these eight classes of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, he seems to have held the 础办丑补峁囜笉补v膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as the real 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 (Brough, 1951, p.45). This is evident when he emphasizes on the definitions of sentence that come under the 础办丑补峁囜笉补 School of sentence, which is already discussed. Thus, according to 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈, the concept of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 in general, forms the philosophical outlook of his language theory. To 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈, the theory of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is part of his monistic and idealistic metaphysical theory according to which, the 艣补产诲补tattva is the eternal principle of the universe. His magnum opus 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 is also begun with the statement that the whole phenomenon of material existence is only the Vivarta^[3] of this speech principle (1.1).

The concept of indivisible sentence, expounded in the second canto of 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, forms the basis of his psycho-linguistic analysis of language. The idea of 'sentence-indivisibility' deals with how language is used and grasped. This explains sentence as the real linguistic unit, which is devoid of any sequence or parts. 笔耻峁噛补谤腻箩补 points out that 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 is not the first to introduce the idea of indivisibility in the School of Grammar. 笔腻峁噄苍颈 and 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 have recognized the indivisibility of sentence:

"s奴trak膩rasya tu ati峁単raha峁嚹乼 ekameva 补办丑补峁囜笉补峁� v膩kyam arthaikatv膩t 膩khy膩tabhede' pi abhipretamiti gamyate",
  鈥敵漳灏觳獠贡璨够迥�测��, 2.1-2).

But it must be admitted that 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 is the first to establish logically the concept of indivisibility of a sentence. He emphatically states that the sentence is 'a single undivided utterance' (eko' navayava岣� 艣补产诲补岣�). Sibabjiban Bhattacharya explains this view as the phonetic completeness of the sentence and is not merely the aggregation of the words occurring in it. What is worthy of note here is that the whole sentence is an individual, and is not the aggregate of its parts (1984, p.28).

The grammarians consider the sentence to be indivisible because the opposite theory of division would result in infinite regress or in the acceptance of atomism (Punitha Sarma, 1998, p.77). If it is held that the words in a sentence are those very ones which are found independently somewhere else and if the phonemes are those which are found independently, there would be no essence of the sentence or the words other than phonemes. If the 厂补办丑补峁囜笉补 view of sentence is accepted, the phonemes also can be divided even into smaller parts like an atom and this division would be carried out infinitely. Thus ultimately, there would be no unit, which would be looked upon as the expressive element.

Therefore the grammarians put forth the sentence as an entity over and above the phonemes and words.

pad膩ni v膩kye t膩nyeva var峁嚹乻te ca pade yadi var峁噀峁�u var峁嘺bh膩g膩n膩峁� 产丑别诲补岣� sy膩t param膩峁噓vat.
bh膩g膩n膩m anupa艣岣積峁�e峁嘺 na var峁噊 na 辫补诲补峁� bhavet te峁Ｄ乵avyapade艣yatv膩t kimanyadapadi艣yat膩m.
  鈥�(痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 28-29)

Modern scholars like Kunjunni Raja, J Brough, KAS Iyer and Gaurinath Sastri etc. hold that, the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is the auditory impression of the uttered speech as well as the meaning-bearing agent. But, this concept is not enough to solve the problem of the cognition of the sentence-meaning. Hence, they hold that the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 in general and V膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦 in particular has been assumed as a solution to the problem of the meaning of the sentence^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The word ' 蝉辫丑辞峁璦' is derived from the root ' 蝉辫丑耻峁璦 vikasane', which signifies 'to burst' or 'to shine forth'. Thus it can be described in two ways; if it is explained as ' 蝉辫丑耻峁璦ti, vikasati, 补谤迟丑补岣� asm膩t iti 蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣�', then 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is that from which the meaning shines forth and hence it can be taken as the meaning-bearing agent. If it is described as ' 蝉辫丑耻峁瓂补迟别 anena iti 蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣�', then it can be defined as an entity which is manifested by the uttered speech. According to this view, 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is the auditory impression manifested by dhvanis.

[2]:

叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈's analysis of language encompasses three aspects viz. 痴补颈办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈, 笔谤腻办峁泃补诲丑惫补苍颈 and 厂辫丑辞峁璦.

[3]:

Vivarta is a concept, developed by the Advaita Ved膩nta system, which is described as the process of manifestation by which the one becomes many.

[4]:

This view is explained in 4.7.2 of this thesis.