Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sif 1-Libre

    Uploaded by

    Kahfie Nazaruddin
    16 views23 pages
    semiotika

    Original Title

    sif_1-libre

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    semiotika

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views23 pages

    Sif 1-Libre

    Uploaded by

    Kahfie Nazaruddin
    semiotika

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 23
    SOUTH INDIAN FOLKLORIST SOUTH INDIAN FOLKLORIST sa biannual esearch jour aadince as well ‘ahibtions and vents, sound recordings, films and vid the journal wil reflect a wide range nal conceens and theoretical orientations. Arles wil present significant research findings and theoretical analysis flbloe 8 Anthropology Sociology, Literature, Lin nd elated fields such ‘The journal wil primarily concentrate on the South tadian region asthe area of study Iwill also publish Folllor staieg from other parts ofthe world. Especially comparative sti of ule and folklore of all he regions will definitely finda place in South Indian Fokionst. We expect essays on South Indian Folk lorst to be descriptive, comparative, interpretative and plemi Notes will be narrower in scope and focus ona single often pro ‘Adres for communication The Edi, Fille Rss and St eral (An ‘Annual Subscription ” ‘Other Foreign Inve rar © 50 Oso sions R300 £130 uss 200 Sram Ressarch| Re 100 a2 uss 50 Scholars SOUTH INDIAN FOLKLORIST Volume 2 Number 1 Journal of Folklore Resources and Research Centre July 1998 ‘Theory and Praxis of Textual Interpretation: Typology of Two Paradigms Lewis Joseph Dacinarai* This paprisan endeavour toring out resemblances between the French conception of langage, polly the eghten frcenany Freh eso langage an thinking proces, andthe Tal Men Of tage an textual interpretation tn grammatical work, Takayan Teis esentally a sey of typology. consis 2: sain om fos to place the to atoms a orally ade ent bat proceed onthe bts of accepting tal unesl fae tires among the forms of hurnan conceptions teapot of ge ‘papi, stra and cultural divergences ‘Stules on language and constructions of meaning have shown. tendencies towards isolating cultures having diferent linguages.| Investigations at the semantic evel coneretize a language into aa ‘explicit form of culture exercised in society: At the semiotic lve, however, starting wit the signficrsignified dichotomy ofa sign, studies languages conoentrate on tracing sinarities between different cultural groups with respect to. systems of Conceptualization, As the basic idea of language sex cultre: speciicbut i fundamentally human, this sty owes much to this ea for its exposition. Ee sea as Pee ampent emcee nina W annie fr henee emiernueere marie Segara apeea caer eens se SRE. et eee Hep elit ty pry ea tet ek et tartan ea eka Seg pee Fe eer Eitri = fads The references are wsed fom Tamil sources, translate i English where necessary This paper fs divided int three parts. The Firs 90 seat detail about the theories of sigication in cightcenthg fry France and in Tllappiyo. French semiotics is narrate; Ssconceived by H'S. Gil through four major divisions —rela ‘Ship between an ica and sigh, role of signs in the thinking (ss, den ofa text ard methodology of praxis, For the logical understanding of French theories I very mach rely on reading of St. Julien Hospitaller? {mn the final par, I point cut the similarities between the chosen dels textual interpretation. ‘Theories of Signi Century France: Two personalities played conspleuous part in the composi ication in Eighteenth Gghneenah-century French theores of signification. They arekaom fortwo books Condilae mide an adventurous departure frm {dealist positon of Descartes andthe Port-Royal schoo, ge beraa with his book EAvr de Rewer The journey excavated favemied new ideological spaces and a domain called ie Destutt de Tracy made his limpact with a book ved 2 ‘idee, the ter ideology” being his coinage. “The amacing works ofthese two French philosophers lasified imo four distinctive, interconnected sections. Pri they queried the nature othe natural languages. As langiag ‘doubuclly correspond withthe speaking beings (subject) “ndculated beings (objects), the ambiguous situation envelop vine ace of language This act sided with congenital o {des Erne theores of sigoication begin ther inerary B the question ofthe relationship between a sign and an ide. {Neornponent of language while ea comes fom mental a The next problem spring fom che Bis: t problema role of sign within the thinking process rid the role of hi proces within he aysten of signs, The third question i dei {ora lingistic product, the text Text poses 4 series of ques Ive it tres to rationalize the process Gf meaning creation i [NHEORY AND PRAXIS OF TEXTUALINTERPRETATION 79 anv tex Testis in one way compote of heterosis avi ander capable of cleating singular Wes in single aon Se hereto in he tind seco, the de of Wea a he ieeetbout the dea ofa text ae systematically attempted. The se a ial ection conser the reading ofa textes the tera discourse, Reading s conceived a8 a model atm ffelmmanent as el as he manifest ann oF the awhropo- ac behaviour the reading, The methodology easnscout the asormadon of texto a discourse “The Nature of Natural languages: [Natural languages are not natural. Tey are there because of « reunion, a bin of feunion mediated by intellectual beings. Re tion is beeen a systems of signs and a system of sigidcation “The ltter the creation ofthe former. Systems of sigs cause the tHfect. which is, the systems of significauon. Systems of signs are thesystemsof lng objets. These objects present signs ‘The reunion of both the systems produces the correspondence be- nec sgh and nea within the mental spheres of human be- ings. The corcatin between a system of signs and a systens of Sigifications binds «group of aman beings who subscribe wo those Systems respective of their soca, cultural and economic bac ‘pours into a linguistic community: Therefore, langage i Mew. which condi the leaf communis es Since we accept “langage” as. creation of human beings there vould have be a state when there was ao language, which "the eo state oF language’. This sa purely hypothetical situation. At ‘hp moment in the history of human society can one visualize a Pevod of linguistic vacuum. Hfnot in the present form oflanguage ne could suppose uma beings employed altemate systems of Signs to communicate amang themselves. So the “zero state of an. {rte should be sen as an aesumpon to aid in answeringcertain ‘questions regain the origins of languages. For Condi. the primary function ofa sign isto name, The Process of naminghep to Mentfy the objectsof the envionment ‘tent. Signe displace the objets in the context of commmanica ton. Instead linguistic articulations play the role ofthe objects fone, a sigh va subttation fora particular object. Objects st haveboenransmogri int scot units unknowing ose ‘heir physical reality They are converted into ideas. Thodgh in ener pe belive that he signs represent the objets its not the visible objecewe ave in ming, but she dea ofthe objects. Through the invention of sound patterns as signe within The cpoumurvicative ‘domain, we have brought she eneronment int the semantic sphere ‘We begin to dea with semantic unite, which are inthe form of absiract lements, Employing sign in place ofan object the fist ep towards abstraction, ‘Within the linguistic framework a word sa sgn. Hrepresents the das ofthe objects. Nether asign noran object has autonoony tochoose is countenpar, Implementing signin place ofan object Ipentiey human affair Therefore, the selection of sign toname, tnd the scection ofan object to be named are predominantly des perdenon human dsie, The object thats chosen tobe named is fot the real cbject in the envionment. Nevertheless, man chooses his idea about that abject. As the entre proces of naming is held within the mental spre of human being, the abstract ideas rule theproses, “The idea ofan abject, thats sgnfied through a sig is not a singular unt, ft consists of muluple semanic elements. To illus trate, the semantic elements ofthe idea ofthe sgn ‘tree’ ca be Fisted the living being, vegetation, immovable, has a trunk, ‘umber of branches, leaves Nowers, its, et, Each ofthese se- smantic elements Is an idea by ise: However, when they come twthin a group, they coreelate with ther adjacent semantic cle ents to generate the singular ideas tee’, The number of semantic ‘ements partilpating within an ia is changeable. An idea un- ‘ergoes constant changes and alterations and in couse of time, “the semantic domains ofthe eafier nomenclature undergp obigy tory cormsponding changes, and, more and more abstract comb rations of these signs evolve into reglarpropositions™* “The communicative porpose of language makes it more and more complieated, as the systems of sighs ae constantly in prac- tice Though a language survives a society Unough a consensus forts systeme of signification, the consensus achieved snot def- ‘ite ut partly appreximation. The dea ofthe tree communicated through sign fe not an exact version of parcular tee. eis the {ues of our mind, That tee depends on our experiences with the real reso our envitonment. Therefore, the pessblies of acquit ing eterogencons experiences, which are stored inthe form of abe frat semantic elements undergo complicated interrelation. A the Sanne time, ike the complicated correlations within an idea, the ‘THEORY AND PRAXIS CF TEXTUALINTERPRETATION 41 chances of having similar correspondences between ideas are very hi ‘Constane practice of linguistic signs asa communicative too ‘operates on the hats of adition and subsraction. Newer semantic ements ace incoeporated sith the semantic domain with re- Spect to silanes and differences amongits constituents. Con- ctrently older elements ate eliminated, Therefore, “human lan- ‘guage is basically an analytical instrument" which analyses the Systems of des Analysis through the linguistic mein eesults in judgements ‘The ea, what we recollect yooh the aculation ofa sin, is the effect of our judgement. We come to a conclusion about an bbject. we sense Hein our surroundings, as such and such, Percelv- {ng the commonality among multiple ideas, at least between two ideas, brings about consensus regarding the idea of an object. To gage to or more ideas for comparison needs a eertain degree of| Sinlarity between them, No two ideas can he brought into com- prison for the sole reson that they ate conceived by human be Ing. For instance, the ides about stars and the idea about tees ‘Cannot be condated unless we perceive common strand that inks them ‘Analytical nature isa characteristic of languages, which they acquired through practice. "Its obvious chat man fist invented Signs fr things before analysing and naming their qualities”? The print signs should benatural- Condlla's perception ofthe nr ue of linguistic ign f conveyed inthe book The Pacheloia! Tintern 9f Condllac le classifies signs into thre distinctive ‘groups The fists acidental sgn’ to imp thac the elationship {erween objects and ideas is constricted on empirical experiences. ‘Those signs signify theideaswe get om the objects. Naturl signs” ae the secon Kind. Man ceats these signs with the help ofthe plgscal and natural charactenstis ofthe objets. The third Kind Ere called institutional signs”. Thete iso logical explanation to justify their presence asinermediares bexween objetsand ideas "The relationship beeen them is arbitrary, fshloned by man for bis oan purposes Customarlya word signifies 1 or more idess. No linguistic sign limits itself with singe ide, Tt docs, i will not Dea sign Siymore.Assoon asthe naming proces relates a sign with an ide, {hed of that particular sgn begins to imeract with ote ideas, and the proces of abstraction becomes complex. Forexample the Taal word for tee, mara, sigs two different ideas, "tree and "inet, The idea ‘inert isa tesultant of the snteraetion be ten several ideas within the semantic domain. Similar the sign ral has thee diferent ideas abject’ meaning’, ad wealth ‘Uncerinty and ambiguity ae aoays present as long assign isina solitary state It always comprises muliple ignfeds Hove ‘er, the signification of sign becomes clear when that sign is trnployed ina discourse. The preceding and succeelng signs cone {0a the sphere of signifies of every sign. The conglomeration or ‘ompslation of varios signe asa discourse functions a the situa tion or oontest ofthe sign which paves the path fora particular ‘Signi tobe a douninan festoe, "One never perceives ata given time, all he ies represented." ina sign "AL Unies, ones tken by a certain dominant feature, at others, by another” When a person cll another a tein Tani ve sgh wee doesnot refer to the conventionally signified vegetation. Conta, decanters fons the other signified inert asa dominant element The idea “ner signified by the sign ‘tee! is nowhere directly relate with the physial object ‘tre. Ar we have seen eater bot the signifies ofthe sign vegetation’ ad inert” are the abstracted ‘eas of Tamil society So, the sgn Wee's an abstraction, Uncone ditionally refers toa group of ideas. Eighteenth century French theoretical tradition began its que ries about the relationship betiven signs and thinking proces by raising a question, "Why do we require or what is the incompar- ‘bility of linguistic signs?” To answer this question they ventured into the primary quality of sigs, the abstraction. The human mind hasbeen conltioned to produce and wor with abstract ideas. NO ‘one can think of physical objects other than By’ converting them Intodeas. The nd perceives the word inthe fom of ideas ands ‘completo relyon those ideas fr further abstractions. Another incapabiity of the human mind is that it has ro mechanism t0 Store those abstract elements in memory in The for of iss. The Ife span ofan idea very shor. Tt dissolves in our mind ort gets lost inthe crowd of ideas. Therefore, co register an Kea in out memory we require some hind of materal objet to represent it Tnvarably, most societies preferred the acoustic objects 3s the represenatorsofidcas Aiculted objects became the signs of these ideas. THEORY AND PRAXIS OF TEXTUALINTERPRETATION #9 Fundamentally natural languages are compose of acoustic. cements A definite numberof sound patcles (Phoneme) tes tected, The selection ie based on to eter: esy to articulate an easy 10 remember These hlentiied sound partiles combined 0 form words. As the number of primary sound elements are limited, the wor-signs of language are also resticted. Therefore, human beings are pressutlzed to perfonn the at of abstraction 35 wells communication only withthe help of those limited word-signs. Hence, the ies of having separate woo-sign fr every separate idea becomes iniposibe. The structure of language in one way ah: lows us to produce and create multiple signifeds but onthe other refs toincrease the numberof signers. Thsis because in nat fallanguages the word operates ava sign, representing buach of ideas Inthe cas of alphabetical writings, the process of signification ismore complex than the articulatory system. A ttn sign never Fefers to an idea Te represents a sound patter, and i response, the stad fon signifies an idea. By wring, fundamentally we tuanslte a sgn ftom an invisible (acoustic) language wo visible lan fuage. A writen form isa signifier of an articulation, Haman be Ing ate accustomed (olive with a finite number of word-signs ‘Whenever one comes up with an abstract dea asa cesult of ones omplex mental proves of carclatng two ideas, dhe system of la ‘guage never allons one to crete new wor'signs.On the contrary Ittres to accommodate that new dea as one oF signiied for ay ‘one sgn, The systems ofa language proceed vertically ehrough en Fiching the domain of signified rather than expand horizontally "hugh introducing new sigs. Vertical procession in one way controls the economy ofthe system of sighs and keep it within the domain o flee accession Gn the other hand, i exiivates the domain of signfieds (ideas). Exiting corresponalences and correlations become a complicated process andthe intoduction of 4 new idea within & gloyp of Negnifieds procures possibilities of concelving further combi: rations, which leads tothe birth ofan idea. The emergence ofa new Idea the way i Is accommodated within asyatem of sis, and the feasible situations of inventing aew Ideas seem to be a ‘continuous process... language satisfies the needs of our thought, hich subsequently leads to new actions. Thus alter: natively theca gies birth tothe sign, andthe sign gives Diet | tothe idea," ‘The Roleof Sign: The thinking proces includes two kinds of tansation, The first translates ideas into signs, while the second Joes vice vrs Within socety there area numberof syste of signs Uke cultura sytem of ins, eigous system of sis, political system of signa, (he. Each system has is one gees of signs. As in a natural lane guage, a lg has similar kindof qualities nll Use systems, The Eiference between those socal systems thee seletion of signs, Similar to linguist systems of signification the signs ofthese ays tensalso signify ideas, Though the human mind operates simulta ‘eosin all hose systems, the contextual variations between ‘ju ifeentate them asthe participants of ilferent systems. Allsocctes maintain single communicative ol Though ca fanconsattn fre meme ota pole igs SSR they ar tommunkate to other nthe scsi dian None an commune anes mou he ep oF igang ewe hae set herergenrn stems (GBhabetS car pac) hove aicsory resonance Senses Th wasn of gn to Me a0 “ne eels A gn can be wands ico an Wea om one Sytem a ius io anaes ops Ike a ae Baer See Fetccberwcen wo nda, Since a gn sii tide, heave af ica may be ent om person Foon ii not mecesary, and no posible subse wo he Fe tern ofan ea memes salty Each ete Bi Sesion ofthe Wes wire ois eserenecs The cose srrahout a sign and anes ot ke. Ror instance thee these tce ould be df for every niu there stones wen heeronment Terre he prosssal ‘Sinmurcgon the senders ies hdl wasted areca Syrcms ofl Opes matey son ch bins bal ‘tescnder atte eer win acannon lane Te thinking process s seen as having thee important stages rapport. judgement, and proposition. Thought begins with a aps port of ideas and ends by fashioning a proposition. Rapport needs Ee east to ies, At dea is fundamentally a group of semantig pattces The emergence of an opinion among those particles a3) Jroup effects dhe combinatory rl, ide’. The particles are al {Kctive within an idea, Rappoa between two or more ideas is bas Sn the chayactvstie of those semartc particle, sds the cone Solidated meanings of the ideas. Meas having similar as well THEORY AND PRAXIS OFTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION 45 isi qualities bring them closer to one another The common= tities and iffeenes beowec two eas engage them oe further Complec abstractions. Any kind of idea that s evolved from these cstactions il be inthe form of adgement, Pereeving the simi Initls and ulfferences betwen two ideas helps the thinking being tocometoa-conctson eguling these ideas, onchsions or judge nents are sontaly articulated, realized in the form of statements, ‘Man thinks to create statements o propositions. A statement Js the reality ofa thinking process. proposition decides or com ‘hides defines the nature ofthe objects. A human being employs fiscapability of thinkingto uncarth the secret of is environment. The eeation or construction of the meaning begin with aapport ‘etieen ideas, then passes through an act of judgement, and ends ‘with the emergence of proposition, “Two ideas engaged in a rapport assume diferent roles in the whole process, ne of them becoming the subject ofthe process While the other turns int ts atnibute For example, a statement Such ay “Eighteenthscentury French philosophy introduced the Concept oficology” has a define subject nd aa atibat."Eigh- {eenitngentury French philosophy” becomes the subject to which introduced the concept of ideology” acts as an attribute. Esch csplains the other The subject of this stakement is incapable of prelucing 2 judgement unless ts related withthe ateibute, Te constitution of anew idea through our mental activity is ‘plained by elghteenth-century French theories with the help of ‘vo functions: contraction and abstraction. When the human mind {ndeavoury to proacea statement between two ideas, it custom- “lystarts with rapport During rapport the mind dissolves the Aissilrtes between tvo cements and tries to concentrate on the similarities, The common features are identified and are ab- ‘tracted, Abstraction ie always followed by contraction. "Themen- taloperation which consists of gathesing several ideas to form one iden t which a name is given to combine al, may be called con- traction as oppored to abstraction, which is exety it inverse” Therefore to produce a proposition, the human mind has to do abstraction a eoniteacton, The Idea of Text Knorege about the thinking process leads to the darification fhe natute ofcourse. Disco, a linguistic pris man festation of ides. "A discourse, then is constituted of propositions, which are always expressed in the form of judgements or, they ae composed of signs or groups of signs.” While x person reads the linguistic signs the conglomeration of those selected signs allows him to create statements in his mental sphere."Reading’ a text Iecomes an act of thought. reader writes discourse ot his oy Unough the actof reading. The emergence of discourses the effect of abstraction ad cone traction. Trough voyage slang group of inguistic ign, reader perceives the commonalities berween series of ideas. Hie beings these ideas fora rapport produce an aay of statement, Spee ‘ie contetal feaites or meaning of thos ess are neglected by him. ad he engages in 4 process of abstraction to detect the come son ideas. Later these common semantic particies ae contracted Xo concoct a proposition, Likewise, discourse ie constructed these propesitons, The perception of related keas thin & die course follows thre diferent means. A rapport follows these mean fortsruleof combination, Though sign hes one or more indepen dent ideas, es placement within a discourse thoroughly contro it Signed. The context tha determines the idea of sign fs the pe mary cordition of arappor. Seconds the proces of combination | is controlled by the diferent alternations that dhe signs ane sib jected to. Thy ppt predemsiay depends upon cea ‘gns that operate as cnjuncives between ideas “The Reading of Discourse: ‘With all hese basic principles abou language, sgn ka, think Ing and discourse French theories forth a mcthodelogy to analyse text. “Condi states that to analy sto decompose, to come pare, ad to apprchend che rapports"? | The meaning ofa discourse may be understood only through decomposing it into ideas To understand the methodology analysing test, consider H.S. Gills analysis of St. Juliet th Hospitalier as primary’ source, Gi Degins his analysis stating that the composition of Adscoursecan be equated with composition of a music pice. ‘musical piece, the body i constructed of muskal notes, Th ‘musical ensembles follow pattern of progression. Snr toa nat ral language musi language also consists of lied umber TIFORY AND PRANIS OF TEXTUALINTERPRETATION #1 notes So it becomes unavoidable to create an recreate, to pro {duce and reproduce present and represent cerain musical notes Ineach and every placement, the sound ofa musical ensembles decided by preceding ara succerding cnaembles ‘Musil compost tion’ asa metaphor Reps the author to decompose the discourse of Sc. Julien the Horpitaller into two hundred and odd ensembles Inthe second part he allows those semantic clement to ull rap ports between them. These rapports naturally yield propositions ‘which go along with one another. The new set of eapports between these statements emphasize the concep eonsraction ofthe de course. Therefore, to analyse a discourse within the tradition of eighteenthcenturyTeeach doves sto bring the apport Between ideas to the manifesting level, Ie involves kowedge abt a in uistic activity and knowledge sbout human cognition ‘Theory of Semiotics in Tolkappiyam: This section Comemplates to reconsteuet the discursive practice of Talkappiyam, particalarly of the thind chapter named porlathikaroy, where Tllappiyave cadens reading of wongim Titeratuee. ‘Though there are adventurous effor's to stuly Tlhapyyam especially Peralta, they lack theoretical back groans. So, dhe composition of orlatharan i still considered 354 product of the extraordinary, mystical knowledge system oF ancient Tamil society: Moreover the vast corp of angon liters. tue, hich inevitably requires the assistance of thea theory. and itssocal relevance motivite peopl to imagine a nostalgic 'golden| age’ of the Tamil literary world, whichis none other than the hee tanga Tan scholeship regarding these thre sangms can be class fied widly ito ewo as believers and non-believers. Thearcultery smode of the believer is pregnant with emotion, which has socio cultural, and politi repercussions forthe contemporary Tan situation. They consume Flap and sega erature as¥rit= fen evidence forthe antiquity of Taal langaage.® On the other hana, the non-believer prewie two hypotheses ist posing the heliewers, proposes am idea that poral rust be eration ‘of later period" The second Hypothesis concentrates upon the ‘content and form of the sont litratute withthe guidance of ponulathikaram. Bodh the steams of thoughts alto problematize the composition of poralathitaran rather than engaging in a dis pte regarding its historicity: Above all linguistic studies on se- >mantic and senouie principles of Tllappiane ae yet to begin Talhappiyan, te text, shows promising sign of evolving theory of language, pore of Tamil in mature. Silly, poralthikaram| ‘an be understood by rereading t through multiple perspectives rather than simply believing ca grammar of son literature’ For these approsches ane as to be aware ofthe history of Tail literature. Tis well proved that, though there ae textual perfor: ances during Titzpppem., the idea of ‘book’ emerged later to that Probably the anthologies must he the fist books, Before that "book? a6 a form [ohalippe (Cle), astver pep (author's ame), Eadanl nlite (prayer song), pyri (biographical data), etc] might not be there. The texts would have been exiting partly in memory and pary in alphabets'® The strict rules of| rusical eomposiion suppor his hypothesis. Likely, multiple i terpretations regarding the name of the book, the name ofthe a thor (forthe author of Tlkapijun we have ast of names) nd the facts that dard valli or payin is not weitten By the author agun validate oe hypothesis So reading an ancient tex ike Tllppam should be done at two levels: eating Tollapiyun’ asa text, and reading Tilkappiven, the book’ asatext. Because Taltyppian’ has multiple difereaces ‘with Tilkappitem, the book’. Telkrppipam as a book isa compose tion of heterogeneous narratives such as myths, tals, historical evidence, commentaries, and eolophoas, Moreover both the txts belong to different contests. Thelinguistic features of Tapp tellthat iteould be the product of 2nd century BC. But, Tlappyan Jsmade into a hook ery later to that, So fat, people who staied Tillappya for various purposes unknowingly took Tlkapiyam, the Book’ as “Toltappivam, the txt, This factual fallacy brought Shem ony oad the satiate ed abi ‘Once we could diferentate the text fom the book, Tappan provides enormous freedom of reading. Tellows us to trantgress the text horizontally and vertically. Therefore, the txt becomes the text ofthe reader where authoral signatures are insignificant In this paper I try such Kind of reading “Tolkappiyen as a txt “Therefore, take the liberty of testing tina theory a8 an inter pretation of Tolppiyam regarding the saga corpus. Ly to ead the text, which srditonally unerstod as gamma, an inter pretation. Grammarand intereetation are policaly opposite 1 “THEORY AND PRAXIS OF TEXTUALINTERPRETATION exch other, The narrative voice ofa grammars definite, authorta five and universal, ut an interpretative voice implies the chanees ff muliplicy eis congenitally democratic, and overwhelmingly particular, So reading thing theory as grammar and as an inter Pretatlon area opposite poles, The purpose of reading fapiyam Traltogether a ifferent perspective isco identify the discursive ‘Srategies i would have applied forthe textual interpretation Generally set of dscusive elements and tools sustain a dis cursive practice. The apparatus and the elements applied and the way they ate experimenting ith overa text are very much spon ble to, what a text isand what constitutes discourse’. So all this state, ides of text idea of discourse dea of meaning, dscur Siveclements and tools, and practice, comprised asa system is cu tulatively taken to be a model, To seconstruct the theoretical ‘ode demonstrated Tap isideas about meaning’ ext tnd ‘discourse’ should be displayed meticulously. Sol shall com ‘ence the process of reconstructing the discursive practice with the meaning of meaning in Tlppinam and then proceed 0 an explanation ofthe understanding of text and discourse i ‘The testinor acne an ing The poss ofconcelvng theory fom genta wrk ands a metho ‘gy The problem aes Decauof the partclriedatltion Phe grammatical work cele contentrates on ries and tng the uncon seo language A grammar conversa thelevelof conditions and preconditions of linguistic uterance ‘Unconditonalyconentrsteson purr contetal tuo "The Mes of grammar that Hs olerted towards ulti pu yooesrestains the nature of ie dace to conflate about {Gneions ater than making statements. Major diferencebe- tween 2 giammar and a theory grammar fequently cond Sonal wie theory is propesitonal ‘Methodology I apply for deconstruction ofa linguistic theory Soom Talappjan is errey based on these understandings. Pri surly {begin with the idea of fabricating statements or proposi- tions from the grammatical work, For tha identify the cieum- Stance whee Tilapiyum ariclates about nature of words, rela- tionship between a word and an idea, ambiguousnessof wos, ct. Tetlappown' articulations ofthese versal features of languages far instance, uncerainty about the relationship between a word sndan idea - ate fashioned to avoid the traces ofthis uncertainty atthe Functional level, The trajectory’ ofits discourse sto post luce the posse wns of sucessful manipulation offing. Ther fore atthe inital ko, identify these instances and then tempt to concoct the proportions, Surprising in someplace Tatappien lel cones ervard vith uch Kind ef stim, To ‘lst, Tapa bine ts caper on novns wih a dela tion that ll worssiguied te weaning, In auch cae ws these postulates vad statements, ‘Asa first step toners a theory from the grammatical work, I transform the regulation into propositions. The series of propose ‘on are then shufled and reshutled to ceatea discourse by alow Ing ther to respond to one another at syntagmatc and pragmae levels. The natare of thei ieration fils the gaps between propo sitlons ar finally produces the discourse of the theory THs die fourse, on the one hat operates as the underlying theory of Toihappiyam.. However, on the other. as selection of the limite numberof propositions, identification of cesta conditions that ‘sin become propositions, and conception ofthese isolate ster Incnts into a eres of proposition are stsined with subjective pre ‘mprtioms, the discourse undoubtedly als faraway fom the Pi tary tex. Similar kun of methodology is sed in the construction ‘thai theory in the Inter part, Thre | conveniently treat the ‘hina concep as & conceptual structure of tanga Vteratune, The ‘theory’ becomes a eang of ng literate. Tooeate the thee ‘of semiotics in Tela, I commence withthe construction ob its Hinguiste theories The methodology that {applied is o make possible number of propositions regarding the nature of language landits functions fom that grammatical work and ater try ee Struct a naeation with those statements. ilapppam never expe inlyspeaks about the interpretation of eat, Nevertheless icon vere abot the poetic of uangam Kterture. Therefore Trea the thi chapter of fokapp)anm, poruathikaram, asa theory of sng Tterature roan this theory, called tht theory, try t construct the methodology of interpreting a extn Tllapye So the se ‘on re begins th the linguistic theory of Tle. followed bya detailed description of china theory and its methodology ‘ikappam isan ances Tusil work on gramme, Historian Tae dated it between the seco century BC and frst century AD." Though there are many testimonials both in vriten and ‘oral traditions about another grammatical text called Agatuhivam that historically preceded Tappa ts manseript has been ost So Tllapion remains theo and only pristine gramaratcal text for Ta TMHFORY AND PRANISOPTEXTUALINTERPRETATION Tthapiyam was writen by Tltappyar Some say the ator

    You might also like