You are on page 1of 15

Creation and Development of Language: An Outline through Some Principles and Concepts of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar
bhuvanesvarc@yahoo.com

svabha:vastu pravartate: „It is nature that acts.‟(Lord Sri Krishna: Srimad Bhagavad Gi:tha 5.14); “By Prakriti are done all sorts of actions (whether done in speech, thought, or deed).” (From Sri: A:di Samkara’s Commentary on Srimad Bhagavad Gi:ta 3.27; 7.13; 13.29)

[This is a part of the abridged paper presented at the International Symposium on Proverbs, University of Diderot, Paris. This section is omitted in the Proceedings owing to constraints of space. Hence it is given in the Scribd papers for general reference of those who want to get more details about language creation and its development. For a very detailed explanation, please see the full text of the speech.]
Section II: Ka:rmik Linguistics: Theory III. Creation and Development of Language
In this part, a very skeletal outline of the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT) is proposed owing to the constraints of space and the vastness of the theory.

3. 1. Notation in KLT
KLT is described through a specially designed ka:rmik notation of many new symbols, graphs, [star, chakram, pattern, and radial] networks, diagrams and figures. A symbol stands for any material or ideational object as a participant in an activity, process, or event, or any relationship between participants in an equation which consists of participants combining with each other in specified relations in a linear, dynamic order. For example, in the hypothetical equation C PS F (+PS + C) PP P, C, P, F, PS, PP and P are letter symbols that stand for Concept, Pattern and Structure, Form, Prototypical Practice and Proverb; and leads to; a:nushangikally gives rise to; superimposed on; apparently transforms into are graphic symbols for process relations that represent how an action takes place in its dynamic state; star networks are Cognition (Awareness) or Causal Networks mapping out mental cognition of potential unmanifest action just before its evolution (seed-form) into a pattern, its sequences and relations (sprout-form) with a (big) star surrounded by planets (small stars) and satellites (smaller star) networks consisting of twinkles as nodes for participants; Pattern Networks or Subtle Networks (like the SFL networks) show how a system is dynamically mapped out as a network of choices in its Pattern and Structure with an entry condition leading to primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. choice networks; Chakrams are Evolution Networks that show how an object/action that is cognized evolves from its causal-topattern-to-form states by concentric circles enveloping disposition ( ) in an STM context; Radial Networks or Gross Networks show the I-I-I relationships of the parts in a whole when they are synoptically materialized; Figures and diagrams represent other types of complex relations and structure. It is difficult to show them in detail in this short paper which is a summary of 300 pages 0|Page

1

and the reader is referred to the original unabridged text of the plenary speech to know about them in detail.

Satellite …… Planet Star • • • • a. Star • • …..

b. Pattern c. Chakram d. Radial Network 1. Action Networks: a. Star (Cognitive) b. Pattern (Dynamic) c. Chakram (Evolution) d. Radial (Synoptic) The symbols are explained when they occur for the first time. Sample networks are given above from which networks can be constructed as and when they are referred to in the Practice Section of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory.

3. 2. Some Basic Principles and Concepts of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory
This creation is an infinite mind-boggling network of action which for our understanding can be broadly divided into: 3. 2. 1. Potential State of Creation in which the Principle of Consciousness eternally exists as Infinite Knowledge in Absolute Bliss (Experience) with inherent Energy as Root Nature (Mu:la Prakruthi) which is Pure and Infinite. This Energy is constitutionally Sattva „Luminosity (Cognitivity)‟, Rajas „Activity‟, And Tamas „Inertia (Materiality)‟ - all in a potential state of equilibrium (in the pre-Big-Bang sate of creation). Nature (N) is shown as Disposition (D) in human action equations and retained as N in other equations. The Principles of Consciousness, Knowledge, and Bliss (Experience) as well as Energy, Mass, Luminosity (Cognitivity), Activity, and Inertia are proposed as empirically observed scientific concepts in Physics and Psychology and not as religious concepts as observed in Sana:tana Dharma. (1) a. Consciousness = Eternal Existence + Infinite Knowledge + Absolute Bliss b. Consciousness = Consciousness + Infinite and Pure Energy (Nature) [Cognitivity + Activity + Inertia] Nature/Disposition-Qualified-Consciousness (N/DQC) c. When Consciousness reflects (~) in its Nature, It becomes Consciousness-Qualified-Nature. (2) Consciousness ~ Nature (Energy) Consciousness-Qualified-Nature/Disposition (CQN/D)

3. 2. 2. In The Dynamic State of Creation CQN becomes dynamic and creates all the
phenomena by its powers of projection. The Consciousness in C-Q-N functions as the Immanent Intelligence and the Efficient Cause while Nature (Energy = MC2) as the Substance and Material Cause of Creation. CQN projects a Universal Science of Creation for this universe – as discovered in physical and natural sciences - which projects a systemic network of choices of Universal Science of [Action/Living/Lingual Action] which in turn generate their own networks-withinnetworks network in an atomic-(w)holistic ( = holistic which is about the effect „whole‟ + its cause and means) framework to execute-sustain-dissolve creation. This is the Big-Bang State of Creation.

3. 3. Universal Science of Creation 3. 3. 1. US Action: In it, first the Space-Time-Matter (STM) Substratum and the SupracosmicMacrocosmic-Microcosmic (SMM) Levels are created. The Supra-cosmic Level is that of Consciousness and Nature; the Macrocosmic Level is that of the universe at large (collective level of the entire universe as a whole like the wood consisting of trees); and the Microcosmic Level is that of the individual in the universe (individual level like the tree in the wood). The microcosmic level is further divided into living (animal and vegetable) and non-living (solid-liquid-gaseous) objects/systems in their variety, range, and depth of class, quality, substance and activity. They all Page 1 of 15

2

obey the laws of physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and mathematics) and exist as objects in states of being and are participants in material activity which is bound by the US Action at their sub-atomic, atomic, object levels of the Material Plane of Creation. We are primarily concerned with activity at object level where objects function as participants in a specific relation with ( ) other objects to perform action at the Actional Plane of Creation. In addition, both objects and actions have a Concept-Pattern and Structure-Form in their evolution like the concept house, with its pattern and structure in a blue print and the form in the actual building. (3) a. Objects: Quality + Object/Substance Qualified Object/Substance; b. Relationship: Object(s) Objects b. Material Action: Participants + Relation + Action; c. Quality + Action Qualified Action d. Evolution of Object/Action: Concept Pattern and Structure Form 3. 3. 2. US Living: In it, furthermore, among the living systems, the powers of cognitivity (awareness, cognition, knowing) that enable the human beings (ka:rmik actors with an Ego „ahamka:ram‟) to be aware of the actual world out there; the world in here (inside their being), the possible world by imagination of the worlds out there and in here, and finally the imaginary (psychic) worlds which are not actual and possible; complex disposition (consisting of the fundamental constituents of sattva, rajas, and tamas projecting traits, knowledge, and va:sana:s leading to complicated (desires, action, experience)) which qualifies their awareness and cognition of action by analyticity (intelligence, reason, analysis, interpretation, memory, and creativity) which provides the content of their dispositional awareness and cognition as this and that to be so and so in such and such a manner; activity (triple action: mental, vocal, and physical), and experience (pleasure, pain, delusion, and witnessing) are inherently constituted. They are impelled by their complex disposition to seek pleasure (sukhe:chcha) and from that desire for pleasure desire different types of (complex) desires, make effort owing to dispositional functional pressure (DFP) to fulfill their desires for their experience, perform triple biological action and experience the results of their action – all according to their svabha:vam (disposition) – in a cause-means-effect oriented Context at the Experiential Plane of Creation. This biological action is governed and derived from the US Action (Material Action) with the addition of agency (and so sukhe:chcha, desire, free will, active and passive action) coupled with experience (of pleasure, pain, delusion, witnessing). Furthermore, as it is governed by the Principle of Cause – Means – Effect, the action (karma) performed attendant with its results (karmaphalam) and experience of pleasure, pain, delusion, or witnessing (karmaphalabho:gam) impacts on the knowledge of the actor which in turn impacts on his likes and dislikes as traits that finally establish his internalized habits (va:sana:s) to constitute his svabha:vam (disposition). This disposition impels desires and their choice to make effort and perform action and experience the results of his action in the context of their occurrence in an unending cyclic manner ( ) from birth-to-death to constitute his samsa:ram (living). (4) Disposition (= Traits +Knowledge + Va:sana:s) [(Sukhe:chcha DFP) Desire] Effort [Action (Karma) Result (Karmaphalam) Experience (Karmaphalabho:gam)] Sukhe:chcha [and duhkha nivrutti (redressal of pain)] is the driving force that makes the individual perform unending cyclic dispositional activity from birth-to-death; ahamkaram (Ego) and mamakaram (My-ness) are the supports on which it stands. In this context, he constructs action through five realities: dispositional-cognitive-socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional-(triple) actional by algorithmic (searching all the variables one by one), heuristic (trial and error by elimination of some and inclusion of other possible variables), and automatic (selecting the correct variable) methods through experience, knowledge, and analyticity by gradual evolution of one into the other. Since human disposition and consequently the desires impelled from it are complex, complex activity (comprising action, solutions to problems, and innovations which cannot be Page 2 of 15

3

fulfilled by ordinary individual, physical and mental action) is needed to fulfill them; on the other hand, desires are individualistic but also collectively designed demanding individual-collective interaction (e.g., mating, family, domination, etc.). In this context, as a result, individual human beings evolve into groups and create societies in a context. A biological animal becomes a biological social contextual actor; a biological social contextual animal becomes a biological sociocultural contextual actor as patterns of behaviour are chosen at the collective level for a pragmatically happy living owing to sukhe:chcha and duhkha nivruttthi. At a later stage, he becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual (SCS) contextual actor as he delves deep into the essence of living. At this stage, he constructs his actional reality as dispositional SCS contextual reality. All this evolution is carried out because he is basically an experiential (ka:rmik) animal. Therefore, a biological actor becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual contextual actor who finally becomes a biological, socioculturalspiritual, experiential contextual actor or simply a Ka:rmik Actor. This is the ultimate stage where he constructs Actional Reality through Cognitive Reality as Ka:rmik Reality of which Dispositional Reality, SCS Reality, Contextual Reality, and Actional Reality are stages of expansion and evolution by superimposition (adhya:sa). In this sense, ka:rmik action presupposes dispositional action and it is the source for all action in general and lingual action in particular by gradual evolution. In fact, all action is generated, specified, directed, and materialized by disposition through disposition for the construction of dispositional and ultimately the emergent ka:rmik reality for the karmaphalabho:gam of the karmaphalam of the karma of the beings. 3. 3. 3. US Lingual Action: In it, at the pre-language development state of human civilization, the dispositional functional pressure (DFP) generated in human beings to fulfill their complex desires for experiencing pleasure demands and so triggers creative semiotic activity – which is made possible by the genetic inheritance of physical and mental abilities for language creation, production, and application in the US Action/Living– to communicate their intentions to others, to interpret and perform action with others as a means to fulfill their desires, and to coordinate the coordination of group activity so that their desires are fulfilled and they may experience the results of their actions as pleasure. Again, the same disposition, which is a complex of traits, knowledge, and va:sana:s (internalized habits), triggers likes and dislikes that result in dispositional bias which controls response bias and brings about choice and thus variation in performing action. (5) Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice Variation in Action In this dispositional functional struggle to fulfill desires, semiosis erupts and speech is produced as a product of dispositional creativity, first as a tool with symbols only, next, as a system with connected symbols, and finally as a resource with the developed system and as a means with the semiotic power to be used for the construction of dispositional reality and the ultimate experience of the results of their dispositional action. Gradually, proverbs are formed from speech as a genre to construct proverbial prototypical-categorial reality.

3. 4. Theory-Procedure-Techniques of Language Creation
A principled account of the eruption and development of speech by gradual evolution of soundsto-phonemes-to-syllables-to-words-to-phrases-to-sentences and proverbs from speech into culturally confirmed and frozen prototypical illocutions (texts) is provided by a theory which is a set of assumptions about the nature of language (and proverbs), a procedure which implements the theory by a process, and techniques that implement the procedure by a set of strategies and contrivances in the KLT as follows. 3. 4. 1. Theory: According to the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, 1. human beings are embodied to exist for their karmaphalabho:gam in a context; 2. They are genetically endowed with all the abilities (hardware) for the creation, production, and application of language from the US Lingual Action via US Action and Living as dispositional (ka:rmik) action; 3. Language is an emergent Page 3 of 15

4

phenomenon erupting out as DFP impacts on ( ) human beings to fulfill their desires and experience the results of their action, and consequently the dispositional creativity in human beings gives rise to a particular language (software) by gradual evolution as an emergent phenomenon ( ) by generating, specifying, directing, and materializing it in the context as an autopoietic and dissipative ka:rmik system from U S [Action + Living + Lingual Action] implemented by a procedure. 4. Language is not only produced by human beings dispositionally by living in a context, but it is also used by human beings dispositionally for living in the context and as such particular languages are dispositionally (not genetically, socially, or cognitively) learnt through language abilities for the ka:rmik experience in the context since they have to be transferred and installed individually by choice by the individual from the contextual lingual outputs; 5. It is used as a resource for the construction of actional reality at the lower level, dispositional reality at the middle level, and ka:rmik reality at the higher level by superimposition of disposition on action making it dispositional action and experience on disposition so that human beings can have their karmaphalabho:gam of their karmaphalam of their karma as they deserve it by desiring it; and 6. Form-function-meaning-cognition-disposition are interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) as networks-within-networks (NwN) in an atomic-holistic framework with (individual-collective) experience-making potential (ka:rmik reality) via dispositional meaning making (dispositional reality) in an integrated and homogeneous formally semiotic system of meaning making (actional reality) in which causality (Why) decides the effect (What) and the means (How as manner, when, and where): language is as it is because of what it is intended to do what it does. 3. 4. 2. Procedure: According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, karmaphalabho:gam is an emergent phenomenon from ka:rmik reality which is produced by the I-I-I networking of the Five Realities: Dispositional-to-Cognitive-to-SCS-to-Contextual-to-Lingual Actional Realities. Therefore, the procedure for implementing the theory of language creation should be in terms of constructing these five realities. 3. 4. 2. 1. Construction of Five Realities: The linguistic system is created by the construction of these Five Realities and developed through elementary, intermediate, and advanced stages by gradual evolution through ka:rmik processing of sounds-to-phonemes-to-syllables-to-words-tophrases-to-sentences in a chain reaction as an autopoietic and dissipative ka:rmik system from U S [Action + Living + Lingual Action] – as pointed out in the theory – implemented by the following procedure.
(6) D. F. P. Dispositional Creativity of Human Beings Universal Science of (Action + Living + Lingual Action) (A Particular) Language] [ Give rise to X by gradual evolution as an emergent phenomenon; impacts on]

Since human beings are dispositionally complex, their intellection, emotion, and experience are complex, and consequently get complex desires. These complex desires cannot be fulfilled by ordinary physical or mental action; they require complex means to achieve the complex effects (goals). Hence, a complex dispositional functional pressure builds up in their personalities and in the process erupts vocalization as a solution to solve the problem of fulfilling complex desires (for example, to communicate danger, vocalizations erupt; and to communicate specific and complex danger, a specific vocalization is required; this builds up functional dispositional pressure and brings forth semiotic representation by gradual evolution of the vocalization into a patterned vocalization into a recognized vocalization as meaningful into a semiotic vocalization by a dispositional choice of its function-meaning-form at each and every level of its realization. The process is captured in the following equation: (6) a. D. F. P. Vocalization Meaningful Vocalization (Semantics) Patterned Vocalization Semiotic Vocalization Symbolic Communication. Page 4 of 15

5

It is in this process, a semantic system is initiated and developed as shown in the Networks 2 and 3 in tandem with the formal system by gradual evolution as explained below. Each unit of meaning in its variety-range-depth is symbolized by a corresponding symbol/complex of symbols in the form of phonemes-words-phrases-clauses-sentences.

A Flowchart of Formal Semantic Concepts
Categorematic Sense Denotation Proposition Complete Semantic Change Formal Semantic Concepts Widening Narrowing Regeneration Degeneration Partial Simile Complete Metapho r Irony Euphemism Semantic Antithesis Relations Oxymoron Rhetorical Question Figures of Speech Climax Anticlimax Network 2: A Network of Semantic Concepts Symmetrical Antisymmetrical Transitive Reflexive Metonymy Synecdoche Personification Syncategorematic Atomic …. Contd. in the Next Network Propositional Constituents

Once sounds are turned into symbols, language starts and a chain reaction sets in owing to the innate dispositional creativity of the human beings. People begin to explore, experiment, and create new sounds, new patterns, and increase the range, depth, and variety of the phonemic symbolic system of vowels and consonants by Exploration of the Contextual Variables (ECV) of the midsagittal plane of the mouth from the labial-to-(dental-alveolar-postalveolar-palatal-velar-uvular(velic-pharyngeal))-to-glottal places of articulation and the position of the tongue from its tip-to(blade-front-back)-to-root by algorithmic, heuristic and automatic Productive Extension of Variables (PEV), Creation of New Variables (CNV), and (Choice and) Conjunction of Contextual Variables (CCV) in a linear process from the front-to-back spatial direction in the ka:rmik process by systemic networking (as in the Pattern Network 1.b) of different manners of articulation as plosive, nasal, trill, tap or flap, fricative, lateral fricative, approximant, and lateral approximant. b. Vocalization Sound Meaningful Sound Patterned Sound Phoneme Phonemic System Gradually, as human beings use, refine, and expand this phonemic system, they develop a lexical system by their dispositional creativity to meet the contextual needs by mathematical means of addition (combination of phonemes in all the possible directions by ECV, PEV, CNV, CCV as in syllabification, affixation (prefixation, suffixation, infixation, and circumfixation; compounding, and reduplication), subtraction (shortening, blending, acronomy, initialism, and abbreviation), etc. of the phonemes in a similar ka:rmik word-formation process by systemic networking (as in the Pattern Network 1.b). When this system is standardized by individual-collective-contextualactional conjunction (as in Network 9, p.20 of this article), it becomes the established lexical system of communication. c. Sounds Phonemes Combined Sounds Phonemic Syllables (Phonemic System) Patterned Syllables Meaningful Syllables Words (Lexical System) Page 5 of 15

6

Gradually, as human beings use, refine, and expand this system, they develop a syntactic system as shown in the Network 4 below, again, by their dispositional creativity from DFP in a similar ka:rmik process of syntactic system formation. In this system, patterns and structures of phenomenal action as obtained in the Universal Action from US Action are systematically related with dispositionally created patterns and structures of lingual action as syntax. In this system, phenomenal action is represented by a systemic networking of lingual action into simple (SV, SV (O, C, A) and SVO (O, C, A) sentence patterns in English)) and complex sentences (compound (coordination of equal clauses by syndetic, asyndetic, and quasi-coordination) and complex sentences (subordination by nominal, adjective, and adverbial clauses) as declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences. When this system is standardized by individual-collective-contextual-actional conjunction, it becomes the established syntactic system of communication.
Identity (Synonymy) Atomic Atomic Propositional Identity Different Syntax Different Lexis Different Praxis Negation Conjunction Disjunction Implication Equivalence Identity of 2 or more Propositions Proposition 1 Proposition 1…n Lexically Direct Lexically Indirect Direct-Indirect Lexical Ambiguity Syntactic Figures of Speech Network 3: A Network of Proposition in Semantic Concepts Propositional Antonymy

Proposition

Complete

. d. Words Combined Words Phrases Patterned Phrases Systemic Phrases e. Words Phrases Clauses Patterned Clauses Systemic Clauses f. Sentences Patterned Sentences Meaningful Systemic Sentences This syntactic system is further used in discourse (in terms of utterances, turns, exchanges, and transactions) for coordinating the coordination of action by observing, interpreting, identifying, representing, creating, initiating, and experiencing action through the speech acts of assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations to construct the dispositional (ka:rmik) reality for the ultimate karmaphalabho:gam of the karmaphalam of the karma of the ka:rmik actors (interlocutors). In the case of proverbial discourse, the proverbial syntactic system is used in proverbial discourse for constructing the proverbial dispositional (ka:rmik) reality for the ultimate proverbial karmaphalabho:gam. g. Disposition Desire Effort Lingual (Normal/Proverbial) Action [Utterances Turns Exchanges Transactions Discourse] Coordination of Coordination of Action Results Experience Other systems within systems also develop in a similar way. Finally, a language is established but it is always in a continuous flux since disposition fluctuates synchronically and diachronically. However, this system is I-I-Ily developed in combination with all the levels of language: Formal, Page 6 of 15

7

Functional, Semantic, Cognitive, Dispositional, Experiential. This established formal and functional system of language becomes the basis for the formation of proverbs.

Networks for the Simple and Complex Sentences
SVA SVC SVO SVOA SVOC SVOO SV Rhetorical Questions Questions Simple Q/A Proverbs ± Subject With Let Negative commands Persuasive Commands Syndetic Asyndetic Quasi Coordination Phrasal Coordination Time Place Condition & Concession Reason or Cause Circumstance Purpose Result Manner & Comparison Proportion & Preference Non-infinitive & Verbless

Statements

Sentence

Commands Exclamations Coordination Complex Subordination Nominal Clause That -Clause Interrogative Clause Nominal Relative Clause To-Infinitive Nominal Clause Nominal –ING Clause Bare Infinitive and Verbless Clauses

Subordination

Adverbial Clauses Comparative Sentence Correlation Correlation Enough and Too So That and Such That Wellerisms Comment Clauses Proverbs with Parenthetic Matter Other Syntactic Classes (Complex Sentence) Relative Clause Adjective Verbless Adjective Clause Clause Contingent Adjective Clause

Rhetorical Questions Imperatives Exclamations Wh-Word Exclamations

Network 4: Network for the Simple and Complex Sentences

3. 4. 2. 2. Development of the Symbolic System: The symbolic formal-functional-semantic
system is developed by gradual evolution of correspondence between 1. universal action and symbolic universal lingual action in a. meaning; b. function; c. form; Page 7 of 15

8

2. disposition and created lingual system; and 3. disposition, universal action, and universal lingual action by the Principle of IndividualCollective-Contextual Conjunction and Standardization; 3. 4. 2. 3. Development of Lingual Action: The development of lingual action as dispositional human action by a Cause/Goal-Means-Effect/End model through such principles as ECV, PEV, CNV, CCV, Networks-within-Networks (NwN), Atomic-(w)holistic Functionality (AHF), I-I-I Networking, etc.; 4. providing a principled account of the typological variation in a language and the description of its creation, application, transmission, retention, perpetuation, and dissolution ka:rmik linguistically since all action including lingual action is dispositionally generated, specified, directed, and materialized in a 5. Ka:rmik Process. 3. 4. 3. Techniques: The Procedure of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is further implemented by a set of Techniques: 1. General Techniques such as superimposition and lingual action choice; least effort; and exploitation of state of being in the formation of lingual action; and 2. Systematization Techniques such as the Ka:rmik Processing Techniques (e.g., linear-parallel-radial-cyclic-spiral processing; bottom-up-top-down-diagonal processing; recursion, and reversal-of-ordering in addition to exploration of contextual variables (ECV), productive extension of variables (PEV), creation of new variables (CNV), and conjunction of contextual variables (CCV).

3. 5. Correspondence between US [Lingual Action - Living - Action] in Language and Proverbs
There is a systematic correspondence between Universal Science of Action giving Universal Action, and Universal Science of Living giving Universal Living in the sense that whatever is done by human beings is Universal Action only but qualified as Dispositional Universal (Human) Action; in a similar way, whatever lingual action human beings perform is only Dispositional Universal Vocal Human Action only but qualified as Dispositional Universal Lingual Action only. (7) Universal Science of Action ( Universal Action :: Universal Science of Living ( Universal Living) :: Universal Science of Lingual Action ( Universal Lingual Action) 3. 5. 1. Correspondence between Universal Human Action and Universal Action: All human action can be general, simple, and complex and it is derived from US Living as action which is in turn derived from US Action in which an object can act by itself or on others (*): Wind (Inanimate Participant) moving (Action) – P * A. / Heavy winds (Agent) uprooting (Action) trees (Patients) Ps * A * Patients. Similarly, there are only two types of human action: 1. Self-Action in which the human beings perform action by themselves within a Pattern Network of systemic choices with selfas-actor and body-as-actor at the primary level; internal action and external action at the secondary level; and so on; and 2. Action-with-Others in which human beings act on/with others within a Pattern Network of systemic choices with self/others-as-object (active/passive action at the secondary level); others-as-participants (agent-patient, instrumental, location, ablational, etc as relations at the secondary level); and main/auxiliary action at the primary level. Both these types of action are qualified and adjuncted in the context at their dispositional, cognitional, social, contextual, and actional primary levels of occurrence along with their secondary, tertiary, and so on levels. General Action is triple action (mental, vocal and physical) and it can be simple-complex, general-particular, prototypical-categorial (as proverbs are), and individual-collective; complex action is coordinated, subordinated (with participantial and qualificational, and mixed) along with their subdivisions as captured in Network 5, 6, and 7. 3. 5. 2. Correspondence between Universal Human Action and Universal Lingual Action: Just as there is a correspondence between Universal Action (U A) and Universal Human Action (U H A), Universal Lingual Action (U L A) also has an a:nushangik (cause inherited into the effect like clay into pot) correspondence with U H A and U A. The entire variety, range, and depth of phenomenal action in the actual, possible, and imaginary worlds can only be represented if there is Page 8 of 15

9

double correspondence between U S Action and U S Lingual Action on the one hand and between Universal Science of Living and Universal Science of Lingual Action to coordinate the coordination of human action as universal action. There is twist here: US Action is created by the Immanent Intelligence in Nature whereas a language is created and developed by human beings, that is, lingual action is one of the three human actions (mental, vocal, and physical). But all human action is dispositional and hence lingual action also should be so.
Physical Self-as-Actor Self-Action Body-as-Actor Self-as-Object Active Others-as-Object Action-with-Others Others-asParticipants Main Action Human Action (Simple) Auxiliary Action Dispositional Sa:ttvik Ra:jasik Ta:masik Perception Attention Alertness Memory Social Cultural Spiritual Immediate Wider Global Participant Relation Action Traits Knowledge Va:sana:s Passive Relation Agent-Patient Instrumental Recipients Ablational Locational Possessive ……… n Internal Action Thinking Mental Emotional Vocal Action Non-semiotic Semiotic

External Action

Qualification

Cognitional

Qualification and Adjunction Adjunction

Social

Contextual

Actional Spatial Temporal Material Fulfillment of Desires Phenomenal Noumenal Pleasure

Single Double Multiple

Formal

Functional Action Actional Contentual Knowledge Experiential

Material Social Mental Spiritual

Intellectual Emotional Experiential

Pain Network 5: Network of the Universal Science of Simple Action (Human) Mental Simple General Prototypical Human Action Vocal

Individual

Page 9 of 15

10

Physical

Complex

Particular

Categorial

Collective

Network 6: Network of the Universal Science of General Action (Human)

Coordinated Action Human Action (Complex) Subordinated Action Mixed Action

Participantial

Participant

Qualificational Action Coordinated Action in Subordinated Action

Subordinated Action in Coordinated Action Network 7: Simple Network of the Universal Science of Complex Action (Human)

That is why we see variety in lingual action and typological variation in their range and depth also; nonetheless, all human beings use language as a resource for the construction of their ka:rmik (dispositional) reality by the Principle of Reversal of Order ( ). (8) (U S Action U A) (U S Living U H A) (U S Lingual Action U LA) (U S Action U A) (U S Lingual Action U L A) (U S Living U L A).
Material Social Intellectual Spiritual Mixed

Ji:va

Desire

Effort: Dispositional Cognition Pasyanthi

Lingual Action

Vaikhari Declarative U Interrogative T Denegation Condition Compound Imperative Exclamatory Simple Complex Indicative

Representative Directive Commissive Expressive Declaration Mood Atomic Proposition Compound Syntax Lexis Phonology Standard: Formal Colloquial: Informal Intimate Slang :Intimate Taboo Plain Figurative Ornate Bombastic

Function

Meaning

Speech Act

T

Form

E

R

Formality& Variety

A N

Decoration Style

C

Non-Proverbial Genre Proverbial Spoken Register Written Madhyama

E

Network 8: Lingual Action Process Network

3. 6. The Nature of Symbols, Symbolic System, and Natural Languages
Page 10 of 15

11

A symbol is a sign that stands for an object/action/state of being (O/A/S). An O/A/S has a form which embodies a concept in a pattern and structure according to the guNa:s of Nature whereas a symbol has no power to be the O/A/S since it can only embody the concept of the object as (propositional) meaning in its own form – with its own conceptual meaning – (but not that of the object) according to the disposition of the symbol-creator. To explain further, form-oriented action has its own material-form with a meaning with double conception of the meaning as well as its material form; for example, the object lotus as a material form as well as the meaning that the object is lotus have their own conception; in a similar way, name-oriented creation has also its own phonetic-form with a meaning by double conception of meaning and form – for example, the word lotus as a phonetic word as well as the meaning of the word. In language, the material form is replaced by the phonetic form for dispositional semiosis through a categorial transformation. In that sense, both the forms are superimpositions (a:dhya:sam) on knowledge. Therefore, it can represent the O/A/S only partially as knowledge, as a concept of the O/A/S, to construct dispositional actional reality through speech acts for other types of actions. However, it is effective, productive, flexible, and economical in the re-creation of the form-oriented universe in terms of the name-oriented universe. It is used as a tool for representing phenomenal objects in the elementary stages of language development. When the phenomenal world is systematically represented in terms of chosen sounds (phonemes), words, and syntax (as a system) to systematically represent the phenomenal world as knowledge, as meaning by semantics (as another system), the tool expands into a single symbolic system integrating both form and meaning and finally when it is exploited for the construction of dispositional reality via the socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and actional realities, it becomes a resource and as a whole as a means. It is shown by the following two triangles.
F (O) F (L) D decides C and F and resolves the relation between F (O). Form (F) Concept (C) and C. C is dispositioall re-cognized as M in terms of D (O) C D (L) M(eaning) F (L). Again D (L) decides F (L) and M and resolves the Disposition (D) Fig. 1: Symbolic Triangles relation between F (O) and C.

In this connection, it needs a semantic system, and a formal system along with a functional system to construct (dispositional) actional reality for the fulfillment of desires for the experience of the results of action as pleasure (or pain or neutral). In the initial stages of language development, only sounds represent meaning, but by gradual evolution sounds expand into words and phrases and sentences and discourse to represent meaning more and more distinctly, elaborately and intelligibly. This process evolves from the non-semiotic cognition of form-oriented universe as this and that to be so and so in such and such form and its understanding non-semiotically; later on, this non-semiotic comprehension is turned into semiotic representation, expression, and communication for experience as living. In this process of semiotic representation, semiotic meaning replaces non-semiotic meaning. Nonetheless, there is a correspondence between US Action meaning and US lingual action meaning.

3.7. Representation of Form-Oriented (Non-Semiotic) Action as Name-Oriented (Semiotic) Meaning
A detailed description of the US Action can be constructed by an analysis of the things (or categories) and their classes and characteristics present in the universe such as substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence and negation which are further classified according to their own nature and properties. For example, the first category Substance is further classified into nine classes: earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind; the second category Quality is classified into 24 classes: colour, taste, odour, touch, number, magnitude, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity, weight, fluidity, viscidity, sound, intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and tendency. In addition, each substance under its Page 11 of 15

12

class is further given its characteristics (qualities). For example, earth has odour as its inherent quality; again, odour is divided into two varieties: eternal and non-eternal; again it has a threefold distinction: body, organ, and object. (See Annambhatta (16c) for one approach towards such an analysis). It is this form-oriented objectification, states of being, and action that are semiotically represented as meaning in language through words, and sentences by denotation. In addition, there are semantic changes in meaning, semantic relations, and figures of speech which evolved as extended products of language creation. Propositional meaning is itself the main thrust of semantics with atomic and complete propositions, synonymy, antonymy and ambiguity as choices in the network of propositional meaning. It is this meaning that is represented in form by parts of speech, words and sentences as follows. 3. 7. 1. Parts of Speech: As symbolic action, lingual action should represent the participants, action, and the relationship between them. In addition, it should also represent the qualification and adjunction of the participants and action. In English, the objects, states of being, and activities are represented by NOUNS; action is represented by VERBS; their qualification and adjunction are represented by ADJECTIVES and ADVERBS respectively; combination of objects, actions, and states of being are represented by CONJUNCTIONS; and the relationship between objects to constitute an action is represented by PREPOSITIONS; and INTERJECTIONS are used to represent outbursts of emotions and feelings. 3. 7. 2. Qualification and Adjunction: In US Action, objectification and action are accompanied by qualification and adjunction. In English, such qualification is expressed by adjectives by preposing before nouns: Object (lotus) + Quality (white) Qualified Object (a lotus having whiteness: white lotus). Its adjunction is represented by adverbials: a white lotus in the pond; etc.; in a similar way, qualification of action is also represented by adverbs: running slowly. In the process of qualification and adjunction, words are added to form groups and phrases are formed. As Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah says, yanmanasa dhya:yathi, thadva:cha: bhavathi „as it is contemplated in the mind; so it becomes in speech‟; but what is conceived is qualified by disposition bringing about variation. Thus, the choice of the position of adjectives is varied: in Arabic, it is postpositional – manzil kabi:r „house big‟; in Sanskrit, adjectives are inflectional: sundaro: (adj. qualifying the subject) naro:svam gachchati „The handsome man goes to the horse‟; sundaram (adj. qualifying the object) naro:svam gachchati „The man goes to the beautiful horse‟. 3. 7. 3. Representation of Action: In the US Action, there are certain definite principles and patterns in the formation of action. For example, in action-on-others, a participant (agent), another participant (patient) and an action form the event: A man (P) ate (Action) a mango (P). If this has to be represented, there must be the participants „man‟and „mango‟ and the action „eating (past time)‟ in the representation. This is the inviolable correspondence laid out by US Action – US Lingual Action for faithful representation. However, how it is represented is in the dispositional creativity, dispositional bias, response bias and choice of the creators of a language of the spatial order in its simplest case – man. eating. mango, or mango. man. eating, or eating. man. mango, or eating. mango. man. The English speakers by ECV have made two choices: A man eats a mango in unmarked cases and A mango eats he in hyperbaton in poetry; in Hixkaryana OVS constructions are possible: Toto yonoye kamara „The person (O) ate (V) the jaguar (S)‟ meaning The jaguar ate the person. Owing to constraints of space, only a brief description and exemplification of simple human action and its correspondence in English is given here. There are seven ways of representation of simple human action in simple declarative sentence patterns: Agent. Action (Man running): SV (A man is running.); Agent. Action. Patient. (Patient) (Qualification) (Adjunction) (Man eating mango; man giving mango to X. (Qualification). ()): (SVO: A man ate a mango; SVOO: A man gave X a mango; SVO (C)/(A): A man gave X a Adjunction mango (quickly)/(in the garden)); Agent. Action. Quality/Adjunction (Man having Page 12 of 15

13

kindness): SVC (The man is kind)/(Man being in garden): SVA (A man is in the garden.). 3. 7. 4. Categories, Substances, Qualities, and Characteristics: Classification and Representation According to Annambhatta (16c: 28-33), the phenomenal universe can be broadly divided into 7 categories (substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence, and negation) with each category having its own characteristics; 24 qualities (a. colour, taste, odour, touch, sound; b. number, magnitude; c. separateness, conjunction, disjunction; d. remoteness, proximity; e. weight; f. fluidity, viscidity; g. intellect; h. pleasure, pain; i. desire, aversion, volition, tendency; j. merit, demerit. All these categories with their characteristics, and qualities are networked cognitively, systemically, evolutionarily, and synoptically at the US Action and brought into US Living in another I-I-I network of human action for its experience (see Bhuvaneswar 2011 for their discussion with networks). All qualities are represented in English by adjectives and adverbs. 3. 8. Representation of Name-Oriented Action by Name-Oriented Action Not only form-oriented action but also name-oriented action can be represented by nameoriented action as an extension of its application. This is possible because of a replacement of form by name as the target for semiosis. For example, instead of representing objects as this and that to be so and so in such and such form, words representing objects are meta-linguistically named as this and this word to be so and so word (noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, verb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection) in such and such manner (its function in a sentence such as the subject, object, complement, transitive verb, intransitive verb, adjunct, etc.)

[The following is a list of the References mentioned in the abridged paper. The references quoted in this paper can be seen from this list.]
References

A:di Samkara, Sri: (ca 650 B. C.): Srimad Bhagavadgi:ta Bhashya. A. G. Ramakrishna Warrier (Translator) (1983). Madras. Annambhatta, Meligiri (ca 1600 A.D.): Tarka Samgraha. Swamy Virupakshananda (Translator) (1994). Madras. Berry, M. (1981): “Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi - layered approach to exchange structure”, In: Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery (Ed.) (1981); 120 - 145. Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003a): “Culture as Communication: The Construction of Indexical Meaning in Proverbs”, in: Proverbium, 20; 1-14. ___________ (2003b): “The Definition of the Proverb: A Karmik Linguistic Approach”, In: 30t h International Systemic Functional Linguistics Congress Abstracts. Lucknow. ___________ (2003-4 a): “The English Proverb in I/E Exchange: A Multilayered Systemic Analysis”, in: The EProverbiallinguist. I (CD Rom); Web Page 7. ___________ (2003-4 b): “Proverbium 20 (2003): A Review of English Articles”, in: The EProverbiallinguist. I (CD Rom); Web Page 32. ___________ (2003-4 c): “Theory and Practice of Proverbs: New Horizons: Some Thoughts on Commercial Paremiology”, in: The EProverbiallinguist, I (CD Rom); Web Page 35. __________ (2005): Down the Proverb Lane: Musings of a Paremiologist, An Interview with Professor Wolfgang Mieder. Hyderabad. __________ (2006): “A Process Model of Proverbial Titling in Journalism”, In: Roussi Roussev, et al (Eds) (2006); 318-327. _________ (2007): “Variation in Telugu and English Proverbs on Horse: Evidence for an Integrated Linguistic Theory of Culture”, In: Romiana Petrova, et al (Eds) (2007); 69 - 111. Page 13 of 15

14

_________ (2009): “The Syntax of Proverbs I: The Sentence in American English Proverbs: A Case Study in Quirk‟s Model”, in: Al Mergib Journal of English Studies, II; 60-83. _________ (2010a): “Figures of Speech in Proverbs I (Phonology): Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory”, in: Misurata Univeristy Journal of English Studies, 1; 106-138. _________ (2010b): “Derivation of the Referential Meaning in Proverbs 1Propopositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach”, in: Misurata Univeristy Journal of English Studies, Vol.1; 208-239. ________ (2012a): Intonation in English and Telugu Proverbs I: Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT)”, in: Scientific Newsletter, Series “Modern Linguistic and Methodical and Didactic Researches. Part: Linguistics”; 11-27. ________ (2012b): “Bibliographical Review of English Proverb Literature (1400 2000): Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory”, in: The Indo-Libyan Linguist; 30-80. ________ (2012c): “Speech Act Theory and Proverbial Discourse: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis”, in: Scientific Newsletter, 2 (18). Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994): “Understanding figurative language”, In: M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.) (1994); 447-477. Croft, William and Cruise, Alan D. (2004): Cognitive Linguistics An Introduction. Cambridge. Dundes, Alan (1975): “On the Structure of Proverb”, In: Dundes and Arewa (Eds) (1975); 103 – 118 Duranti, Alessandro (1997): Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge. Gleitman, Henry, Fridlund, Alan J., and Reisburg, Daniel (2000): Basic Psychology. New York. Godwin and Wenzel (1979): see Mieder 2004. Hulme, F. Edward (1902): Proverb Lore: Being a Historical Study of the Similarities, Contrasts, Topics, Meanings, and Other Facts of Proverbs, Trusims, and Pithy Sayings, as Expressed by the Peoples of Many Lands and Times. London. Krappe, Alexander H. (1964): “Proverbs”, in: The Science of Folklore. New York. Krishna, Sri: Lord (Bhagavan) (6th Millennium B.C.): “Verse 14, Chapter V, Bhagavadgi:ta”, in: Sri: A:di Samkara (Ed. with Commentary); Warrier, A. G. K. (translated by) (1983). Leech, Geoffrey (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. Cambridge. Mieder, Wolfgang (1985): “Popular Views of the Proverb”. in: Proverbium, 2; 109 – 143. _________ , Stewart A. Kingsbury and Kelsie B. Harder. (1992): A Dictionary of American Proverbs. Oxford. ________ (2004): Proverbs A Handbook. London. O‟Connor, J.D. and Arnold, G.F. (1961): Intonation of Colloquial English A Practical Handbook. Harlow. Reinhart, Tanya (1976): "On Understanding Poetic Metaphors," in: Poetics, Vol. 5; 383 - 402. Taylor, Charles (1931): The Proverb. Cambridge. Taylor, Archer and Whiting, Bartlett Jere (1958): A Dictionary of American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases, 1820 – 1880. Cambridge, Mass. Thompson, John B. (1992): Ideology and Modern Culture. Oxford. Whiting, Bartlett Jere (1932, 1977): “ The Nature of the Proverb”, in: Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, 14; 273 – 307. Winick, Stephen (2003): “Intertextuality and Innovation in a Definition of the Proverb Genre”, In Wolfgang Mieder (Ed) (2003); 571 – 601.

Page 14 of 15